Boyer, Ernest. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of Professoriate. San Francisco: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bok, Derek. 1982. Beyond The Ivory Tower: Social Responsibilities of the Modern University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Christy, Ralph D. and Williamson, Lionel, Editors. 1992. A Century of Services: Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, 1890-1990. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Halliburton, David. 1997. John Dewey: “A Voice That Still Speaks to Us.” Change, 29, 1: 24-29.
Lynton, Ernest. 1995. Making the Case for Faculty Professional Service. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Lynton, Ernest A. and Elman, Sandra E. New Priorities for the University. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1987.
Schön, Donald. 1995. “The New Scholarship Requires A New Epistemology.” Change, 27, 6: 27-34.
The Changing Mission of Higher Education
Ansley, Fran and John Gaventa. 1997. “Researching for Democracy and Democratizing Research.” Change, 29, 1: 46-53.
Adamany, David. Sustaining university values while reinventing university commitments to our cities. Teachers College Record. Spring 1994, 95(3), p324(8).
SUMMARY: Wayne State University’s plan to establish a university-operated and owned middle school for 300 to 350 children will resolve the differences between conservatives and advocates of reform in the university and outside by establishing an association between the functions of the university as dedicated to research, the spread of knowledge, and service. It is an example of innovation and creativity for other universities and schools in urban areas.
Barr, Robert B. and John Tagg 1995. “From Teaching to Learning – A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education.” Change, 27, 6: 13-25.
Boyer, Ernest. Creating the New American College. The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 9, 1994, pA48.
Checkoway, Barry. Unanswered questions about public service in the public university. Journal of Planning Literature, 5, 1991, p219(6).
Crosson, Patricia H. 1985. Public Service in Higher Education: Practices and Priorities. ERIC Digest 85-2.
Ehrlich, Tom. National and community service: the agenda for higher education. Presentation at the Colloquium on National and Community Service, Campus Compact and the American Association for Higher Education (Washington, D.C., January 12, 1995).
Greiner, William R. “In the total of all these acts”: how can American universities address the urban agenda? Teachers College Record.Spring 1994, 95(3), p317(7).
SUMMARY: Reconstruction of American universities in cities, which are plagued by a confused and disoriented university system,requires visionary leadership, a recognition of theory and practice as complementary activities and an acknowledgement of the social function of education. Research-intensive universities should replace research universities so that research is conducted against a background of teaching. Service-universities should cater to the needs of the citizens of the nation.
Harkavy, Ira. 1993. University-community partnerships: the University of Pennsylvania and West Philadelphia as a case study. In Rethinking Tradition: Integrating Service with Academic Study on College Campuses, edited by Tamar Y. Kupriec. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States..
Mathews, David. 1997. “Creating More Public Space in Higher Education.” Excerpt from: Character for What? Higher Education and Public Life. Educational Record, 78, 3-4: 11-17.
Rice, R. Eugene. The new American scholar: scholarship and the purposes of the University. Metropolitan Universities, Spring 1991, 1(4), p7(11).
Rice, R. Eugene and Richlin, Laurie.1993. Broadening the conception of scholarship in the professions. In Educating Professionals, edited by Lynn Curry, Jon Wergin, and Associates. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1993
Changing Institutional Culture
Blackburn, Robert T., et al. Faculty at work: focus on research, scholarship, and service. Research in Higher Education. 32(4), p385(18).
SUMMARY: A study compared selected personal and environmental motivational variables in college faculty with allocation of work effort to research, scholarship, and service. Faculty were from eight liberal arts and sciences departments in a range of institution types. For all institutional types, self-valuation motivators significantly accounted for the explained variance unlike sociodemographic and career variables.
Bringle, Robert & Malloy, Edward, Eds. 1999. Universities as Citizens. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon Pub., 1999.
Driscoll, Amy and Ernest A. Lynton. 1999. Making Outreach Visible: A Guide to Documenting Faculty Professional Service and Outreach.Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. .
Elman, Sandra E., and Smock, Sue Marx. 1985. Professional Service and Faculty Rewards: Toward an Integrated Structure. Washington, D.C.: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.
Holland, Barbara A. Fall, 1997. “Analyzing Institutional Commitment to Service: A Model of Key Organizational Factors.” Journal of Public Service and Outreach. 30-41.
Knapp, Michael S. et al 1998. Paths to Partnership: University and Community as Learners in Interprofessional Education. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Chapters 2 and 7.
Knefelkamp, Lee and Carol Schneider. 1997. “Education for a World Lived in Common with Others.” In Robert Orrill, ed. Education and Democracy: Reimagining Liberal Learning in America. New York: The College Board, Chapter 12.
