editorially spsakinq Reforming the Faculty-Reward System Reforms in the teaching of chemistry will not get very far if the faculty-reward system is not changed. Most institutions nominally subscribe to a system of rewards that includes teaching, scholarship, and service; service is usually interpreted to involve the institution, the community, or the discipline. The reality, however, is that the number of publications in the dossier is most often the preeminent determinant of the typical faculty member's success as measured by promotion or salary increase in his or her department. Indeed, often it is the number of Dublications that is im~ortantwith not much regard to quality. Publication in a "research journal" is a de faeto im~rimaturacce~tedbv the chemical community as indicating that some special condition has been established by the author(s) that transcends efforts in the realms of teaching and service. It is a curious condition that faculty rewards are not more closely tied to the broader missions of educational institutions. Webster tells us that education is a "science dealing with the principles and practice of teaching and learning." The present reward system for faculty is not, in general, consonant with the process of undergraduate education, viz., with teaching and learning. One of the greatest paradoxes facing higher education today is that two of the traditional activities considered as most important for colleges and universitiesteaching and community sewice--are oRen the least recognized in the current facultyreward system. Some would have us believe that research is a formperhaps the noblest form-of teaching. Yet in most "research institutions" there are markedlyrnore undergraduate students to be taught than there are maduate students (even if postdoctora~studentsare inciuded). One could imagine that many faculty, given their head, might naturally gravitate toward research because it is clearly easier to deal with a one-on-one situation in an ad hoe way than it is to teach, say 25 let alone 200 students as a group. However, it seems a perversion to allow research considerations to dominate the reward svstem when a reasonable fraction of the faculty also have a natural tendency to be attracted to teaching. Indeed several recent studies sug-
gest that faculty in four year institutions prefer teaching to research. Shifting the focus in the reward structure from "research to "scholarship" could provide the basis for incorporating into that structure many important and legitimate facultv activities that are consonant with the perceived missions of most academic institutions. Scholarshi~relatesto attainments inlearnine. which is what most active faculty do in the course of theacontinuous interactions with undergraduate students. Scholarship is an activity that requires a high level of discipline-related experience; breaks new ground or is innovative; can be replicated or elaborated; can be documented; can be peerreviewed; and has impact on or significance for communities, those affected directly by the effort or the discipline itself. Scholarship has a broader perspective and is therefore a richer manifestation of research. Scholarship subsumes the highly focused processes associated with research. Faculty efforts involved in designing a new course, assisting a committee in addressing a major community problem, developing instructional software, initiating an interdiscidinam- ~roiect. or writinn a text book can oRen . mret the criteria of scholarship, whereas some "published research" cannor. Clearlv the concept of scholars hi^ comes closer-r at least as close-to what is expected 0%a productive faculty member than does the current narrow focus of research. There is a certain comfort in the logic of creating a system for valuing the efforts of faculty that is more consonant with the historical understanding of education. Unfortunately, some may view such changes as an attempt to "sneak" inappropriate and less academic activities into an area that, by their standards, is clearly understood. That's one of the burdens to be borne by the reform process. Some might feel that an attempt to focus more widelv on lepitimate creative activities b$faculty would create bnly co;;fusion and hostilitv. In anv event, reform in chemical education will not occ&unle& those who engage in the requisite reform processes see their efforts as valued by the academic community JJL
Volume 71 Number 7 July 1994
537
