Summary Notes of Revised Draft (12/18/02) of A Preliminary White Paper on Faculty Reward Systems in Research Universities, by J. M. Roesset and J. T. P. Yao, December 2002, Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3136, 53 pages.
Summarized by J. T. P. Yao, 12/23/2002
"There is a consensus on the need to re-emphasize the role of teaching at most research universities. … In this preliminary white paper, we expand on some ideas expressed in our previous publications and include a number of additional references… Finally we attempt to define the general characteristics of a faculty evaluation and reward system that would (a) emphasize the quality of faculty work in lieu of quantity, and (b) provide a better balance between the different activities in which the faculty member is involved."
"The name 'research universities' are relatively new, and they number more than one hundred now. Authors do not want to diminish the role of research that always has been a major part of universities. Meanwhile, the role of teaching has been de-emphasized in many research universities. This preliminary report proposes a scheme in which research, service, and teaching are equally evaluated. However, any such scheme has to be tested before they can be used in practice. … Of course, there are many other rewards for engineering faculty members beyond promotion and tenure. In this preliminary report, however, promotion, tenure, and salary raises are emphasized."
"… Some 20 items are proposed to be evaluated. For the time-being, the theory of fuzzy sets are being proposed for usage with 10 primarily associated with teaching (T), 5 with research (R), and 3 with service (S) [two items are not to be evaluated]. We propose therefore a system in which each activity within T, R, and S is rated based… on the quality of work… reflecting the priorities and objectives of the institution and percentage of one's effort dedicated to each. The individual ratings are multiplied by these weights and added to reach a final rating for each category. These rating are then multiplied by the percentage of efforts spent in each category to reach a final measure of performance. To be fair, faculty performance evaluation leading to merit salary raises cannot look at only the last year's performance but must track the performance over various years and rewards received. …"
"… A number of conferences and/or workshops held during the recent two decades have identified the need to review engineering curricula in order to consider the engineers' role in the future. … The suggested changes in curriculum must go well beyond the routine rearrangement of material within single courses taught at present. It would require a serious and intensive reevaluation of the material needed, the degree of knowledge required in each topic, and the integration of the course contents, providing a continuous and logical exposure of the student to both theory and its practical application. This kind of effort requires commitment and faculty time not currently available within the so-called research universities. …"
"… To implement real and meaningful changes in the faculty evaluation system, it would be necessary to involve a larger number of people representing both (1) faculty known for their teaching ability and dedication, and (2) willing administrators who are genuinely interested in making changes. …"
"… In this preliminary white paper, we start by discussing engineering education, reviewing some of the recent literature on this topic. We consider next the characteristics and aspirations of faculty members and we discuss the faculty performance evaluation criteria most commonly used today, reviewing again some recent publications. We present finally the framework of a proposed evaluation model."
"… We believe that the final rating of faculty performance should be a qualitative one. On the other hand student evaluations are usually numerical. … The combination of the ratings multiplying them by weights or percentages of effort is more straightforward when dealing with numerical values, but it is also possible to combine qualitative ratings using simple rules… or using other rules of combinations as given by the theory of fuzzy sets…"
"… Many years ago, when we were young and starting our respective academic careers we benefited greatly from the support and mentoring of senior colleagues at our institutions. … This kind of informal mentoring is still available to some extent at many institutions, but it seems to be less prevalent today for apparently two main reasons. In the first place university administrators may question how much of the credit associated with a research effort or a series of papers is attributable directly to the junior faculty member and how much to the collaborating senior faculty. … The second reason is almost the opposite: the fear that senior faculty will take advantage of the younger colleagues for their own benefit having them do all the work in their projects and getting credit for it. … It is understandable that a new faculty member might have difficulty denouncing abuse by a senior colleague or working in a research project that is not of her/his choosing where she/he may not agree with the objectives or the methodology used. …"
"… These metrics need to be further evaluated and calibrated, and they will be discussed at an educational conference/workshop at Texas A&M University in February 2003. There is a need to develop metrics that judge quality of work rather than simply quantity, while remaining objective, clear and independent of the composition of the evaluating committee. There is also a need to give equal weights to teaching, research, and service activities, or to make very clear their relative values. …"
[Readers who are interested in this report are encouraged to read the original version in its entirety. Other summary notes on civil engineering education are available on the Internet at http://lohman.tamu.edu under the heading "Summaries of Papers ..."]