707 Higher Education 12 (1983) 707-719 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam

Printed in the Netherlands

THE DEFINITION OF ACADEMIC MERIT

LIONEL S. LEWIS and VIC DOYNO

State University o f New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, N. Y., U.S.A.

ABSTRACT Through a quantitative and qualitative analysis of 417 recommendations for merit salary awards, this article examines how faculty and administrators at an American university define merit. Particular attention is paid to how the academic characteristics of a writer or recipient affect the type of case made and the relative weight given teaching, research, and service in the letters. The assessment of what determined merit varied by discipline and rank. It was also found that teaching is less valued than administrative service and research.

Many discussions of higher education, university reputations, promotions, tenure, and academic appointments revolve around the idea of"merit," a term that needs definition. This article is addressed to this question in laying out how faculty and administrators define "merit" for merit salary increases. Although most academics readily admit that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," they hold steadfastly to an undefined principle of merit. This case study, as far as we were able to determine, offers the first functional, detailed, analytical definition of "merit" in academia. Certain stereotypes, such as research dominating teaching, are explored, many other factors are identified, and the relative importance of the various factors is analyzed. This study continues the explorations into the academic profession which the first author has pursued for over a dozen years (Lewis, 1975). These various projects have been informed by one general question: how central is the principle of merit to academic life? The bulk of the evidence gathered to examine such matters as academic freedom, sexism, the awarding of tenure (Lewis, 1980a; 1980b), and the promotion and salary attainment (Lewis et al., 1979; Gregorio et al., 1982) processes strongly suggests that considerations other than merit often affect decision making in academia. The results of this attempt to ascertain how central the concept of merit is to

0018 1560/83/$03.00 © 1983 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

708 the allocation of merit salary increases to faculty will greatly advance our understanding of how institutions of higher learning function. To know which norms figure in the distribution of merit money is to reveal some salient information about the actual as opposed to the putative values of American academics. All the published work on the faculty reward structure has focused on salary level rather than salary changes through merit salary increases; that is, the dependent variable has been salary level rather than rates of advancement. The direction previous research has taken is a consequence of the fact that salary level can be readily obtained from a simple survey of a cross-section of faculty. We used previous salary level studies (Johnson and Stafford, 1974; Katz, 1973; Tuckman, 1976) only for the purpose of formulating some general ideas. In considering salary advancement, we examined a quite different source of data archival material, which was analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. The extensive research by economists and sociologists on the American academic reward system over the past fifteen years has attempted to sort out the relative weight of effort, performance, and background factors in the salary attainment process (Johnson and Stafford, 1974; Katz, 1973; Tuckman, 1976). This research has revealed a good deal about how teaching, research, administrative work, longevity, and other activities affect salaries. However, the only available work on how academic merit salary increases are justified or attained is an unpublished report done for the administration of the University of California at Santa Cruz (Kaun, 1979) on how rapidly faculty salaries changed. This report at one of the youngest and most innovative institutions in the California university system provides a starting point for this research effort. Among other findings, it reveals that there was no significant relationship between either teaching effort or, for the most part, teaching quality and rates of advancement. The foremost factor in advancement was years of service; of almost equal influence was years since the Ph.D., an obviously similar factor. Because of a decreasing rate of advancement as one moves up in the ranks, the coefficient for experience was negative. Publication of refereed journal articles also turned out to be an important explanatory variable, while other writing played a more minor part, as did administrative service. There were discipline related but not gender related differences in rates of advancement. The nature of the materials analyzed below is markedly different from that utilized in the Santa Cruz study, precluding a replication and point by point comparison. Just the same, we attempt to determine the relative emphasis given to academic activities such as teaching, research and creative achievement, student and institutional service, and nonacademic personal considerations in the distribution of scarce resources among faculty. Our study is informed by the following questions: 1. Are different types of cases made for faculty in different disciplines? Do

