Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/58060
Great teachers often find it impossible to reap the rewards of their research counterparts. The value of teaching awards is often deemed trivial —even suspect—by the larger business school community. Rewards for both functions differ as well: While research is rewarded globally, teaching is rewarded locally. That is, faculty may be rewarded by their schools for research pro- ductivity; but they strengthen their reputations only through recognition by their national and international peers. On the other hand, professors may be recognized by a handful of national or discipline-based teaching awards; but their teaching prowess is recognized primarily by their students and supervisors. Finally, great teachers often find it impossible to reap the rewards of their research counterparts. The value of teach- ing awards is often deemed trivial—even suspect—by the larger business school community. In addition, as profes- sors Luis Gomez-Mejia and David Balkin reported in their must write books, articles, and other materials that target practicing managers and address genuine business challeng- es. They are also evaluated based on their active involvement with business organizations. In theory, this diverse approach to tenure and promotion decisions advances a portfolio model that rewards different faculty for different types of expertise. However, administrators note that, like Fisher College, HBS has seen very few cases made for tenure based on service to educators or practitioners. The Boyer Model University of Denver, Daniels College of Business The Daniels College of Business at the University of Denver in Colorado employs a unique system for developing and maintaining a balanced faculty portfolio. In 1997, its faculty formally adopted the model outlined in 1990 by Ernest Boyer of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (see "Four Forms of Scholarship," above left). Under the Boyer model, faculty are judged according to their work in discovery, integration, application, and teaching. At the Daniels College, faculty members must demonstrate excellence in one of the four areas and acceptable performance in the other three to be granted merit raises, promotions, or tenure. To support this system, Daniels College created a Scholar- ship Steering Committee, which awards seed grants in the four areas of scholarship, presents awards for excellence in each of the four areas, and stages faculty development events. Faculty receive the same merit salary increases wheth- er their publications and contributions fall into the discovery, integration, application, or teaching areas. This approach no 1992 study, "The Determinants of Faculty Pay: An Agency Theory Perspective," faculty salaries are often determined by their scholarly achievements, not their instructional skill. No. 2: Research and teaching are unrelated functions. We might also argue that research and teaching neither promote nor distract from one another. Does one need to produce knowledge to help others understand it? After all, business leaders need not be involved in the formulation of strategy to execute that strategy effectively. Likewise, teachers need not be involved in a research study to teach it to their stu- dents effectively. No. 3: Research and teaching are separate, but symbiotic, functions. While the first two arguments are compelling and substan- tial, we believe that to develop a truly accurate view of the longer forces faculty into research over other areas; it also eliminates the tensions between faculty who choose to take different approaches to scholarship. Recognizing Teaching Excellence Promoting and managing a portfolio model requires a shift in mindset to develop more sophisticated ways to evaluate teach- ing capability and reward teaching excellence. For example, in addition to quantitative student evaluations, some schools are beginning to take into account qualitative comments from students and focus groups, faculty observations, and teaching portfolios. In addition, they are considering faculty's development of new textbooks, instructional materials and approaches, simulations, authorship of articles on teaching, and knowledge of innovation in their fields. Efforts such as these are first steps toward redefining scholarship and recognizing the valuable contributions busi- ness faculty make in areas outside the research arena. Even so, old habits and attitudes die hard. Because the tradition- al, research-oriented mindset is so entrenched in academia, schools are still recruiting faculty with a heavy research bias, leaving few to take advantage of the more comprehen- sive reward systems that schools like Ohio State, Harvard, and the University of Denver have to offer. The longer such new reward systems are in place and the more business schools adopt them, however, the more faculty will be willing to branch out in new directions and the more the academic community will show mutual respect for excellence in research and teaching. Once that happens, many are likely to reap the benefits—including business schools, business faculty, and especially business students. BizEd JULY/AUGUST 2007 35