an agenda for excellence - american council on education · 2019-06-05 · excellence in teaching...

American Council on Education

Office of Women in Higher Education

Creating Flexibilityin Tenure-TrackFaculty Careers

An Agendafor Excellence:

Copyright © February 2005

American Council on EducationOne Dupont Circle NWWashington, DC 20036

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in anyform or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

This publication is available free of charge; however, shipping and handling charges do apply.

To order, contact:

ACE Fulfillment ServiceDepartment 191Washington, DC 20055-0191Phone: (301) 632-6757Fax: (301) 843-0159

When ordering, please specify Item #310480.

A free electronic version of the executive summary of this report is available through www.acenet.edu/bookstore.



Creating Flexibility in Tenure-Track Faculty Careers

An Agendafor Excellence:

This report was produced as part of the project Creating Options: Models for Flexible Tenure-Track Faculty Career Pathways,

funded through a generous grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.The project’s National Panel of Presidents and Chancellors, Advisory Committee,

co-principal investigators, and project coordinator led in the creation of this report..

Members of the National Panel of Presidents and Chancellors

President Lawrence BacowTufts University

President Molly C. BroadThe University of North Carolina System

Chancellor Nancy CantorSyracuse University

President Mary Sue ColemanUniversity of Michigan

Chancellor France A. CórdovaUniversity of California, Riverside

Chancellor Gordon GeeVanderbilt University

President Kermit HallUniversity at Albany, State University of New York

President Karen A. HolbrookOhio State University

Chancellor William E. KirwanUniversity System of Maryland

President Graham SpanierPennsylvania State University

he American Council on Education, with generous support from the Alfred P.Sloan Foundation, has partnered with the National Panel of Presidents and Chancellorsfrom 10 major research universities to raise awareness and spark national dialogue on theneed for creating flexibility in tenure-track faculty career paths. Such flexibility is central torecruiting and retaining the most talented scholars in the professoriate in order to maintainexcellence in teaching and innovative research, critical to U.S. competitiveness.

This report, An Agenda for Excellence: Creating Flexibility in Tenure-Track Faculty Careers,presents data about the career environment for and experiences of tenured and tenure-trackfaculty. The report confirms the compelling need for change in the current rigid structure ofthe traditional academic career path. In order for American higher education to sustain itsleading role in a diverse and changing environment, college and university leaders mustdemonstrate their commitment to creating flexibility in the tenure-track professoriate bytaking action on the numerous recommendations that are offered in this report.

This project is another example of ACE’s commitment to its strategic priority of leadershipdevelopment on our nation’s campuses. I feel confident that these recommendations willassist you in strengthening your own institution and higher education in general.

Sincerely,

David WardPresident, American Council on Education

T

Foreword

Ann E. AustinProfessor, Educational Administration

Michigan State University

Lotte BailynT. Wilson Professor of Management

Behavioral Policy ScienceMIT Sloan School of Management

Kathleen ChristensenProgram Director

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

John W. CurtisDirector of Research

American Association of University Professors

Robert W. DragoProfessor of Labor Studies & Women’s Studies

Pennsylvania State University

Bernice DurandAssociate Vice Chancellor and Professor of Physics

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Marc GouldenResearch Analyst

Graduate Division-ResearchUniversity of California, Berkeley

Alice C. HoganProgram Director for ADVANCENational Science Foundation

David W. LeslieChancellor Professor of Education

College of William and Mary

Caryn McTighe MusilVice President for Diversity, Equity,

and Global InitiativesAssociation of American Colleges and Universities

Muriel PostonProgram Director

National Science Foundation

Cathy TrowerPrincipal Investigator

Study of New ScholarsHarvard Graduate School of Education

Bettie WhiteProject Director

Center for Advancement of Racial and Ethnic EquityAmerican Council on Education

Joan C. WilliamsProfessor of Law

American University Washington College of Law

Co-Principal InvestigatorsMichael A. Baer

Senior Vice President, Division of Programs and AnalysisAmerican Council on Education

Claire Van UmmersenVice President and Director, Office of Women in Higher Education


Project CoordinatorGloria D. Thomas

Associate Project Director, Office of Women in Higher EducationAmerican Council on Education

Special ThanksTo the members of the Advisory Committee,

Holly Stadler (ACE Fellow 2004–05), Barbara Hill, and Charles Coffin for their comments and feedback on drafts of this document.

Members of the Advisory Committee

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................iiiOverview ..................................................................................................iiiWhy Presidents and Chancellors Must Act..............................................ivWhat Presidents and Chancellors Need to Do ........................................v

SHAPING THE PROFESSORIATE OF THE 21ST CENTURY ..................1Introduction ..............................................................................................1Why New Practices Are Needed Now........................................................2

Ensuring Diversity and Equity in the Professoriate ................................3Enhancing the Excellence of the Academic Profession and Higher Education..........................................................................10Improving the Quality and Competitiveness of U.S. Higher Education ........................................................................16

RECONCEPTUALIZING THE TENURE-TRACK FACULTY CAREER PATH ..........................................................................21

Vignettes ..................................................................................................21A New Academy Within Reach................................................................25

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................27

APPENDIX I: Promising Institutional Practices ..........................................31Promising Practices to Address Work-Life Issues ..................................31Promising Practices for Career Socialization..........................................32Promising Practices for Enhancing Faculty Productivity ......................33Promising Practices for Faculty Revitalization........................................34Promising Practices for Encouraging Academic Career Completion ....34

APPENDIX II: Other Alfred P. Sloan Foundation–Funded Projects that Focus on Enhancing Academic Career Flexibility ................................35

Table of Contents

iiiA m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n

OVERVIEW

he critical work-life dilemmasdetailed in this report indicate an urgentneed for higher education leaders to examine and proactively address the insti-tutional climate that governs the entirecareer cycle of faculty—from entry intotenure-track positions to retirement. Asthey shape long-term fiscal and strategicplans for their institutions, college anduniversity leaders need to evaluate and acton all aspects of faculty career cycles. Theyneed to do so to attract and retain thosewho are most talented in order to maintainexcellence in teaching and cutting-edge,innovative research and to provide incen-tives for older faculty to retire with satis-faction, and financial security, therebyaccommodating the next generation ofscholars and teachers. Central to meetingthis challenge is finding ways to createmore flexible career paths for the tenure-track professoriate to enter, thrive in, andretire from academia.