709 scientists, social scientists, and humanists make different types of cases? Do chairmen, deans, and faculty have different values? 2. How are arguments developed and supported? What standards of evidence or proof apply? 3. What sort of claims or justifications are made for merit salary increases? What are the relative weights given teaching, research and institutional service? Recommendations for merit salary awards were located in the same institutional archives used in retrieving dossiers and other documents for an earlier study concerned with changes in policies and practices in awarding tenure between the late 1960s and late 1970s. (Lewis, 1980a; 1980b). After several follow-up searches, it became evident that these records are the most complete available at the university, a large, fairly typical, northeastern American, respected but not venerated public university center. The letters cover the merit salary increases for all faculty members except those in health sciences. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the recommendations (which were from one paragraph to several pages) written by the candidates themselves, by senior faculty (mostly chairmen) and by administrators (mostly deans), spelling out why a merit salary increase might be deserved - was undertaken in order to isolate the qualities of job performance that are emphasized [1]. It should be stated at the outset that over 95 percent of the 417 requests for merit salary increases examined met with some success. It could not be determined whether there are institutional mechanisms to discourage faculty who are thought unlikely candidates for a merit salary increase from applying, or whether those applications that failed to be endorsed at one administrative level vanished in some fathomless file drawer, lfthere are missing letters, the majority are probably from self-nominees whose petitions did not succeed. Because the letters are not competitive, and perhaps in many cases are merely justifications for decisions already taken, they are best understood as specific, concrete embodiments of institutional values. In operational terms, these are the values which determine the distribution of tangible rewards. The letters are for two successive merit salary award sequences, the results of the first to be effective in 1978 and of the second in 1979. There were 235 individuals in the first round and 182 in the second round. Some faculty were selected both times. Five-sixths of the recommendations were for males and one-sixth were for females. Over 40 percent were full professors, a little less than 40 percent were associate professors, 14 percent were assistant professors, and 5 percent were lecturers or instructors. The most prominently represented faculty division was arts and letters with 29 percent of the nominations; natural sciences and mathematics was represented with 21 percent, social sciences with 14 percent, educational studies with 10 percent, engineering with 7 percent, and the faculties in management, law, and the other professions with less than 5 percent

710 each. These figures are quite consistent with the distribution of full time faculty as a whole, except that full professors are slightly over-represented and assistant professors are under-represented, and those from arts and letters are overrepresented, while those from the social sciences are under-represented. Three-sevenths of the nominations were written by departmental chairpersons, a little over one-fourth were written by the dean of the faculty on which the individual served, and a little less than one-fourth were written by the candidates themselves. About 10 percent of the self-nominations carried a chairperson's or another administrator's endorsement and about the same number of the chairperson's nominations carried a dean's endorsement, most of which merely reiterated the main points made in the original statement. The amount of the merit salary increase requested or received was generally quite modest, although the raises are not one year bonuses, but increases in base salary, the effects of which are cumulative [2]. In 11 percent of the cases $300 or less was asked for; in 21 percent of the cases between $301 and $500 was asked for; in 13 percent of the cases between $501 and $750 was asked for; in 7 percent of the cases between $751 and $1000 was asked for; in only 7 percent of the cases was a figure of over $1000 mentioned. No dollar figure was specified in two-fifths of the nominations. The distribution of the amounts actually awarded was similar to the amounts requested. Three-fifths of the actual merit increases were less than $500, and another one-fifth were between $501 and $750; fewer than 8 percent were more than $1000. Less than 3 percent of the applications received more than was requested, and 10 percent received less than was requested. The mean merit salary increase was $506.

Comparisons by Discipline The letters contain evidence of stylistic differences (perhaps different habits of mind) between the various disciplines. In the professional schools, about half of the recommendations originated with a dean or some other administrator; among the remainder of the faculty, half of the recommendations originated with department chairmen. Moreover, the proportion of self-initiated nominations from the professional schools was half that of the other disciplines. Scientists and social scientists differed greatly in merit salary increase expectations with the former more likely not to have specified a set amount while the latter were not only willing to settle on a figure, but generally mentioned a relatively modest one. As a consequence of this, the smallest merit increases went to the social sciences faculty, and only 3.5 percent of the social scientists received $751 or more compared to 27.4 percent of the scientists. The size of a merit salary

