|
|
|
|
|
UC DAVIS: Academic Senate July 19, 2002 DEANS, DIRECTORS AND DEPARTMENT CHAIRS RE: Standards of Scholarship in the Disciplines Dear Colleagues: On May 24, 2001, the Representative Assembly of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate passed several resolutions and bylaw changes concerning the academic personnel process. Those actions were the culmination of the work of the Special Committee on the Academic Personnel Processes (SCAPP) and the Special Committee on Personnel Process Reform (SCPPR). The formation of those two special committees was prompted by concerns expressed by faculty and department chairs regarding the fairness of our personnel process. SCAPP found that faculty advance more slowly at Davis than at other UC campuses, that denials of personnel actions at UC Davis occur at higher rates than at other UC campuses, that rates of disagreement of 10% or more with the preceding step in the review process are not uncommon, that CAP overturns 19% of the recommendations made by the deans and that the Chancellor overturns CAP recommendations at higher rates than at other UC campuses (usually in favor of candidates). SCAPP believed that these data reflect a tumultuous personnel process in which standards for advancement are unclear or interpreted differently by equally competent review agencies. Specifically, they argued that the high rates of disagreement found at all steps of the review process reflect a lack of clarity about appropriate interpretations of the criteria for advancement described in APM 210-1-d. Faculty, department chairs, local personnel committees and deans all registered concerns about the variability in decisions that results from changing expectations of personnel committees due to changes in membership. SCAPP believed that this uncertainty over the interpretation of research, teaching, and service efforts is detrimental to the campus, to effective personnel decisions and to faculty morale. One of SCAPP's most important conclusions was that the campus must clarify the performance expectations of faculty. Specifically, they recommended "that each department or program be requested to undertake a re-examination and articulation of the nature of its scholarship and of its practices for the evaluation of faculty performance. The goal of this exercise is to articulate the standards and practices of the department so that both candidates and persons evaluating the candidate have a clear view of performance expectations. After appropriate discussions, we expect that the statements will become the basis for interpreting excellence as defined by the APM and will become the detailed standards for evaluating the performance of faculty. These statements should be statements of the nature of scholarship, which is a matter of academic freedom, and a summary of standards and practices for evaluating performance." SCAPP suggested that each department write a short two- or three-page statement that focuses on practices for evaluating faculty performance and scholarship. The statement should reflect the highest standards of the academic discipline, the standards of excellence outlined in the APM, and the flexibility mandated by the APM. The statement should outline criteria in each category used to evaluate academic personnel: teaching, research and creative activity, professional activity, and service. The statement should address especially those issues of departmental philosophy or expectations that have been controversial in the past. SCAPP emphasized that the purpose of this statement is to aid in evaluating faculty performance and not to impinge on academic freedom in any way. Finally, they recommended that to insure fairness and consistency with University policy, these statements should be reviewed by the dean, with the advice of the local personnel committee, and followed by appropriate discussions between the dean and the department. CAP is mandated by its bylaw "To solicit from time to time from academic departments, and to publish, general and broadly delineated standards for advancement pertinent to the various academic disciplines." In the next few weeks, CAP will issue a formal request that each department (or other voting unit) develop a statement of the standards of scholarship in the discipline. In order to be effective, these statements must begin with the faculty. In addition, they must be consistent with the criteria for advancement described in the APM. Once approved by faculty within the department, the statements should be submitted to the dean and the faculty personnel committee of the school or college for comment. Following development of a consensus at the school/college level, the departmental standards should be submitted to CAP and Vice Provost Horwitz for final review and comment. Once the departmental statements are finalized, CAP and the Faculty Personnel Committees will use them as a basis for protecting the academic freedom of (1) the departments and programs themselves and (2) individual faculty members to pursue their careers within the guidelines for evaluation of faculty performance. The request for statements of departmental scholarship standards responds to the collective will of the faculty and is an important aspect of restoring faculty trust in the academic personnel process. I want to thank you in advance for your cooperation with CAP in this important project. Sincerely, Jeffery C. Gibeling, Chair Davis Division of the Academic Senate 02-099
 Office of the Chancellor | Contact Information | Current Issues | Speaking Out | Staff and Organization | Philosophy of Purpose | Principles of Community | Administrative Resources Modified: 12/14/2006 12:22:58 PM Comments: |