An increasing number of new PhDsleave academia or opt for careers outsidethe traditional tenure-track path.1 Manyare forced to do so because of the tight-ening academic job market in a wide rangeof disciplines. Others, especially women,find themselves in adjunct and non–tenure-track positions—despite low

pay, minimal or no benefits, and lack ofpotential job security—for a better balancebetween personal/family life and profes-sional life.2 Such positions provide themthe time and flexibility they seek to placefamily as their priority at particular stagesof their lives and careers. Faculty withunusual caregiving responsibilities

(e.g., multiple births, a dependent with aphysical or mental disability, or terminallyill dependents) are often forced to choosenon–tenure-track career paths to managework and life demands better.

Executive Summary

T

[T]his country will increasingly depend on thecapacity of U.S. research universities to continueto produce American scientists and engineerswho engage in innovative research that willtransfer into cutting-edge discoveries and developments for citizens’ financial, physical,and environmental well-being.

A n A g e n d a f o r E x c e l l e n c eiv

Besides faculty work-life issues, U.S. research universities have an added dilemma: They need to be concerned withmaintaining competitiveness in the globalhigher education market and the securityof the country. As national security issuesheighten and the number of internationalscientists who study and work in theUnited States decreases, this country willincreasingly depend on the capacity ofU.S. research universities to continue toproduce American scientists and engi-neers who engage in innovative researchthat will transfer into cutting-edge discov-eries and developments for citizens’ financial, physical, and environmentalwell-being. Career flexibility for tenure-track faculty is key to attracting and retaining this scientific workforce in academia.

Without a doubt, academics innon–tenure-track positions encounter aunique set of challenges in their roles.However, this report and related project*focus solely on issues and challenges thatcurrent tenure-track and tenured facultyexperience, with a special focus onresearch universities.

WHY PRESIDENTS AND CHANCELLORS MUST ACTInstitutional leaders must act immediatelyto attract the best faculty to the tenure-track professoriate at research universi-ties. As student enrollments of women andpeople of color continue to grow—both atthe undergraduate and graduate levels—these demographic groups will represent asubstantial proportion of the pipeline tothe professoriate. However, current datashow that women tend to be less likely topursue tenure-track faculty positions atresearch universities after earning doctor-ates, and anecdotal evidence suggests thesame is true for PhDs of color.

In certain disciplines, namely scienceand technology, U.S. higher educationcannot afford to lose any of its potentialintellectual workforce and desperatelyneeds the best talent in research andteaching. Talented scholars are necessaryfor innovative research and developmentto contribute to economic development ofthe country and to keep U.S. higher educa-tion in a competitive position worldwide,as well as for the country’s security. Withthe time and financial investment thatindividuals and institutions make inbecoming or producing scientific andtechnological researchers, it is critical forinstitutional leaders to devise strategiesfor attracting them into and retainingthem in academia. As the United Statescontinues to lose its science and techno-logy workforce because of retirements anddecreasing numbers of foreign scholars,the country needs to increase the numberof homegrown science and technologyresearchers now more than ever.

*The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation funded this project, Creating Options: Models for Flexible Tenure-Track Faculty Career Pathways, with the goals ofchallenging the current rigid structure of faculty career paths and creating models to assist campuses in thinking more strategically about effectingbeneficial change in faculty career cycles. Further, this report serves as the primary vehicle through which the major objectives of the project are tobe announced. These objectives include raising awareness of faculty work-life issues throughout higher education, sparking a national dialogue toencourage change, and generating thoughtful, tested approaches to assist campuses in adapting promising practices to address faculty work-lifeissues.

vA m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n

There is a growing need for higher education faculty to reflect the diversedemographics of students and increasingpressure to nurture and develop more ofour science and technology intellectualworkforce from the American citizenry.Given these conditions, this report offersfindings from the research on tenure-trackfaculty careers. These findings all point to the vulnerabilities of the tenure-trackacademic profession, particularly atresearch universities, if action is not takenimmediately.

WHAT PRESIDENTS AND CHANCELLORS NEED TO DOThe National Panel of Presidents andChancellors, a group of 10 chief executiveofficers from major research universitiesand state university systems, advocatescreating flexible tenure-track facultycareer paths at higher education institu-tions nationwide. The Panel strongly recommends changing the current rigidstructure of traditional tenure-track faculty career paths. It also suggests newmodels to assist campuses in thinkingmore strategically about effecting benefi-cial change in faculty career cycles. Forinstitutions that continuously strive toimprove their teaching and research,maintaining a first-rate tenured andtenure-track faculty is a top strategic priority. To be effective in a diverse andchanging environment, institutional leaders must demonstrate their

commitment to this effort by documentingit in their institution’s strategic plan andpledging the required financial resourcesto take actions on at least two fronts:

1. Create hospitable environmentsthat welcome and support a diversefaculty in meeting changing needsthroughout their careers.