711 increase for social scientists was exactly $100 below the mean; on the other hand, the size of a merit salary increase for scientists was $66 above the mean. A l t h o u g h c o m p a r e d to other faculty the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s for scientists were m o r e likely to emphasize c o n t r i b u t i o n s to the teaching and research p r o g r a m s and were m o r e likely to s u p p o r t such assertions with evidence, references to teaching p e r f o r m a n c e in their r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s did not t o u c h u p o n matters of teaching service, enrollments and the d e v e l o p m e n t of new courses as often as was the case for arts and letters faculty. The aspect of research which made the letters of scientists differ most markedly f r o m others was with respect to the receipt of research grants; 56 percent of t h e m c o m m e n t e d on this compared to 5 percent of those in arts and letters. F o r their part, social scientists paid more attention to n o n a c a d e m i c contributions to c a m p u s life such as d e p a r t m e n t a l administrative service, so that their letters not only strongly emphasized these activities but provided examples of such w o r k as s u p p o r t i n g evidence a r e m a r k a b l e 94 percent of the time. This willingness to cite examples of administrative work is hardly consistent with their c o m p a r a t i v e vagueness a b o u t teaching. F o r a social scientist: There is no need, I am sure you will agree, to recount here the professional accomplishments and long and extraordinary service of Professor... to this university. He is a scholar of national repute and a very gifted teacher. If his output in these areas fell in the last few years (fell, that is, relative to his own normal very high output) it was only because he devoted so much of his enormous energy to the tasks which fell to him as... or which he was asked to assume by other levels of the university administration. F o r their part, scientists d e p e n d e d less on n o n a c a d e m i c arguments in their letters t h a n others, leaning more heavily on research and publication (28.4 percent c o m p a r e d to only 6.7 percent for social scientists). Getting right to the heart of the matter, they rarely reverted to platitudes (3 percent c o m p a r e d to 20 percent for b o t h social sciences and arts and letters faculty). F o r a scientist: I would like to recommend Dr . . . . for a merit increase in salary of $500 per year. He has during this past year developed several ingenious experiments which broaden considerably our understanding of problems related to energy. F o r some inexplicable reason the arts and letters faculty seldom began an assessment by discussing academic performance. A p p a r e n t l y humanists believe that other considerations are just as compelling, or perhaps they believe it graceless to be too direct. W h a t e v e r the case, m o r e often than others they i n t r o d u c e d a m o r a l dimension to letters; the m a t t e r of equity, a prior commitm e n t to a merit salary increase, lack of merit m o n e y in recent years, and a low salary c o m p a r e d to others were themes f o u n d most often in r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s for arts and letters faculty and least often in r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s for professional school faculty. F o r a humanist:

712 1 have no clear idea of how the items below which 1 set forth as justification for my self-nomination for a discretionary salary increase may strike others. 1 hope 1 may be forgiven the lack of suavityand elegancein this document;indeed, it may be inevitablewith such matters. Howeverthe document "reads," l know full well.... Although other factors such as a long institutional tradition of formal teaching evaluations for scientists are undoubtedly relevant, the stylistic differences among disciplines are, nonetheleas, striking. The letters from scientists are straightforward; those from humanists often reveal an awareness of individual human factors; those from social scientists are likely to emphasize achievement within the university context.

Comparisons by Source Nominations by the chairmen took more notice of teaching activities excellence, service, enrollments, advisement - than did nominations initiated by deans or by the candidates themselves. Furthermore, the letters written by deans also paid less attention to research than those written by others. For example, 18 percent of the recommendations from the deans compared to 36 percent of those from the chairmen touched upon research quality; 40 percent of the recommendations from the deans compared to 72 percent of those from candidates touched upon research quantity; 8 percent of the recommendations from the deans compared to 29 percent of those from chairmen touched upon research recognition. Overall, 27 percent of the evaluations written by deans strongly emphasized research; the comparable figures for those written by the chairmen (59 percent) or the candidates (68 percent) indicate greater familiarity with this matter. Those who wrote letters for themselves were most likely to provide some evidence of their scientific or scholarly pursuits. Not surprisingly, deans were more concerned with administrative or committee work, particularly management tasks outside of the department, mentioning such activity in 41 percent of the letters. Not many assessments alluded to a candidate's skills in interpersonal relations, but the majority of those that did were written by deans. Perhaps because letters originating from the offices of deans paid the closest attention to administrative service - this was the topic raised first and then most heavily emphasized - these academic officers gave comparatively little attention to other matters. Although deans were most concerned with hard work and the positive impact that the awarding of a merit salary increase would have on the institution, they were least concerned with equity or whether candidates had received such an increase in recent years. All in all, however, recommendations from deans carried some weight. Although they were more likely to ask for more

713 modest merit salary increases than chairmen (80 percent of the self-nominations did not suggest a specific amount), those individuals recommended by deans were not as likely as candidates put forth by chairmen to receive the smallest awards, those of less than $300. Surprisingly, the size of a merit salary increase for self-nominations not endorsed by the chairmen was more than $50 above the mean.

