A Balance of Study and Teaching in Tenure and Promotion Cases
The enhanced role of teaching at majorresearchuniversities suchas Harvard and Stanford has sparked renewed interest and debate, but most of the academy would speculate that research and publication will continue to be a significant, if not major, requirement for tenure and promotionat most institutions. Page Smith, former provost of the University of California, Santa Cruz, suggested that the “publish or perish canon that so distorts the educational mission of the great universities” is alive and well (1991, p. 19). Indeed, it is apparent that the emphasis on publication has increased in the recent history of higher education. Arizona State University President Lattie Coor, when proposing the establishment of a major commission to explore the role of teaching at his institution, stated: “There is no question that the scholarly activity of a faculty member has assumed a greater place in university life over the past 20 to 30 years” (1990, p. 1). Still, recent stirrings suggest that institutions may be placing more importance on teaching. Ernest L. Boyer, for example, has argued eloquently for an expanded definition of scholarship that would include not only the discovery of knowledge (original research), but also the integration and application of knowledge with teaching (Boyer, 1991). It is not easy for the average university faculty member to meet tenure and promotion requirements, but it can be particularly difficult and occasionally frustrating for those who are in professional units such as journalism and mass communication. Faculty members in these departments often are involved in “creative activities” such as producing radio and television programs, writing newspaper and magazine articles, publishing textbooks and popular books, and engaging in media consulting. When submitted to university committees as tenure criteria, these activities may be considered weak or lacking in scholarly virtues when compared to the more traditional demand for publication of refereed journal articles. As a result, journalism and mass communication fac-
Faculty Research Expectation Varies among Universities
The typical journalism/mass communication faculty member’s interest in teaching exceeds his o r her commitment to research (Weaver and Wilhoit, 1988.) Yet younger journalism faculty at the assistant rank or those at accredited institutions are more likely to say that they lean toward research, or that they value their teaching and research roles equally. In addition, about threequarters of faculty at colleges without doctoral programs say they prefer teaching to research. Earlier, Bowen and Schuster (1986) reported that there is considerable pressure on (especially younger) faculty to conduct and publish research. There is also evidence that JMC administrators value traditional academic research productivity on the part of their faculties (Stone & Norton, 1980; Fedler & Smith, 1985). But Fedler and Counts (1982) found in their study of JMC faculty that 22 percent had not published a single article during the previous five years, and 54 percent had never published an article in a national journal with peer review. Leigh (1987) found in his study of tenure and promotion criteria that there were differences among administrators of journalism and mass communication programs as to what activities were acceptable when evaluating faculty for tenure and promotion. He found that “professional” (undergraduateonly) schools were more likely than “research” (doctoral-granting) schools to value professional and service activities by faculty members. Large numbers of faculty do not agree that research should be part of their responsibilities and certainly do not agree that tenure and promotion decisions should be based on research productivity (Schweitzer, 1985). And recent evidence suggests that relatively few mass communication faculty are conducting the vast bulk of the research being published in academic journals (Schweitzer, 1988).
Dimensional Errors of Fixtures, Locating and Measurement Datum Features in the Stream of Variation Modeling in Machining
Machining processes are usually multi-station processes involving a large number of operations and several locating datum changes. Machining errors are thus introduced, transformed and accumulated as the workpiece is being machined. This paper introduces procedures for expressing the influence of errors in fixtures, locating datum features and measurement datum features on dimensional errors in machining. These procedures are essential in the derivation of the Stream of Variation model of dimensional machining errors using the CAD/CAPP parameters of the machining process. The linear state space form of the Stream of Variation model allows for advanced control theory achievements to be employed in formal solutions to problems in multi-station machining. Modeling procedures presented in this paper were experimentally verified in machining of an automotive cylinder head.