2. Develop policies and programs thatencourage flexible career paths tohelp faculty members balance work-life issues, avoid stagnation andburnout, and remain productive in various facets of scholarshipthroughout the course of theircareer lifetime so that faculty cancontribute to maintaining excel-lence in teaching, innovativeresearch, and U.S. competitivenessin the global marketplace. Suchdevelopments of new knowledgeand technology, in particular, arecritical to the national economy andsecurity of this country.

A n A g e n d a f o r E x c e l l e n c evi

Creating an institutional environmentthat values the recruitment and retentionof an excellent and diverse faculty—especially in this time of an increasednumber and diversity of student enroll-ments and decreased state budgets—requires strong leadership and commit-ment from an institution’s chief executiveofficer and its entire academic administra-tive team. Such leadership must be proac-tive and must have the long-range view ofmaintaining and enhancing excellence,especially within a research university.

Campus climate is shaped by all of its various constituents, but change in campus climate must start at the top.Thus, the recommendations listed in thisreport must be implemented with leader-ship and input from all parties and at varying levels, beginning with presidentsand chancellors and involving provostsand chief academic officers, deans, department chairs, and faculty in a campus-wide dialogue to determine thebest approaches for tackling these issueson their respective campuses. For some

institutions, it might be appropriate toestablish these policies university-wide;other institutions will choose to institutepolicies at the school or unit level, perhaps by distributing grants to deans or department chairs and giving them theautonomy to achieve agreed-upon goals.Whatever the approach taken, resourcesmust be accessible for this endeavor, all institutional leaders must be heldaccountable for progress toward set goals, and the practices and processesimplemented must be transparent in every way. The recommendations listedthroughout this report are provided to help institutional leaders develop collegial, supportive campus climates thatwill enhance recruitment, retention, andretirement of its faculty. All these recom-mendations have the potential to lead togreater flexibility in tenure-track facultycareer paths.

1A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n

INTRODUCTION

n a faculty survey collected bythe National Center for EducationStatistics in 1998, more than half of23,000 full-time instructional facultymembers between the ages of 65 and 70 reported that they planned to retirewithin the next three years.3 This turn-over has already begun a generationalwave of faculty hiring that offers American higher education an unusualopportunity to develop an effective long-term strategy to improve its qualityand competitiveness. For this to happen,higher education leaders must enlargetheir thinking about the “appropriate”progress of an academic career.

To help develop such a strategy, theAmerican Council on Education is leadingthe project titled Creating Options: Models

for Flexible Tenure-Track Faculty Career

Pathways, funded by the Alfred P. SloanFoundation, in collaboration with aNational Panel of Presidents andChancellors and a national group of higher education scholars who serve as the project’s advisory committee. The goalof this project is to encourage the develop-ment of flexible tenure-track facultycareer paths that recognize differentstages in faculty members’ professionallives and acknowledge that not all facultymembers will reach traditional career

milestones at similar intervals. This reportserves as the primary channel throughwhich the major objectives of the projectare to be announced. These objectivesinclude:

1. Raising awareness of faculty work-life issues throughout highereducation.

2. Sparking a national dialogue toencourage change.

3. Generating thoughtful, testedapproaches to assist campuses inadapting promising practices toaddress faculty work-life issues.

Shaping the Professoriateof the 21st Century

IThe goal of this project is to encourage thedevelopment of flexible tenure-track facultycareer paths that recognize different stages in faculty members’ professional lives and acknowledge that not all faculty members willreach traditional career milestones at similarintervals.

A n A g e n d a f o r E x c e l l e n c e2

Table 1. Percentage of Full-Time Faculty in Engineering,Mathematics, and Physical Sciences at U.S. Degree-GrantingInstitutions, by Gender and Race/Ethnicity: 1999

# Rounds to zero.Source: National Center for Education Statistics, National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF), 1999.

Colleges and universities will be mosteffective in the recruitment, retention,and timely retirement of an excellent faculty if they address the extra-scholarlystresses, strains, and competitiveness ofthe profession identified in this report.Moreover, institutions urgently need toprovide opportunity for greater harmonybetween the personal lives and the academic careers of faculty members. If presidents, chancellors, and chief academic officers address these challenges, their institutions will be able to:

• Recruit and retain the best faculty,thereby maintaining excellence inresearch and teaching.

• Enhance the culture of the academyto keep pace with societal changes,particularly with respect to demo-graphic, cultural, and ethnic shifts.

• Achieve gender, racial, and ethnicequity among faculty, which is cru-cial given the increasingly diversestudent body.

• Continue to contribute to thenation’s competitiveness andnational security.

Special attention must be given to recruiting and retaining faculty in thephysical sciences, engineering, and mathematics fields, in which women and people of color are especially under-represented (see Table 1).

WHY NEW PRACTICES ARE NEEDED NOWSeveral contextual circumstances call for immediate strategic action so thatAmerican higher education can continu-ously improve and compete in the future.These related conditions revolve aroundthree themes:

1. Ensuring diversity and equity in theprofessoriate with a particular focuson recruitment or re-entry into the profession, and the issues andchallenges of junior faculty intenure-track faculty positions.

2. Enhancing the excellence of the academic profession with a particular focus on issues and challenges for mid-career and senior tenure-track faculty members and faculty retirements.

3. Strengthening the quality and competitiveness of U.S. higher education as a whole, with a focuson creative approaches to develop-ing the scientific workforce and cutting-edge research and technological developments.