Comparisons by Rank A specific amount of money was tied to recommendations for those in lower academic ranks more often than for those in higher academic ranks. When a figure was settled on for assistant professors, lecturers or instructors, over half of the time it was for less than $500. About twice the proportion of full professors compared to those in other academic ranks actually received more than a $751 merit increase. The size of a merit salary increase for full professors was $35 above the mean. A greater proportion of the recommendations for faculty in the lowest academic ranks than for faculty in the highest ranks emphasized contributions to the teaching program. For the lower ranks, more cases were made on the basis of special service in teaching, the development of new courses and working on the departmental curriculum. A statement about meritorious teaching was the first criterion mentioned in twice as many recommendations for assistant professors, lecturers or instructors as for full professors (27.5 percent vs. 14.5 percent). Teaching was the most heavily emphasized activity in 16 percent of the letters of the former but less than 4 percent of the latter. On the other hand, scientific or scholarly activity was stressed more often for senior faculty. Their letters gave more attention to research quality, quantity, recognition, and professional work and visibility.

Tangential Considerations The recommendations disclosed that faculty who are perceived as being dependable ("diligent"), hard-working ("vigorous"), energetic ("dynamic"), valuable, and willing to take on extra work are deemed deserving of special consideration when merit salary increases are distributed. Nothing comes in for more praise than being a "stabilizing force" or a "positive role model" or possessing "needed leadership qualities". While many such arguments that cover ground beyond academic performance were introduced - from praising cooperation ("he cheerfully serves," "she is uncomplaining") or, less frequently, marvelling at interpersonal skills, to totaling years of service - none was as prevalent as

714 the m a t t e r o f equity. O n e out of five r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s even used s o m e f o r m of this term. He has at the same time established himself as one of the foremost.., of the world and developed a program in our department that enjoys nationwide prestige. His current salary is not commensurate with his value to our school. I recommended a merit increase of. . . . [She] is the only female faculty member in the department and has the lowest salary among the full professors by over $5,000. Although she is the only faculty member of the department among those eligible for the discretionary adjustment without an outside grant, and with no published papers last year, this salary differential is probably 'excessive. The Discretionary Salary Increase for 1978 is for the purpose of correcting unjustified adverse differential in salaries for females as compared to males, yet after.., years of teaching in this department I am paid less than my female colleague (of the same rank) who is starting her first year of teaching in the department. When her salary was discussed in the department last year, this inequity was mentioned, and it was agreed that a raise in my salary would be the first priority in the... Department. All in all, o n e - t h i r d of the c a n d i d a t e s were said to be u n d e r p a i d - c o m p a r e d to others in the s a m e rank, or c o m p a r e d to d e p a r t m e n t a l colleagues, or c o m p a r e d to years of service, or c o m p a r e d to s o m e o t h e r m a r k e t value. M o r e o v e r , a few r e m e m b e r e d a n earlier c o m m i t m e n t to a salary a d j u s t m e n t . It was n o t e d in o v e r 10 percent of the cases t h a t a c a n d i d a t e had not received a merit salary increase in recent years. T h o s e cases in which these sorts of a r g u m e n t s were i n t r o d u c e d generally received merit salary increases below the m e a n . F o r the m o s t part, h o w e v e r , the i n t r o d u c t i o n of such tangential issues was avoided. O n l y 5 percent of the letters m e n t i o n e d g e n d e r or race. A n even smaller n u m b e r a d d e d a c o m m e n t a b o u t a family's financial situation or s o m e o t h e r p e r s o n a l c o n d i t i o n (such as children in college or " t u r m o i l " ) p e r i p h e r a l to the e v a l u a t i o n of a c a d e m i c p e r f o r m a n c e . A n d s o m e issues - like the possible negative effect n o t receiving a merit salary increase m i g h t h a v e on m o r a l e - m a y , in the end, be relevant. P l a t i t u d e s a n d rhetorical devices such as, "we all k n o w his a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s so well that I hardly need e n u m e r a t e t h e m ; .... this is such a c o m p e l l i n g case, w o r d s fail me; .... h o w can we, again, o v e r l o o k ; .... his efforts on this c o m m i t t e e offset his failure to;" a n d the like, were m o s t l y eschewed. E x c e p t w h e n race or gender was specified or w h e n s o m e o n e was said to be a useful or v a l u a b l e colleague, those cases in which there was reference to o t h e r p e r i p h e r a l qualities of a c a n d i d a t e generally received merit salary increases b e l o w the m e a n . F o r e x a m p l e , the size of a merit salary increase f o r the 59 cases in which energy or h a r d w o r k was praised was $120 b e l o w the m e a n . H e r e f a c t o r s such as p e r s o n a l i t y are less i m p o r t a n t t h a n is the quality of work. A l t h o u g h s u p p o r t e r s of " f a v o r i t i s m " or " b r o t h e r - i n - l a w " theories of a d v a n c e m e n t m a y not find supp o r t in these p a r t i c u l a r findings, they will be interested in the evidence a b o u t institutional service, a m a t t e r e x a m i n e d in the following section.

