Recommendations on Faculty Recognition and Reward
The Academic Computing Advisory Committee
University of Michigan
January 2000
Recommendations
1. Formally recognize the scholarly value of academic technology
2. Create a body to evaluate the scholarly merit of academic technology efforts
3. Revise policies concerning intellectual property rights as they relate to the creation of computer-based instructional tools
and resources
4. Facilitate the publication and/or distribution of computer-based instructional tools and resources
Background
The nature and use of academic technology on our campus stretches across a broad spectrum.
Applications range from relatively simple (use of PowerPoint presentations) to highly
elaborate and complex (e.g., design of projects to gather and analyze motion data from
digitized video images). Faculty members who develop the curriculum, technology and
software for courses that use novel techniques spend a great deal of time not only on the
development and use of the technology but also on the cognitive, behavioral and affective
interplay of students with the technology and content of the discipline. In such an effort,
faculty members employ all the attributes of the production of academic scholarship.
However, because this form of scholarship is new, the higher education community often
views it as a complementary or adjunctive activity to traditional teaching practices, rather than
as a scholarly activity in its own right. It is therefore difficult, under current circumstances,
for faculty members who expend intellectual and tangible resources on such activities to
receive appropriate recognition and compensation when they are successful in their efforts.
Recommendations
The Academic Computing Advisory Committee recommends that the university
administration:
1. Formally recognize the scholarly value of academic technology
The President and the Provost should indicate to the heads of all academic units that quality
research into more effective ways to teach a discipline can be considered as research in the
discipline and therefore should be part of the review and promotion process for faculty.
Furthermore, the President and Provost should convey to academic unit heads that the
development of academic technology which improves the quality of research, teaching, and
learning can also be a scholarly activity that should be considered in the review and
promotion process for faculty.
2. Create a body to evaluate the scholarly merit of academic technology efforts
To support the development and peer review of high quality academic technology, a learning
technology review council should be designated by the CIO and the Provost. It should consist
of faculty and staff of this and other Universities with an academic background and record of
accomplishment in the development of academic technology. If schools and colleges do not
have a body of scholars proficient in the review of academic technology, the learning
technologies review council on campus may act as a reviewing body for work. 1 Any reports
of the review council should be included in the materials for reward and promotion of the
faculty or staff member.2
1
Other universities have been contacted and have indicated willingness to participate in such a council.
They include Pennsylvania State University, The University of Wisconsin and University of California,
Berkeley.
2 One of the first discussions would be the extent to which early career faculty are informed of the
process and procedures for producing scholarly instruction technology works that would be considered
for promotion.
Recommendations on Faculty Recognition and Reward
1
3. Revise policies concerning intellectual property rights as they relate to the
creation of computer-based instructional tools and resources
The University has a "tradition of not claiming ownership or a share of the proceeds from
scholarly work and textbooks." 3 This tradition encourages faculty to produce scholarly work
and textbooks by allowing them to receive the fruit of their labor. However, currently,
"software and works expressly commissioned by the University" come within the purview of
the Revised Policy on Intellectual Properties.3 This policy largely reserves ownership rights
by the University. To encourage faculty to develop academic computing products, it is
recommended that these products be treated like other scholarly work and textbooks and
remain the property of the faculty member developer.
4. Facilitate the publication and/or distribution of computer-based instructional
tools and resources
The University should support faculty who have invested their efforts in creating such
products by providing an infrastructure for promoting distribution and, where appropriate,
sale of their scholarly output. Because this infrastructure would essentially serve the function
of a publisher, one possibility might be to place it within (or align it with) the University of
Michigan Press.
The Academic Computing Advisory Committee:
Carl Berger
Tom Green
Melissa Gross
James Hilton
James Holloway
Jonathan Maybaum
Sallyanne Payton (Chair)
Jamy Sheridan
Nancy Songer
Victor Wong
CIO office, Education
School of Dentistry
Division of Kinesiology
Literature, Science and the Arts
College of Engineering
School of Medicine
School of Law
School of Art and Design
School of Education
CIO office, Literature Science
and the Arts
cberger@umich.edu
tggreen@umich.edu
mgross@umich.edu
hilton@umich.edu
hagar@umich.edu
maybaum@umich.edu
spayton@umich.edu
jsherida@umich.edu
songer@umich.edu
vkw@umich.edu
3
Revised Policy on Intellectual Property, University of Michigan Regents, approved April 19, 1996.
The full text of the policy is at http://www.tmo.umich.edu/working/policy.html
Recommendations on Faculty Recognition and Reward
2