Engineering Mathematics Physical Sciences

Gender

Male 90.0 74.0 84.0

Female 10.0 26.0 16.0

Race/Ethnicity

White 78.3 79.6 88.0

Black 2.2 4.9 3.1

Asian 15.2 9.5 6.5

American Indian 0.3 # #

Pacific Islander 0.2 0.6 0.1

Hispanic 3.3 5.3 2.0

Mixed Race 0.6 0.1 0.2


Ensuring Diversity and Equity in theProfessoriateThe student population in higher educa-tion is increasingly diverse. In fall 2001,56 percent of all undergraduate, graduate,and professional students enrolled in U.S.degree-granting colleges and universitieswere women and 29 percent were studentsof color (African Americans, 12 percent;Asians, 6 percent; Hispanics, 10 percent;and American Indians, 1 percent).4 Therepresentation of women and persons ofcolor in the full-time tenure-track andtenured faculty ranks has not kept pace, at 34 percent and 14 percent, respectively,with this rapidly diversified student body.This imbalance can lead to a less than optimal learning environment.

One study found that, in the case ofwomen students, the “most accurate predictor of subsequent success for femaleundergraduates is the percentage ofwomen among faculty members” at the institution.5 Similar findings haveemerged from studies of students ofcolor.6 To better the chances of success forsuch students, greater numbers of womenand persons of color are needed in securetenure-track and tenured faculty positions.

Faculty career researchers CathyTrower and Richard Chait cite the “unaccommodating culture” of academia as one of the biggest obstacles to achieving diversity and equity amongfaculty members. They further state:

[D]espite earning doctorates inever-increasing numbers, manywomen and persons of color areeschewing academic careersaltogether or exiting the academyprior to the tenure decisionbecause both groups experiencesocial isolation, a chilly environ-ment, bias, and hostility. Theircommon concerns include theirlimited opportunities to partici-pate in departmental and institu-

tional decision-making; excessive and “token” committeeassignments; infrequent occasions to assume leadershippositions or achieve an institutional presence; researchthat’s trivialized and discounted;lack of mentors; and little guidance about the academicworkplace or the tenure process.As a result, women doctoral students are less likely than mento want to be faculty members,and persons of color are lesslikely than whites to desire anacademic career. Not surprisingly,both groups are less satisfied inthe academic workplace thanwhite males. More women andminorities than white men leavethe academy in the course of thetypically seven-year probationaryperiod.7

Issues and Challenges of Recruitment intoTenure-Track Faculty PositionsNot only are women now earning themajority of undergraduate degrees, butalso their enrollments at the graduate andprofessional levels are steadily increasing.In fact, women now earn 51 percent of alldoctorates awarded to U.S. citizens fromAmerican institutions.8 Although theirrepresentation in some fields is still verylow, women should, theoretically, com-prise the larger part of the academiccareer pipeline in the near future. Thus, it is especially critical for institutionalleaders to examine and eliminate the rootcauses of women PhDs opting out oftenure-track faculty positions.


Women PhDsWater Level Women PhDs

Water Level

Postdoc Years

Married women with a child under six are 50 percent less likely to

enter a tenure-track positionthan married men with a child under six.

Women are 20 percent less likely to achieve tenure than men.

Receiving the PhD Achieving TenureEntering a Tenure-TrackPosition

Figure 1. Leaks in the Pipeline to Tenure*

University of California, Berkeleyresearchers refer to the phenomenon asthe “leaking pipeline for women PhDs”(see Figure 1), in which women enter andcomplete doctoral programs but dispro-portionately drop out of the running for tenure-track positions. There is no

male academics—does not fit many womenwith spouses and children. The rigid struc-ture of the academic career path, particu-larly at research universities, forces manywomen to self-select out.9 This phenome-non extends beyond the stages of recruit-ment into the tenure-track professoriate; it persists throughout the lifecycle of theacademic career. Researchers at theUniversity of California, Berkeley foundthat, “At nearly every stage of an academiccareer—from securing a tenure-track position to achieving associate and full-professor status—married women (bothwith and without young children) leak outof the academic pipeline at a dispropor-tionately high rate.” After receiving theirdoctorates, married women with childrenunder the age of six are 50 percent lesslikely than married men with childrenunder six to enter tenure-track positions.Women who do enter tenure-track positions are 20 percent less likely thantheir male colleagues to achieve tenure.10

With steady changes in the social environment that are leading men to manage domestic duties more often,including caregiving, some of these concerns about losing women from theacademic career pipeline may soonbecome true for men as well.

evidence to show that the leaking pipelineaffects men the same way. Feminist legal scholar Joan Williams posits one explanation for women leaking out of thepipeline. According to her, the current“ideal worker” model of tenure-track faculty—that is, the traditional careerpathway based on the careers of white

*Results are based on discrete-time event history analysis of the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (a national biennial longitudinal data set funded bythe National Science Foundation and others, 1979 to 1995) in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. The analysis takes into accountbroad disciplinary differences, age, ethnicity, PhD calendar year, time-to-PhD degree, and National Research Council academic reputation rankingsof PhD program effects. For each event (PhD to tenure-track job procurement, or tenure-track job to tenure), data are limited to a maximum of 16years. The waterline is an artistic rendering of the statistical effects of family and gender. Note: The use of NSF data does not imply endorsementof research methods or conclusions contained in this report.

Source: University of California, Berkeley.


Issues and Challenges with Re-entry intoTenure-Track Faculty PositionsMany holders of doctorates also encounterdifficulties in re-entering tenure-trackpositions after stopping out of the professoriate—whether for alternativecareer explorations or full-time child-rearing. At present, the latter considera-tion is particularly germane to women,and both scenarios frequently result in thepermanent loss of talented scholars whohave the potential to contribute signifi-cantly to teaching and research if given theopportunity to return to tenure-track ortenured positions.

