Note: You can comment on this or any past posting by going to:
http://amps-tools.mit.edu/tomprofblog/
Folks:
The posting below looks at trends in higher education that impact
the hiring and success of tenure-track faculty. It contains the
executive summary and an excerpt on "Great Workplaces"
for New Faculty from Supporting and Retaining Early-Career Faculty
by Betsy E. Brown in the monthly series Effective Practices for
Academic Leaders. The series is available in an electronic publication
that can be networked on a campus system to enable everyone on
a campus to access the briefings at their desks when needed, for
use both as guidance for administrators and as a development materials
for faculty and others. The electronic license allows individual
copying without need for permission, thus the individual briefings
lend themselves to use in workshops ands seminars. For online
subscription information go to: <http://www.styluspub.com/journals/epal.aspx>.
Volume 1, No.9, September, 2006. Copyright © 2006, Stylus
Publishing, LLC. 22882 Quicksilver Drive Sterling, VA 20166 [www.Styluspub.com]
Reprinted with permission.
Regards,
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: The Brave New World' of Classroom Technology
Tomorrow's Academic Careers
---------------------------------------- 1,509 words ---------------------------------
Supporting and Retaining Early-Career Faculty
Executive Summary
In this briefing I describe trends in higher education that impact
the hiring and success of tenure-track faculty: increasing competition
for the "best and the brightest," the "generational
change" expected as a cohort of retiring senior faculty is
replaced by a new generation, and expanding roles for faculty
as external influences widen expectations for higher education.
I review some of the research on expectations and concerns of
early-career faculty, highlighting particularly the difficulties
young faculty members have identified in (1) understanding and
achieving expectations for tenure and promotion, (2) becoming
socialized in their institutions and departments and finding colleagues
with whom to collaborate, and (3) balancing the multiple demands
of jobs and personal and family responsibilities.
In addition, I explore the multiple forms of scholarship in which
new faculty members are often expected to become engaged, along
with the risks associated with expanded expectations and the resulting
"overloaded plate." By reviewing the results from job-satisfaction
surveys of tenure-track faculty, with attention to the expectations
of women and minority faculty and faculty at different types of
institutions, I have identified what administrators can learn
about creating competitive academic workplaces. Among the factors
affecting workplace satisfaction for early-career faculty is work-life
balance. I include a review of recent efforts to implement policies
and practices to assist faculty, particularly early-career faculty,
in balancing work and family responsibilities. Finally, I provide
a list of questions that chairs and their departments can ask
themselves about the support that they provide early-career faculty,
and I present professional development resources. The briefing
identifies the important role of the department chair in providing
new faculty members-indeed, all faculty members-a supportive environment
that offers clearly defined expectations and appropriate rewards,
a balanced work life, and opportunities for collegiality and community.
"GREAT WORKPLACES" FOR NEW FACULTY
The Study of New Scholars (2004a), led by Richard P. Chait and
Cathy A. Trower at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, takes
prior research a step further by developing quantitative measures
by which institutions can compare how their own faculty members
rate to the ratings of new faculty at comparable institutions.
The major question driving the project is, "What makes a
great academic workplace?" Although the project does not
publicly rank one workplace against its peers, participating institutions
are able to rate themselves based on the perceptions of their
own faculty. Institutions that did not participate in the initial
study can use the general outcomes of the focus groups and pilot
surveys to identify the characteristics of great workplaces, organized
into five key areas by the project directors (Study of New Scholars,
2004b, pp. 3-4):
1. Tenure (including clarity of processes, expectations, and
procedures, transparency, consistency, equity, flexibility in
the timeline, feedback on progress, and reasonable performance
expectations)
2. Work and Workload (including clear expectations about "how
work time should be spent," reasonable and equitable teaching
loads and class sizes, enough time and adequate support for research,
and ability to balance personal and professional responsibilities)
3. Professional Development and Support (including a department
chair and senior colleagues "committed to one's success,"
opportunities to collaborate with senior faculty, mentoring, and
"a good 'fit' [feeling comfortable] in one's department,"
along with more tangible items such as salary and benefits, professional
assistance, and physical setting)
4. Climate (including positive interactions with colleagues,
departmental diversity, and "little or no pressure to conform
to colleagues re: areas of research, methodology, political views,
personal behavior, and attire")
5. Policy Provisions (including formal periodic performance reviews,
support for research and travel, limitations on service obligations,
and stop-the-tenure-clock provisions for parental or other responsibilities)
(pp. 3-4)
Beyond the delineation of general factors that lead to job satisfaction
for tenure-track faculty, the Study of New Scholars analyzed survey
results based on gender and race and on institutional type (university
or college). The authors found several statistically significant
differences as to how various groups of faculty members experience
their academic workplace. A few examples drawn from three statistical
reports (Study of New Scholars, 2004a, b, & c) suggest the
richness of the survey results.
