The responsibilities of UW faculty members derive from the University's distinctive mission as one of the nation's foremost public research universities. Research and scholarship occupy a higher percentage of faculty effort than at other institutions of higher learning, and a larger fraction of the teaching involves mentoring of students in individual and small-group projects. The research university thrives on the synergy between teaching, research, and service: the drawing of students into the act of the discovery and the application of knowledge acquired in the classroom and the research laboratory to the problems of the world outside the University.
The teaching, research, and service responsibilities of an individual faculty member are determined by a sequence of negotiations involving the President, the Provost, the Dean, and the Department Chair or Director, that take place within the guidelines established by the Faculty. Peer reviews of faculty performance are carried out at the departmental level every year or two and funding appropriated for "merit" salary increases is distributed in accordance with these reviews. In the absence of significant merit salary adjustments, rewards are largely determined by market forces, which place much more emphasis on a faculty member's reputation as a researcher or scholar than on his/her teaching and service contributions to the University.
It is recommended that current "best practices" in departments on the three UW campuses be adopted as a model for a university-wide policy on faculty responsibilities, reviews and rewards. Here is how it would work for a typical unit:
The procedures outlined above would serve to align the responsibilities of departmental units with the mission of the university and the duties of individual faculty members with those of their units. They would do so, not by "top down" directives, but by a process of negotiation that would generate departmental plans embodying the collective goals of their faculty, and university plans that support and lend coherence and synergy to the plans of the various units.
Implicit in these procedures is a protocol for periodic reviews of the performance of all faculty that would serve as the primary basis for allocating merit salary adjustments. As a complement to this protocol, a more limited developmental review process is proposed. At the option of the faculty member, or in the event of two consecutive departmental recommendations for zero merit salary increases, the chair would appoint an ad hoc faculty committee to undertake a more detailed developmental review of the faculty member's performance. This review would have three possible outcomes: (1) a conclusion that the previous negative merit assessments did not adequately reflect the faculty member's performance; (2) proposed measures to improve the faculty member's performance; or (3) proposed changes in the balance of the faculty member's responsibilities to bring them into better alignment with his/her abilities.
In addition, it is recommended that each department and each college council review its own criteria for promotion and tenure, with a view toward ensuring balance and flexibility, and avoiding unrealistic expectations of junior faculty. Interdisciplinary activities should be encouraged and extraordinary responsibilities for mentoring of students and institution-building should be taken into account. The methodology for evaluating teaching effectiveness is flagged as requiring special attention.
The above recommendations serve to codify faculty responsibilities in a way that makes the existing variations more explicit and encourages greater flexibility with regard to the balance of teaching, research, and service.
Until sufficient funding is available for a succession of substantial merit salary increases and/or to implement a salary ladder (as in the University of California system), meritorious teaching or other service to the university is likely to impact faculty members' salaries only to the degree that it is reflected in their external "market value." One small step that might be considered to counteract this tendency would be to establish an additional rank above the rank of full professor (and a counterpart rank for senior lecturers) to recognize especially meritorious contributions to the University. Finding additional ways of rewarding distinguished teaching would constitute another small step in this direction.
Other actions that might be considered for making faculty feel more appreciated are:
The university-wide conversation on faculty responsibilities and rewards topics should continue and be expanded to the departmental level, with a view toward taking action on the principal recommendations identified in the final section of this report during the forthcoming academic year.