The underlying reason for the difficulty in re-entering the academic profession in a tenure-track position isacademia’s traditional expectation of a linear career trajectory. Joan Williamsargues the unfairness of this expectationfor academic women who are also the primary caregivers of small children:

Some search committees requirecandidates hired right out ofgraduate school to have a [number] of published articles.For tenure, they expect the rateof publication to speed up, as asignal that the candidate’s careeris picking up steam. Given thatthe average age for granting of aPhD is 33, this means that therate of publication is expected tospeed up during the years when[childbearing and childrearing]responsibilities are heaviest.Since American women continueto do the majority of the childcare and housework,this expectation too has a disproportionately negativeimpact on women.11

Some may argue that forgoing a careeras a tenure-track faculty member is simplyone of the consequences that an individualmust face for the choices he or she makes.But in order for higher education leadersto plan appropriately for the future oftheir colleges and universities, they needto begin to question status quo practicesand perspectives and find ways to welcomeand accommodate future faculty members.Social institutions such as colleges anduniversities have a deep responsibility totake account of and act on cultural shiftswhen those shifts impact the greater good of the institutions and the societythey serve.

Given that ensuring diversity andequity in the tenure-track professoriate isone of the outcomes of creating flexibletenure-track faculty career pathways, theNational Panel recommends that institu-tional leaders rethink recruitment intotenure-track faculty positions to includere-entry opportunities. Such options,either through postdoctoral positions ordirectly into tenure-track positions withguidance from senior colleagues wouldbenefit individuals who have made deci-sions to stop out of academia or pursuenon–tenure-track academic positions tomanage career and family responsibilitiesbetter.


Issues and Challenges for Junior Faculty inTenure-Track PositionsMany leading institutions have imple-mented policies and programs to aid faculty in managing work-life conflicts. In theory, such policies and programs aredesigned to solve the work-life dilemmasthat many faculty members encounter. Inpractice, faculty members either do notknow about these policies12 or, in mostcases, do not take advantage of thembecause they want to avoid potential orperceived discrimination in future tenureand promotion decisions.13

Because of the competitive nature ofthe academic profession, many tenure-track faculty members experience stressand anxiety over the ambiguity of promo-tion and tenure criteria and review. Whilethis ambiguity affects all tenure-track professors—males, females, whites, andpersons of color alike—women and facultymembers of color report experiences ofstress and anxiety at a greater rate.Interestingly, there is a strong negativecorrelation between the reported rates ofstress and anxiety and their likelihood ofachieving tenure—that is, the more stressand anxiety faculty members have, the lesslikely they are to achieve tenure.14 Studiesshow negative climate issues, lack ofappropriate mentoring, and a host of marginalizing experiences all contributeto the higher rates of stress and anxietyreported by women and people of color.15

As tenure-track faculty members atresearch universities deal with the stressesof preparing for their tenure review, theysimultaneously find it challenging toachieve satisfaction with their quality oflife. One major obstacle they face is thesevere lack of appropriate time for thescholarly work expected of them. On average, faculty members at research universities spend about 57 hours a weekworking on professional duties.16 Facultywho are also parents contend with the balancing act of fulfilling their teaching,research, and service responsibilities whilebearing and rearing children. On top ofthe typically long workweek, faculty members who care for children (ordependent elders) spend an additional 32 (men) to 50 hours (women) each weekon housework and caregiving responsibili-ties.17 High-quality childcare at or near theworksite could mitigate some of these ten-sions. However, childcare available duringregular work hours (i.e., Monday throughFriday, 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.) would still beinsufficient to address the needs of mostfull-time tenured and tenure-track facultywith children. Faculty members frequentlyare required to spend time on professionalduties late at night and on the weekends;additionally, some degree of travel isrequired for professional development atnational and international disciplinaryconferences. Far too frequently, womenare unable to fulfill evening and weekendduties or attend professional conferencesbecause of the conflict of caring for children and other dependents and thelack of sufficient help to free up some oftheir time for these professional duties.


Women are not only more likely tocarry a heavier load for family and house-hold duties than men, but also more indemand for less-rewarded professionalactivities. Data from one research univer-sity indicate women assistant professorsspent a significantly higher percentage oftheir time per week than men on internaluniversity service activities, as well as onconferring and consulting with studentswho were neither in their classes nor theiradvisees.18 The amount of time spent onthese duties is not highly rewarded byresearch universities and places women ata career disadvantage for achieving tenureand promotion because it detracts fromthe time they could spend on more rewarded activities.

Career socialization is the processthrough which individuals acquire the values, norms, and behaviors that enablethem to play the various social rolesexpected by their organization.19 It is most intense when new recruits enter the profession.20 Mentors are crucial tofacilitating this socialization. In the initial stages of an academic’s career andthroughout various phases of the social-ization process, tenure-track faculty members in particular say that they wantand need mentoring, yet studies show thatat most institutions, faculty mentoring is haphazard, often uninitiated or unsatisfying if initiated.21

Another socialization issue, whichaffects male and female assistant profes-sors and particularly assistant professorsof color, is the growing need to assert andmaintain individual identities and valuesas they are being socialized into the profession.22 As the new generation of

the professoriate becomes more diverse by gender and race, junior faculty mem-bers increasingly feel the need for a bidirectional socialization process, inwhich their values and beliefs help shapethe culture of the academic departmentand the institution as their senior colleagues help the newcomers acclimateto the profession. For instance, one assistant professor shared her feeling ofconstantly having to accommodate a particular male senior colleague:

As long as I remain here, I feel Iwill never be able to establish my own identity. He [the seniorcolleague] makes me feel like aglorified graduate student, and itis very hard on my self-esteem… but I cannot afford to havehim as my enemy at tenure time.I have to live with this situation.23

Far too frequently, women are unable to fulfill evening and weekend duties or attend professional conferences because of the conflictof caring for children and other dependents andthe lack of sufficient help to free up some oftheir time for these professional duties.


