After the remarkable expansion, and rapid growth of institutions of higher education (IHEs) between 1950 and 1970, campuses started to show signs of financial stress. By 1970, a number of institutions were faced with financial difficulties due to declining resources and steady increases in enrollment (Hansen & Stampen, 1981). The support that American society and government provided for IHEs earlier this century has decreased, in part due to criticism surrounding management techniques. The general public and state legislators are calling for increased accountability, assessment, graduation rates, and faculty productivity in the three traditional missions of higher education: teaching, research and service. These external demands have influenced the way work is conducted in all domains of the academy, including the faculty domain. There is little doubt that calls for improved undergraduate education, increased use of technology, a greater focus on applied (versus pure) research, and expanded outreach among others, have affected faculty teaching, research, and service activities. Yet research examining how this activities have shifted in recent years is very limited. In parallel vein, the recognition and reward system of IHEs (e.g., merit salary increases, teaching load, equipment and facilities) encourage faculty to engage in certain activities that are more valued than other activities. Traditional reward structures at many institutions have recognized research endeavors at the expense of teaching and service activities. It is reasonable to suggest, therefore, that if IHEs wish to shift attention among teaching, research and service endeavors of faculty, they need to design reward structures to recognize and value the activities they want faculty to undertake. There is very little evidence to suggest that IHEs have adapted their reward structures to promote such changes on the part of faculty. Therefore, the present study elicits information about faculty perceptions of the way their teaching, research, and service activities have shifted in recent years and how reward structures have or have not been adapted to support these shifts. The methodology used in this research is semi-structured interviews. Four departments at one university were selected for inclusion in the sample. From each department, ten faculty were randomly selected to participate in the study. The interviews were taped and transcribed to facilitate the analysis of the data. Conclusions drawn from the study suggest that changes in teaching, research, and service have taken place in recent years. The majority of changes related to the use of technology, followed by changes in class size, teaching style, curriculum reform and the use of teamwork. Faculty perceived that teaching, research, and service activities have changed in recent years in response to internal and external demands, however, the recognition and reward systems have not changed to reflect those changes. The results of this study suggest that both administrators and faculty may use these data to create new measures of faculty productivity that better reflect changes among the three university missions. The data may also provide other government and private agencies with different ways to assess institutional productivity. / Ph. D.