715

Teaching, Research, Institutional Service, and Other Matters The 69 percent of the recommendations that referred to student contact mentioned excellence - "effective," "successful," "solid" - in teaching (37 percent), academic and nonacademic advisement - generally graduate - (34 percent), enrollment or load or overload (19 percent), the development of a new course (17 percent), service (effort) in pivotal or crucial courses (15 percent), activity in the development of departmental curriculum (10 percent), and popularity with students (7 percent). More recommendations in which the matter of teaching was raised touched on one of these dimensions (28 percent) than on two (22 percent), three (13 percent), or four and five (7 percent). Because of the demands of students, he has consistently carried a teaching overload in at least one semester of each academic year. The results of all of t h e . . . Teacher Evaluations have shown him to be a conscientious, well prepared instructor, who demands excellence of his students. The courses he teaches have substance and depth, and all students respect him for that. Because of class schedule problems and a thinly spread faculty, he was asked to teach courses different from those originally assigned. He did this willingly and he taught them excellently, even though it took much extra time for planning and preparation.

Only about 40 percent of the letters which attempted to make some or all of the case on the basis of student service, including teaching, augmented their assertions with some evidence, very loosely defined - a reference to a particular course, formal or informal student evaluations, enrollment figures, the names of student advisees, a general statement that "course reviews had been good," and the like. Research, publication, or creative achievements were used as justification for a merit salary increase in 73 percent of the letters. Fifteen percent commented on only one aspect of this activity, 22 percent on two aspects, 14 percent on three aspects, 10 percent on four aspects, and 11 percent on five, six or seven aspects. Since last Spring he has had four of his accepted papers now published, has one more in the galley p r o o f stage, and has as well two more substantial papers (30 and 24 Ms. pages) newly accepted. In J u n e he was an invited speaker . . . . For us . . . . represents precisely the type of active researcher i n . . . that the Department is trying to attract and keep. He clearly deserves a very substantial merit increase at this time. She has managed to participate in scholarly conferences and has had a n article accepted for publication. His publication record i n c l u d e s . . , books, and a steady output of articles and reviews each year. He serves not only as an Associate Editor o f . . . but carries the b r u n t of the editorial work on a . . . series o f . . . sources for s t u d e n t s . . , which he co-edits . . . .