Even as the institutional culturechanges with the behaviors of new juniorfaculty, some of them, like the womanquoted above, feel a need to challenge the status quo and academic culture (i.e.,behavior of their senior colleagues) without threatening their tenure aspira-tions. Additionally, junior faculty membersseek a sense of collegiality, equity, andsupport from their senior colleagues, theacademic department, and the institution.Further, they are looking for professionaldevelopment, networking, and mentoringopportunities that will guide and directtheir career paths,24 not a climate and culture that is deprecating.

After three to four years in the position, tenure-track faculty membersbecome more confident of their skills andmore politically sophisticated about howto get things done at their institutions. But at this point, both male and femaleassistant professors begin to experienceanxiety from their upcoming tenurereview. Having clear tenure policies andpractices, as well as unambiguous expec-tations for teaching, research, and service,helps alleviate this apprehension andstress.

In order for faculty members to thriveand ascend the academic ladder, they needto find satisfaction with their work andtheir work environment. Studies havefound that women faculty and faculty of color are significantly less satisfied than white male faculty members onnumerous measures of work-life and careersatisfaction.25 In fact, one study of tenure-track professors at six research universitiesfound that women were more likely toreport a lack of support for professionaldevelopment, a perceived lack of fit intheir departments, poor mentoring, lessthan adequate professional interactionswith colleagues, and difficulty balancingpersonal and work responsibilities, all ofwhich leave women far less satisfied thanmen in the academic workplace.26

The National Panel recommends that colleges and universities implement specific policies and programs designed toaddress issues for recruitment and re-entryinto the professoriate, as well as concernsof junior faculty members regarding careerand workplace satisfaction. Among theseissues are sufficient time to devote toresearch; mentorship, guidance, anddirection from senior colleagues aboutachieving tenure; the proper balance ofwork-life issues; and the appropriate rela-tionship between junior faculty members’core values and beliefs, on the one hand,and the need to effect their socializationwithin the department and the institution,on the other hand.

[Faculty] are looking for professional development, networking, and mentoringopportunities that will guide and direct theircareer paths, not a climate and culture that isdeprecating.


To enhance recruitment efforts and establish re-entry options into the professoriate, the National Panel recommends that presidents and chancellors:

• Uncover and eliminate the prevent-able causes of talented PhDs optingout of tenure-track faculty posi-tions.

• Create re-entry opportunities (e.g.,postdoctoral fellowships) for PhDswho seek tenure-track facultycareers later in life after havingdecided to stop out of academia orwork part time in order to managecareer and family responsibilities.

• Abolish penalties in the hiringprocess for documented dependentcare–related résumé gaps.

• Provide assistance to new facultyhires with spousal/partner employment needs and other family-related relocation issues.

• Allow couples employed by thesame institution to select from acafeteria-style health-care anddependent-care benefits plan (e.g.,the family might be covered underthe wife’s plan for health care andthe husband might use his health-care allotment toward the cost ofdependent care).

To improve the success rates andcareer satisfaction of junior faculty members, the National Panel recommendsthat presidents and chancellors:

• Assess the degree to which campusenvironments are amenable to andsupportive of the achievements ofjunior faculty and, in conjunctionwith faculty governing bodies,change the issues that emerge asproblems.

• Create a professional climate inwhich the use of family-friendly andwork-life policies is encouraged, notpenalized.

• Create incentives for developingmore collegial environments, inwhich faculty members at all ranksare encouraged and rewarded forcollaborating with, guiding, andmentoring their colleagues.

• Provide training to evaluators to put in place clear and consistentlyapplied promotion and tenure guide-lines that are (and are seen as) fair,non-discriminatory, and consonantwith alternative career path policiesthat the institution has adopted.

• Allow colleges, schools, and departments within a university toestablish their own agreed-uponguidelines for interpreting criteriafor promotion and tenure, takinginto account heavy teaching loads,professional service activities, student advising, and the four distinct functions of scholarship, as outlined by Ernest Boyer inScholarship Reconsidered: Priorities

of the Professoriate (see p. 11 of thisreport).

• Develop opportunities throughoutthe career cycle for tenure-track faculty members to opt for part-time positions that can be used for aspecified period (up to five years) aspersonal needs arise.


• Establish guidelines for faculty tohave the option of multiple-yearleaves for personal or professionalreasons.

• Create flexibility in the proba-tionary period for tenure review without altering the standards orcriteria. Longer probationary periods should not be required forall faculty, but flexible time framesof up to 10 years with reviews at setintervals should be offered. Thisoption could benefit faculty whomay need to be compensated for losttime or given additional time to prepare because of unanticipatedprofessional or personal circumstances.

• Provide quality, affordable childcare(or information about availableservices) to tenured and tenure-track faculty, particularly new hires;establish or provide information forchildcare programs for emergencyback up, evening and overnightcare, and school and summerbreaks.

Enhancing the Excellence of the AcademicProfession and Higher EducationToday in American higher education, the student body is likely more diverse by age, gender, race/ethnicity, socioeco-nomic status, academic and social prepara-tion, and physical and mental capabilitiesthan it has ever been. However, the cultureof academia, particularly at research universities, remains far too restrictive in adequately rewarding faculty members’ creativity in responding to this ever-increasing diversity, especiallythrough their teaching and service.