Gender Differences
Among faculty at the six research institutions participating
in the pilot study of the Study of New Scholars (2004a): of the
28 measures of workplace satisfactionŠ, junior faculty women
were significantly less satisfied than men on 19-two out of three.
Conversely, in no area were males significantly less satisfied
than femalesŠ.
* Females rated their institution as a workplace significantly
lower than males.
* Females rated their global satisfaction with their department
and with their institution significantly lower than males.
* Females were significantly less likely than males to recommend
their departments to a candidate for a tenure-track position.
(p. 1)
Additional specific differences between male and female job satisfaction
include a number related to the tenure expectations and the tenure
process. Given that the majority of new U.S. doctorates in recent
years have been awarded to women, institutions may need to investigate
how male and female faculty are differentially affected by the
institutions' policies, practices, and environment.
Racial Differences
Junior faculty of color and white junior faculty at the six research
institutions participating in the Study of New Scholars (2004c)
"were equally satisfied with the workplace" (p. 1).
The study found a number of statistically significant differences,
however, in the following areas:
* Tenure: White faculty felt clearer about the tenure process
and the body of evidence that they would be required to present
and were "more likely than junior faculty of color to report
that tenure decisions are based on performance rather than on
politics, relationships, or demographics."
* Pressure to conform: Minority faculty reported more pressure
"to conform to departmental colleagues in their political
views."
* Research focus: Faculty members of color were less satisfied
than white faculty "with the influence they feel they have
over their research focus."
* Institutional policies: Faculty members of color "were
significantly more likely than white junior faculty to report
that they would find the following policy provisions to be helpful:
professional assistance to improve teaching skills, childcare,
financial assistance with housing, stop-the-tenure-clock, and
personal leaves during the probationary period" (p. 1).
Similar findings emerged from the gender and racial analyses,
including the fact that female junior faculty reported feeling
more pressure to conform in political views, personal behavior,
and attire. Female faculty members reported that they, too, would
find child care, financial assistance with housing, stop-the-tenure-clock,
and personal leaves during the probationary period helpful (Study
of New Scholars, 2004a, p. 23).
Differences between Institutional Types
Comparison of Study of New Scholars (2004b) responses from junior
faculty at six research universities and six liberal arts colleges
revealed a number of significant differences, some of which are
not surprising (e.g., university faculty members received higher
salaries and were more likely than college faculty members to
be satisfied with their salary and benefits), but many of which
identify areas that research universities and liberal arts colleges
might wish to explore in order to address the causes of their
junior faculty members' dissatisfaction:
* Tenure: University faculty members were more likely than college
faculty members to agree "that tenure decisions in their
department are based on performance rather than politics, relationships,
or demographics."
* Work: College faculty members were more satisfied than university
faculty members with "how they are expected to spend their
time, the level of courses they teach, the number of students
they teach, and the quality of students they teach."
* Professional development: College faculty members were more
satisfied than university faculty members with "the senior
faculty's commitment to their success, the physical setting in
which they work, the discretion they have over course content,
and the professional assistance available for proposal writing
and locating funds."
* Pressures to conform: University faculty members reported "more
pressure to conform to departmental colleagues in their research
areas and their research methodologies."
* Global satisfaction: College faculty members were more satisfied
than university faculty members with their institution as a workplace;
planned to stay longer at their institutions; were more likely
to agree that if they had it to do over again, they would accept
their current positions; and were more likely to recommend their
department to another prospective tenure-track faculty member
(pp. 1-2).
Many of these differences no doubt reflect the greater pressures
to succeed felt by university junior faculty members, particularly
in the area of research. However, if these pressures translate
into significantly less satisfaction with their institution as
a workplace, universities might do well to investigate whether
their junior faculty members' dissatisfaction is inevitable or
whether it can be addressed through assistance with teaching responsibilities,
encouragement of more collegial relationships with senior faculty,
more professional development assistance, and greater discretion
in the courses that they teach and the research interests that
they pursue, perhaps resulting in greater job satisfaction, better
retention, and more competitive recruitment of new faculty.
These sample results from the pilot surveys by the Study of New
Scholars suggest the benefits institutions of all types might
gain from similar job satisfaction or "campus climate"
surveys of their junior faculty.
References
Study of New Scholars. (2004a). Gender: Statistical report [universities].
C.A. Trower & J.L. Black. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate
School of Education.
Study of New Scholars. (2004b). Institutional types: Statistical
report. C.A. Trower & J.L. Black. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate
School of Education.
Study of New Scholars. (2004c). Race: Statistical report [universities].
C.A. Trower & J.L. Black. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate
School of Education.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOMORROW'S PROFESSOR MAILING LIST
is a shared mission partnership with the
American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) http://www.aahe.org/
The National Teaching and Learning Forum (NT&LF) http://www.ntlf.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