716 Interestingly, of the v a r i o u s aspects, research quality - t h a t s o m e o n e ' s w o r k had been cited or reprinted - was n o t e d in 29 percent of the evaluations, but research q u a n t i t y was n o t e d in 57 percent. In addition, recognition was m e n tioned in 21 percent, p a r t i c i p a t i o n in p r o f e s s i o n a l meetings in 26 percent, o b t a i n ing a research g r a n t in 27 percent, d o i n g s o m e p r o f e s s i o n a l w o r k such as p a r t i c i p a t i n g on a j o u r n a l editorial b o a r d or being active in s o m e o r g a n i z a t i o n in 15 percent, a n d being visible to o t h e r scholars or scientists - being r e n o w n e d or receiving invitations to s p e a k to others - in 28 percent. It is n o t e w o r t h y that the d a r k criticism of a c a d e m i c life that w h a t one publishes is less i m p o r t a n t t h a n h o w m u c h one publishes is given s o m e s u p p o r t by these data, H o w e v e r , it is i m p o r tant to note t h a t the size of a merit salary increase for the 120 cases cited for research quality was $43 a b o v e the m e a n , while f o r the 237 cases cited for research q u a n t i t y it was only $26 a b o v e the mean. Quality still is better rewarded, b u t q u a n t i t y is m o r e widely recognized. T h e letters which a t t e m p t e d to m a k e a claim on the basis of research cited s o m e evidence in a b o u t 75 percent of the cases - a c o u n t of publications, a listing of j o u r n a l s , the n a m e of a f u n d i n g agency, or the size of a grant. Eighty percent of the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s used institutional service as a n a r g u m e n t for a merit salary increase. H a l f of these m e n t i o n e d two or m o r e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e chores or c o m m i t t e e a s s i g n m e n t s in which the c a n d i d a t e was involved. D e p a r t m e n t a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e w o r k was referred to twice as often as divisional or institutional w o r k , a l t h o u g h p a r t i c i p a t i o n o n divisional or institutional c o m m i t t e e s was m e n t i o n e d as often as p a r t i c i p a t i o n on d e p a r t m e n t a l c o m m i t t e e s . A n u m b e r of faculty were also a p p a r e n t l y active in c o m m u n i t y service. In our department, there is no faculty member so widely known and respected for the consistency of his U niversity service as Professor . . . . As the appended recent supplement to his Vita demonstrates, he is constantly requested for service on various and important Search Committees, most recently the search for . . . . Professor... has performed admirably during her first year as Chairman of the Department of. . . . Not only has she been able to maintain the high level of administrative efficiency which we have come to expect of that department, but she has also been instrumental in bringing a new program into the Department . . . . This should have a significant positive effect o n . . . enrollments. In the councils of the Faculty [her] voice has come to be recognized and respected. Her contributions have been characterized by the kind of clarity of vision and intellectual rigor that have always been associated with her scholarship. He has also planned a . . . Institute to serve greater, a clearing house for . . . . T h e letters were quite specific in discussing these sorts of activities; in o v e r 85 percent of the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s in which institutional service is t o u c h e d

717 upon a particular task is me~tioned. But as in the case of teaching and research rarely is there any proof that the ca ndidate performed meritoriously, only that he or she performed. The university is apparently a mature bureaucracy with a developed institutional reward system. Whereas teaching was strongly emphasized in 28 percent of the letters a,ad not mentioned in 31 percent, and research was strongly emphasized in 52 percent of the letters and not mentioned in 27 percent, institutional service was strongly emphasized in 56 percent of the letters and not mentioned in only 18 percent. Furthermore, for only one-third of the recommendations did academic criteria teaching, research, or a combination of the two weigh most heavily. For the other two-thirds of the cases, service figured more heavily or just as prominently in an assessment. Less than half of the evaluations (46 percent) began with an explanation of teaching a n d / o r research performance. This method of beginning seems to indicate a set of priorities favoring administrative or committee functions over traditional academic pursuits in the distribution of merit salary increases. Moreover, the more emphasis in a recommendation on this sort of endeavor, the larger the merit salary increase - strong: $524; moderate: $520; low: $506; no mention: $445.