In the late 1980s and throughout the1990s, institutional leaders nationwidefervently encouraged faculty to respond tothe challenges of connecting scholarlywork with social and environmental needs

through their teaching and service.Although this had been a part of the mission of state and land-grant institu-tions since their founding, other publicand private colleges and universitiesadopted the practice as well. However,with the continuous turnover of institu-tional leaders, rewarding scholars for theircreative teaching and application of theirresearch and knowledge to the needs ofsociety has not been given sufficient attention.

To enhance the role of higher educa-tion in society, and the role that facultyplay in fulfilling their respective institu-tional missions, it is critical for faculty tocommit their time to all their professionalresponsibilities—research, teaching, andprofessional service (internal and externalto the institution) and for their achieve-ments in all areas to be rewarded. In orderto provide faculty appropriate time tocommit to these three professional respon-sibilities, the National Panel stronglyencourages institutional leaders to take amore targeted approach on two actions:

• Broadening the definition of scholarship and the structure forassessing and rewarding facultyachievements in all facets of thenew paradigm of scholarship.

• Creating, implementing, and promoting the use of policies andprograms that continue to promotefaculty productivity, revitalization,and professional renewal through-out the course of their career lifecycle, particularly from mid-career and beyond.

These two actions are necessaryimperatives for enhancing the excellence,already a major characteristic, of the academic profession.


Broadening the Definition of ScholarshipWith respect to expanding the definitionof scholarship and its various componentsthat merit reward, the National Panelacknowledges the groundbreaking reportpublished in 1990 by the late ErnestBoyer, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities

of the Professoriate. In this report, Boyeradvocated a new paradigm of scholarshipthat embraces creativity and diversity in the roles and responsibilities that academics maintain, and in the rewardstructure that compensates faculty fortheir achievements in four specific functions of scholarship:

• The scholarship of discovery, orwhat academics typically callresearch.

• The scholarship of integration, orconducting and interpreting one’sresearch in an interdisciplinary context.

• The scholarship of application, orproviding a service to the commu-nity or society by applying one’sknowledge to consequential problems.

• The scholarship of teaching, or thepractice of educating and enticingfuture scholars.27

In Boyer’s new approach to scholar-ship, faculty members would have seasonsof three to five years throughout theircareer lifecycles in which they define theirprofessional goals and focus narrowly onone of the four areas of scholarship.Although he fully agreed that research(the scholarship of discovery) shouldremain the basic expectation and key criterion for assessing faculty perform-ance at research universities, Boyer alsostrongly advocated for justly rewardingintegration, application, and good teaching.

A companion piece to Boyer’s classicis Scholarship Assessed: An Evaluation

of the Professoriate by Glassick, Huber,and Maeroff, which builds on Boyer’sfoundation. It provides guidelines forhelping colleges and universities designthe scholarship of faculty on their

campuses—in all four functions—and prepare their faculty for having their portfolios evaluated. The National Panelacknowledges this influential work as well,and recommends that institutional leaderscontinue to revisit both of these classicdocuments. The National Panel fullyunderstands that excellence in perform-ance and high standards in assessment offaculty are important to support the highquality of our institutions and contributeto the continual improvement of our economy and our society. However,Boyer’s redefinitions remain apropos forleading campus dialogue on the changingroles and responsibilities of academics,aligning the reward structure accordingly,and leading such reforms for tenured andtenure-track faculty.

The National Panel fully understands that excellence in performance and high standards inassessment of faculty are important to supportthe high quality of our institutions and contribute to the continual improvement of our economy and our society.


Creating Policies and Programs that PromoteFaculty Productivity, Revitalization, andProfessional RenewalBeyond redefining the roles, responsibili-ties, and rewards of the professoriate, inScholarship Reconsidered, Boyer furtheradvocated for “creating flexible and varied career paths for professors.”28

His rationale was to prevent professionalburnout and stagnation. Most policies andprograms that have been created andimplemented by colleges and universitiesto provide career flexibility among facultyprimarily have been established to benefitjunior faculty members with children.However, institutional leaders need toexamine the entire faculty career cycle andaddress the challenges that face not onlyjunior, but also mid-career and senior faculty members. As Boyer indicated, professional development issues persistthroughout all stages or seasons of the academic career.

Challenges for Associate ProfessorsAlthough newly tenured faculty membersusually enjoy the peer recognition associ-ated with having achieved tenure and aregenerally satisfied with their careerprogress, numerous institutional studieshave found the associate professor rank tobe difficult for many academics, especiallythose who have been in the rank for a longtime.29 For instance, in one study oftenure-track faculty at Ohio StateUniversity, researchers found that bothmen and women at the associate professorrank reported a greater level of stress thanfaculty members in other ranks. Thosewho had been in the associate rank for 15 years or more were more dissatisfiedwith their positions and felt less valuedand respected than associate professorswith fewer years of service.30

While associate professors usuallybecome an integral part of their institu-tions and are actively involved in collegeactivities and major committees, some fear their academic careers have hit aplateau with little room left to advanceprofessionally. Others experience insecu-rities about their knowledge base becoming outdated—especially in understanding and applying technology totheir work. Some also identify a need forcontinuous professional development,leadership opportunities, and networkingas a way to avoid stagnation. Such profes-sional offerings for faculty are especiallyneeded for associate professors to helpthem achieve promotion or at least provide them an alternative satisfyingcareer path, which they might find as intellectually stimulating and invigoratingas achieving full professorship.

Given the rigorous schedules andreported levels of stress and burnout ofassociate professors, it is not surprisingthat some contemplate leaving academia,even though they have tenure. In the 1999National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty,more than 12 percent of tenured associateprofessors indicated that they were somewhat likely or very likely to leave academia within three years for a full-time,non-postsecondary position.31 If not forthe security of tenure, the attrition fromthis rank of the professoriate likely wouldbe higher, judging by accounts of anxietiesabout sustaining professional interest andabout being unable to take advantage ofpersonal leaves, leading to stress andburnout.


