FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF THE REWARD SYSTEM: A CASE STUDY OF TWO ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS AT PURDUE UNIVERSITY

THOMAS EDWARD ARCARO, Purdue University

Abstract

The three major missions of large, research oriented universities include teaching graduate and undergraduate students, research activity, and service to the university and community. Given this multiplicity of missions, it is expectable that the reward system within the university would be an area of potential problems. To wit: There is no clear agreement within the various members of the academic community as to the validity of each of these missions, nor, granting the validity of these missions, is there agreement on the rank ordering of importance for these missions. Not the least of the problematic factors is the fact that there is little agreement concerning how to evaluate successful movement towards any one of these goals. Relevant questions become, "How do you define 'a good teacher'?" "What constitutes research activity?" "What is 'service'?" "How do you measure or quantify any of the three above?" In general, the reward system in any organization attempts to reward the greatest those who contribute the most towards the accomplishment of the missions or goals of that organization. The faculty within the university are primarily responsible for the accomplishment of the missions of the university; all other sectors of the academic community focus their energies towards facilitating the work done by the faculty. Using a case study method, the faculty members in two academic departments were asked a wide array of open ended questions concerning their perceptions of the reward system. I found that, indeed, the faculty members, especially the assistant professors, perceived there to be many problems centering around the reward system. The research activity is perceived to be disproportionately rewarded while at the same time teaching activity is devalued. The university by necessity is bureaucratically organized. In an organization such as the university where faculty members from very different departments must be evaluated for rewards, it is necessary, in general, to use universalistic, as opposed to particularistic, kinds of evaluation standards. Hence, the major conclusion of this study is that although the faculty members perceive there to be many problems with the reward system, these problems are for the most part structural in origin and thus not easily addressed.

Degree

Ph.D.

Subject Area

Cultural anthropology

COinS