Amount of Request and Award: Dollars and Values Those faculty whose evaluations strongly emphasized research were more likely to be recommended for one of the medium or larger merit salary increases ($500 or more) than those whose evaluations did not do so. But comments about an individual's teaching had little impact on the size of the merit salary increase requested, unless a letter began with this topic. When this was the case, individuals had the best chance of being recommended for the most modest merit salary increases (39 percent compared to 24 percent if research was first mentioned) and the worst chance of being recommended for a sum of over $751 (7 percent compared to 19 percent if research was first mentioned). The amount of an individual's merit salary increase was, of course, closely related to the amount recommended. Ninety-eight percent of those whose letters asked for less than $500, received less than $500; two-thirds of those whose letters asked for more than $75 i, received at least that amount. Three-sevenths of the evaluations in which no specific figure was mentioned resulted in a merit salary increase of between $301 and $500. Actually, the percent of these 163 cases in each award category is almost identical to the distribution of the remainder of the population. With a few exceptions, what was said or not said about teaching in the letters was mostly irrelevant to the size of the merit salary increases individuals actually received. Those cases in which teaching was emphasized had a slightly

718 greater chance of receiving the smallest awards, and the size of a merit salary increase was more than $40 below the mean. Moreover, only one of the 42 applications in which faculty were said to be active in curriculum development received over $75 I. Almost one-third of the applications in which faculty were reported to have made special teaching contributions received less than $300 (compared to 17 percent for those applications in which this activity is not mentioned). But the data on teaching are complex, indicating a two part, low-high system, because, on the other hand, the size of a merit salary increase for those whose special teaching contribution involved graduate dissertation advisement was over $100 above the mean, undoubtedly a consequence of the fact that many were scientists who were full professors. In contrast, when factors such as research quantity, recognition, or professional visibility were alluded to or when research was simply emphasized this had a perceptible positive effect on the size of a merit salary increase. If a recommendation began with the subject of research or if research was the most heavily emphasized criterion, there was also a reduced probability of getting one of the smaller increases of less than $300 (14 and 11 percent compared to 37 percent if teaching was the first subject touched upon and 37 percent if teaching was the subject most heavily emphasized) and an increased probability of receiving one of more than $751 (22 percent compared to 9 percent for teaching as the first criterion mentioned and 20 percent compared to 10 percent for teaching as the most heavily emphasized criterion).

Concluding Remarks In this study of letters nominating candidates for merit salary increases, there is considerable evidence that teaching is less valued than administrative service or research. One finding of particular interest was the gap in the size of the merit salary increase recommended between those involved in administrative activities and those who seemed to keep their distance from these pursuits. Institutional service may not quite be a sine q u a n o n for success, but it is a significant factor in the definition of academic merit. This analysis of how academic merit is defined has practical value for, among others, those who would succeed in the American university. About six hundred years ago, the English poet Geoffrey Chaucer described his poor scholar from Oxford by saying, "Gladly would he learn, and gladly teach." In light of these findings, the poor scholar's current intellectual heirs may wish to add to this description: And gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche, And, lest the bills be late, administrate.

719

Notes 1 Because the state university system is recently unionized and because the union emphasizes across the board raises, the merit salary increases are called "discretionary increases" by the union leadership, to imply management's possible favoritism. On the other hand, the university administration and most faculty, particularly those who receive the awards, call them "merit raises," with connotations of rewards for worthy achievement. 2 For the 1978 79 academic year, the reported average salaries at the university were $33,700 for full professors, $23,200 for associate professors, and $17,500 for assistant professors (Academe, 1979).

References Academe (1979). 65:348 (Appendix I). Gregorio, D. 1., Lewis, L. S. and Wanner, R. A. (1982). "Assessing merit and need: distributive justice and salary attainment in academia," Social Science Quarterly 63: 492-505. Johnson, G. E. and Stafford, F. P. (1974). "Lifetime earnings in a professional labor market: academic economists," Journal o f Political Economy 82: 549-69. Katz, D. A. (1973). "Faculty salaries, promotions, and productivity at a large university," American Economic Review 63:469 477. Kaun, D. E. (1979). "The impact of faculty teaching, research and service on rates of advancement," Unpublished manuscript. Lewis, L. S. (1975). Scaling the Ivory Tower: Merit and lts Limits in Academic Careers. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Lewis, L. S. (1980a). "Academic tenure: Its recipients and its effects," Annals 448:86 101. Lewis, L. S. (1980b). "Getting tenure: Change and continuity," Academe 66: 373-381. Lewis, L. S., Wanner, R. A. and Gregorio, D. 1. (1979). "Performance and salary attainment in academia," The American Sociologist 14: 157-169. Tuckman, H. P. (1976). Publication, Teaching, and the Academic Reward Structure. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath.