Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship in faculty reward systems: Have academic cultures really changed?

O’Meara, KerryAnn

doi:10.1002/ir.173

Cited by 32 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1 The degree to which faculty members advance in their careers depends largely upon their success in these activities because institutional rewards are closely tied to research productivity. Although many campuses have modified their tenure and promotion policies to encourage and recognize broader forms of scholarship, including the scholarship of teaching and learning, there remain many barriers to changing academic culture (e.g., in the United States, see O'Meara, 2006).…”

Section: Doing Educational Development Work In the North American Resmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Exploration of the Scholarly Foundations of Educational Development

Poole

Iqbal

2011

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Doing Educational Development Work In the North American Resmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Exploration of the Scholarly Foundations of Educational Development

Poole

Iqbal

2011

Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…With many universities stressing the importance of research and placing less emphasis on teaching and service, faculty members are reluctant to take on duties they perceive are tangential in the reward structure (O'Meara, 2006). Participation may be hindered because there are limited incentives to get involved or to make a pedagogical change.…”

Section: Develop Strategies To Overcome Obstacles and Address Tough Qmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework for Service Learning in Hospitality and Tourism Management Education

Cecil

2012

Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Second, faculty leadership studies in higher education have mostly focused on the formal roles faculty members assume such as administrative appointments to the faculty senate or academic committees. This literature suggests that faculty members do not assume informal roles such as curriculum innovators because traditional faculty reward structures do not incorporate informal efforts (O'Meara, 2006). Finally, framing higher education leadership with a lens of top-down or formalized structures negates the organizational literature that documents and highlights the dual nature of governance in academia (Birnbaum, 2000).…”

Section: Theoretical Framementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Carnegie project University faculty members typically do not work for higher education; they work at higher education. While traditionally this has meant that faculty members could focus on their research and teach the obligatory course load, more and more the "at" asks them to account for their time in relation to teaching contact hours, institutional service, and grant writing (O'Meara, 2006;Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). Still, this accountability means that faculty members are free to research and teach within their fields as they see fit.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing Schools of Education Through Grassroots Faculty-led Change

Perry

2013

Innov High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article I report on the application of the lens of Rogers' (1995) change agent roles and Kezar and Lester's (2011) adaptation of tempered radicals in order to understand the leadership roles assumed by three individual faculty members located at three distinct schools of education. These faculty leaders utilized the concepts and principles of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) to lead redesigns of their Ed.D. programs. Qualitative data were gathered during a larger study on institutional change. Findings contribute to understanding grassroots leadership and how it works in collaboration with topdown authorities.Keywords Grassroots change . Education doctorate . Faculty leadership . Carnegie project University faculty members typically do not work for higher education; they work at higher education. While traditionally this has meant that faculty members could focus on their research and teach the obligatory course load, more and more the "at" asks them to account for their time in relation to teaching contact hours, institutional service, and grant writing (O'Meara, 2006;Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). Still, this accountability means that faculty members are free to research and teach within their fields as they see fit.In order to develop cohesive, outcomes-oriented, professional programs the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) has asked faculty members from member institutions to work for higher education by bringing them together and capitalizing on their collective expertise to prepare those who want to practice in the field of PK-20 education. Faculty members who serve in this role guide their colleagues and work through institutional processes in the redefining of the education doctorate (Ed.D.). The goal is to refashion professional preparation with the end "product", the scholarly practitioner, in mind. As part Innov High Educ DOI 10.1007/s10755-013-9267-y Jill A. Perry Ph.D., University of Maryland, is a research faculty member in the Department of Foundations and Leadership in the School of Education at Duquesne University and Co-director of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. Her research interests include professional doctorate preparation in education, organizational change in higher education, teacher professionalization, and teacher issues both nationally and internationally. Email: perryj@duq.edu J. A. Perry (*) Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate, Duquesne University, 600 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 16033, USA e-mail: perryj@duq.edu Author's personal copy of a large study that investigated how schools of education at three universities adopted and implemented CPED reform efforts, this article represents the results from the third research question, which asked how individual CPED faculty members describe and understand their roles in designing, revising, and influencing the Ed.D. redesign process. My focus was to seek to understand how individual faculty leaders at three of the CPED institutions understood, defined, and enac...

show abstract

Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship in faculty reward systems: Have academic cultures really changed?

Abstract: The author summarizes the findings from a study of 729 chief academic officers who identify both catalysts and barriers to the reform of faculty reward systems.

Cited by 32 publications

References 6 publications

An Exploration of the Scholarly Foundations of Educational Development

An Exploration of the Scholarly Foundations of Educational Development

A Framework for Service Learning in Hospitality and Tourism Management Education

Changing Schools of Education Through Grassroots Faculty-led Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About