Paper Authors

Abstract

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

Session 2155

A Look at Representative Templates for Professionally Oriented Faculty Reward Systems in Other Service Professions G. R. Bertoline, 1 D. R. Depew, 1 M. J. Dyrenfurth, 1 A. L. McHenry, 2 E. M. DeLoatch, 3 P. Y. Lee, 4 D. D. Dunlap, 5 S. J. Tricamo, 6 D. A. Keating, 7 T. G. Stanford 7

Purdue University 1/ Arizona State University East 2/ Morgan State University 3 California Polytechnic State University 4 / Western Carolina University 5 New Jersey Institute of Technology 6/ University of South Carolina 7

Abstract

This is the second of three papers prepared for a special panel session of the National Collaborative Task Force on Engineering Graduate Education Reform that addresses the need for reform of faculty reward systems to advance professional education for creative engineering practice and technology leadership. This paper examines representative templates for professionally oriented faculty reward systems in other service professions in order to identify the commonality which should be reflected any faculty reward system for professional engineering education. As a result, three unifying themes among other professions have emerged which address teaching, professional scholarship, and service/engagement in practice.

1. Introduction

To be successful in any academic department, it is necessary to survive the promotion and tenure process. Success is based on successful growth and contributions in teaching, research, and service. Promotion and tenure at universities that emphasize theoretical research expect faculty to engage in scholarly research with the goal of finding new knowledge. This criterion is fine and has worked well in many disciplines, such as science, engineering, and social science. However, the proposed reform of engineering graduate education would change the emphasis of the work of faculty from pure research to other forms of scholarship. Although this would be a new to most engineering colleges at universities, it is not new to other service professions, such as clinical medicine and law schools. To develop a promotion and tenure system that aligns well with the goals of a reformed engineering graduate education program, it is helpful to look at other professionally oriented faculty reward systems as a possible guide to develop a system to reward faculty.

1.1 Law School Faculty Promotion and Tenure Criteria

One method of determining the promotion and tenure process that would be necessary for engineering graduate education that is more practically oriented as proposed by this reform would be by looking at other professional disciplines, such as law and the preparation of lawyers. Typically, law schools do not expect their faculty to be engaged in theoretical research in the classic sense as you would have in engineering and science. Their research might be related to law review articles for example.

1.2Criteria for Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure

After reviewing a number of promotion and tenure criteria and procedure documents from law schools, there was a relatively consistent theme and criteria used for promotion and tenure. Promotion and tenure committees are not bound by limiting quantitative criteria but considered the overall quality of the teaching, scholarship and service of each person under review and the contributions of that person to the

“Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition 1 Copyright  2005, American Society for Engineering Education”

• Citation

• Format
  • APA
  • APA - LaTeX bibitem
  • MLA
  • MLA - LaTeX bibitem
  • Bibtex
  • EndNote - RIS

Bertoline, G. (2005, June), A Look At Representative Templates For Professionally Oriented Faculty Reward Systems In Other Service Professions Paper presented at 2005 Annual Conference, Portland, Oregon. 10.18260/1-2--15407