Plater, William. “Habits of Living: Engaging the Campus as Citizen One Scholar at a Time.” Ed. Bringle, Robert G. et al. 1999. Colleges and Universities as Citizens. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Ch. 8.
Sigmon, Robert L. 1998. Building Sustainable Partnerships: Linking Communities and Educational Institutions. Raleigh: National Society for Experiential Education.
Taylor, Henry Louis Jr. 1997. “No More Ivory Towers: Connecting the Research University to the Community.” Journal of Planning Literature. 11, 3: 327-332.
Austin, Ann E. and Roger G. Baldwin. 1991. Faculty Collaboration: Enhancing the Quality of Scholarship and Teaching. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. Pages 1-9; 19-45.
Clift, Renee T. et al. 1995. Collaborative Leadership and Shared Decision Making: Teachers, Principals, and University Professors.New York: Teachers College Press. Ch. 1.
Jenkins, Robin R. and Karen T. Romer. 1998. Who Teaches? Who Learns? Authentic Student/Faculty Partners. Providence: Ivy Publishers. Pages 1-14; 127-137.
Nyden, Philip et al. 1997. ” University-Community Collaborative Research: Adding Chairs to the Research Table.” Building Community: Social Science in Action. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, Chapter 1.
Ryan, Stephanie. 1995. “Learning Communities: An Alternative to the ‘Expert’ Model.” Chawla, Sarita and John Renesch , Eds. Learning Organizations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow’s Workplace.Portland: Productivity Press.
Smith, Dawn. Professional partnerships and educational change: effective collaboration over time. (Theme: Partners in School Restructuring) Journal of Teacher Education. Sep-Oct 1992, 43(4), p243(13).
Taylor, Clark. “Collaborative Process and/or Publishable Product: A Research Dilemma in the Diversity Research Initiative: One Faculty Member’s Reflection.” 1999. Ed. Kingston-Mann, Esther. A Diversity Research Initiative: How Diverse Undergraduate Students Become Researchers, Change Agents, and Members of a Research University.Boston: University Of Massachusetts/Boston, Center for the Improvement of Teaching.
Wergin, Jon F. 1994. The Collaborative Department: How Five Campuses are Inching Toward Cultures of Collective Responsibility.Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.
Faculty Evaluation and Rewards
Braskamp, Larry A. and Ory, John C. 1994. Assessing Faculty Work: Enhancing Individual and Institutional Performance. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass Inc.
SUMMARY: This book addresses issues in higher education faculty assessment with emphasis on the role of assessment in fostering development of individual faculty members and their institutions. Part 1 describes the role of faculty assessment, outlines inadequacies in current approaches, and offers a perspective on assessment that emphasizes collegial activity and contributions to individual and institutional development. Part 2 defines the work of faculty and explores faculty expectations. Part 3 covers collecting and organizing assessment evidence, and portraying faculty work. Part 4 examines appropriate uses of evidence and practical guidelines to enhance individual and administration use of assessment. Part 5 describes seven different methods that can be used to collect assessment evidence: (1) written appraisals; (2) rating scales and checklists; (3) interviews; (4) observations and videotaping; (5) indicators of eminence, quality, and impact; (6) achievement and outcome measures; and (7) records and portfolios. Appended are extensive practical resources and samples including forms, measurement instruments, guidelines, and surveys. Includes name and subject indexes. (Contains over 300 references.)
Holland, Barbara A. 1999. “Factors and Strategies that Influence Faculty Involvement in Public Service.” Journal of Public Service and Outreach. 4, 1: 37-44.
Centra, John A. 1993. Reflective Faculty Evaluation: Enhancing Teaching and Determining Faculty Effectiveness. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
SUMMARY: This volume on college and university faculty evaluation presents the latest findings, approaches, and issues with an emphasis on careful reflection for all involved. Chapter One discusses the diverse responsibilities of college faculty and the role evaluation can play in faculty improvement. Chapter Two presents a brief history of teaching methods and summarizes the various approaches used in college classrooms. Chapter Three presents the history of student evaluation of faculty performance and related research. Chapter Four discusses the benefits of using student evaluations for formative and summative purposes and concludes with 12 guidelines for the proper use of student evaluations. Chapter Five addresses the potential of various kinds of self-reports including the teaching portfolio. Chapter Six describes how some institutions have successfully involved colleagues in formative and summative evaluation. Chapter Seven discusses the conceptions of research and scholarship and the relationship between a faculty member’s performance as a researcher and as a teacher. Chapter Eight looks at the current legal climate and the need to protect individual rights when evaluation systems are designed. Chapter Nine includes a brief discussion of the use of measures of student learning in formative and summative evaluation. It also provides criteria for judging the quality of teacher-made examinations and other assessment practices. (Contains approximately 230 references.)
Diamond, Robert M. The tough task of reforming the faculty-rewards system. The Chronicle of Higher Education. May 11 1994, 40(36), pB1(3).
SUMMARY: The National Project on Institutional Priorities and Faculty Rewards aims at reforming the faculty rewards system in the US. There is a need to expand activities used in promotion and tenure decisions. Uniqueness of each discipline, priorities of departments, and capabilities of individuals should be taken into consideration by the faculty-reward system.
Glover, Hubert. The tenure survey: expectations for research, technology, and service. Journal of Education for Business. Nov-Dec 1993, 69(2), p89(4).
SUMMARY: Responses from 176 of 280 business administration faculty and doctoral students showed that research was very important to obtain success (tenure). However, they did not see the benefit of pursuing a full professorship or excellence in teaching and service in terms of the current academic award structure.
Hawthorne, Elizabeth M. Focus on Faculty Service. 1990. ERIC document: ED328113.
SUMMARY: A 1988-89 national survey examined faculty community service by asking 142 faculty members specializing in higher education, community college education, or adult education two questions: what kinds of service the faculty members provide to two-year colleges and why they engage in these activities. Service was defined as anything a university/program/center does for the good of the community rather than for the benefit of the institution/program. Among results were the following: 65% of respondents have on-going relationships with community colleges in areas such as curriculum development projects and organizational change activities; 44% of respondents indicated they have been involved in developing professional education programs for community and technical colleges; 76% reported they have informal contacts with two-year colleges; and only 28% reported that faculty members are rewarded for service activities. (Includes 25 references.)
Lawson, Hal A. Constraints on the professional service of education faculty. Journal of Teacher Education. Sep-Oct 1990, 41(4), p57(13).
SUMMARY: Increases in external services performed by faculty are integral to K-12 school, college, and Department of Education reform agendas, but there are limiting constraints, including the quest for prestige; tenure, promotion, and reward systems; and faculty recruitment, education, and role orientations. Changing these factors appropriately may help foster service.
McCallum, Charles A. The bottom line: broadening the faculty reward ystem. Teachers College Record. Spring 1994, 95(3), p332(5).
SUMMARY: Uniting the university components of teaching, service and research in high-profile community-based programs eliminates the faculty perception that a university can ignore the requirements of the surrounding community and the faculty reward system applies only to those tasks performed on the campus or with colleagues at other campuses. A majority of faculty consider service as an unrewarding but essential task, independent of teaching and research functions.
Montgomery, James R., et al. Evaluation of Faculty Performance in Extension and Service. AIR 1989 Annual Forum Paper. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research (29th, Baltimore, MD, April 30-May 3,1989).
SUMMARY: A widespread perception exists that faculty with public service or extension activities are not treated equitably either in annual evaluations for merit salary increases or in peer evaluation for promotion. To determine the items considered important in making personnel decisions in extension and service areas, a survey was sent to chief academic officers in 84 land-grant and research universities. Response rate was 73% (from 43 states). Responses concerning importance of activities and measures of effectiveness are discussed. Seventy-eight percent of respondents agreed with the statement “on this campus, some extension faculty allege they have less opportunity for promotion, tenure or salary raises than do instructional/research faculty,” but half considered this to be a problem of perception rather than reality. Several steps are suggested to ameliorate this perception, including dissemination of comparative data, discussion of measures of performance, and a clear mutual understanding of expectations. A list of the responding universities is appended. (Contains 8 references.)
Rosenfeld, Lawrence B. and Long, Beverly Whitaker. An Evaluation System for Measuring Faculty Performance. ACA Bulletin. Jan 1992, 79, p36(8).
SUMMARY: Special Issue on outcomes assessment describes a microevaluation approach to faculty assessment written for a department with 15 faculty engaged in both traditional scholarship and creative activities in a research-oriented university. Presents the assessment instrument.
Serafin, Ana Gil. Interrelations for teaching, research, and service: the faculty satisfaction dilemma. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association (January 16-17, 1992). ERIC document: ED341306.
SUMMARY: This study investigated the extent of the interrelations of faculty satisfaction with the position functions of teaching, research, and service. In particular the study concerned the extent to which the variations in the variable teaching satisfaction were associated with the variations in the variables research satisfaction and service satisfaction. The evidence suggested that teaching and research are interrelated in the satisfaction provided to academicians and that research in the academic environment is seen as supportive and complimentary to teaching. In addition, the correlation between teaching satisfaction and service satisfaction was positive indicating that there are positive interrelations between faculty satisfaction with teaching and faculty satisfaction with service. The correlation between research satisfaction and service satisfaction was also positive. The most satisfying elements to faculty was research, with publications and writing providing the greatest sense of accomplishment. (Twenty-seven references.)