Women associate professors are morelikely than men in the same rank to experience dissatisfaction and stagnation.Although many long-term associate pro-fessors remain at this rank because theyhave not met institutional expectations,family and personal responsibilities, aswell as excessive internal university service, top the list as reasons for facultymembers’ failure to move forward in atimely fashion, thus, disproportionatelyaffecting women. Therefore, it is not surprising that more women than men fail to advance to full professorships.Institutional studies corroborate the finding that on the measure of integratingwork and personal or family responsibili-ties, women associate professors areamong the most dissatisfied.32 Findingsfrom the cited studies indicate to institu-tional leaders the need to be aware thatsome long-term associate professors withwork-life conflicts could benefit from institutional support to regain their professional footing. Reducing the course-load of tenured women faculty and increasing their participation in campusgovernance by appointing them to important university-wide committees orcommissions (particularly those which arenot necessarily related to gender orracial/ethnic issues) is one example ofhow more senior women might find professional renewal and greater careersatisfaction.

General Tenured Faculty ChallengesData also show that tenured women aremore likely than men to be place-boundand less mobile for professional advance-ments because of family constraints.33

Consequently, while their male colleaguesin the tenured ranks often receive salaryincreases because of counteroffers thatinstitutions make to keep them, mostwomen do not even pursue outside careeroffers because, in reality, they are unableto consider moving. Conventional wisdomsuggests that this is another reason whywomen who are tenured—both at the asso-ciate and full professor ranks—are moredissatisfied with their careers than men.

In addition to the need for profes-sional development among tenured facultymembers, findings from several institu-tional studies show that women and peo-ple of color, even at the tenured ranks,report lower ratings than white males oninstitutional and departmental climatemeasures. Thus, unsupportive and mar-ginalizing climates compound the mid-career stagnation problem for somewomen and people of color. These studiesalso show that tenured women and peopleof color give lower satisfaction ratingsthan their male and white counterparts(respectively) on measures of interactionsand relationships with colleagues, dimen-sions of professional development, overallcareer experience, and integration of theiracademic and personal/family roles.34

Because of these alienating experiences,women and people of color at the tenuredranks are still not fully integrated into themainstream of the institution. Consequently,relatively few become department chairsor assume other university leadershippositions.35


While institutions devote some attention to balancing career and familylife for junior faculty, rarely is this conflictrecognized as an obstacle for tenured professors. Both male and female tenuredprofessors frequently need concentratedamounts of time guiding teenage children,supporting aging parents, or looking aftertheir own health. In fact, both men andwomen in the Ohio State University studyreported that they would value one aca-demic quarter with a research focus andno teaching responsibilities, along withthe technological resources to work fromhome. In the same study, women also saidthat they would highly value more supportfrom their department chair with respect towork and personal responsibilities andpart-time, post-tenure appointments as ameans to better integrate work and familylife.36

Interestingly, leaves, sabbaticals, andflexible work schedules are not alwaysseen as the best solutions for mid-careerprofessional renewal. Although tenuredfaculty members express a desire for suchbenefits, the reality is they frequently donot take advantage of them. In the OhioState faculty study, nearly two-thirds oftenured professors who were eligible forprofessional leaves did not use them. Thereasons cited by this cohort for rejectingthese opportunities included loss ofincome, dependent-care responsibilities,spouse or partner employment conflicts,and disinclination to burden colleagueswith additional work.37

These challenges for mid-career and senior faculty require policies andprograms that emphasize professionaldevelopment and revitalization, particu-larly at the associate professor rank, andan examination of the reasons why associate professors—both males andfemales—“get stuck” at this rank.38 TheNational Panel strongly urges institutionalleaders to evaluate career satisfaction of

its mid-career and senior faculty regularly as a means of encouraging veteran academics to remain positiveabout their professional responsibilities,their potential for leadership, and theirmentoring and socializing roles. In assessing tenured faculty members’ satisfaction, institutional leaders need to be attentive to sources of stress andburnout and to be open to flexible policiesand programs similar to those designedfor tenure-track assistant professors.Institutional leaders also need to nurturesenior faculty members’ sense of satis-faction by keeping them involved,engaged, and publicly recognized for their scholarly, teaching, and serviceachievements within the institution andbeyond, and to investigate the causes forgender and racial disparities among mid-career and senior faculty membersand address them appropriately.

In order to address these issues of mid-career and senior faculty, theNational Panel recommends that presidents and chancellors:

• Examine and proactively addressthe work-life issues and professionalclimate of faculty membersthroughout their entire careercycle.

• Create a professional climate inwhich the use of family-friendly andwork-life policies is encouraged,not penalized.

• Allow academic units to determinehow best to meet their productivitygoals and objectives to help elimi-nate competition among colleaguesin a given unit.

• Establish guidelines that allow fac-ulty to have multiple-year leaves forpersonal or professional reasons.

• Develop and encourage leadershipand professional renewal opportu-nities for tenured faculty.


Issues and Challenges with Retirement ofSenior FacultyIn addition to the challenges that tenuredfaculty encounter, senior faculty also endurenumerous challenges as they face theirimminent retirements. The way academicsend their careers—by leaving a legacy intheir respective disciplines, departments,and institutions—contributes substantiallyto the excellence of the academic profes-sion. Thus, it is critical to allow senior,retirement-age faculty to approach retire-ment with dignity, grace, and a continuedsense of connectedness to the profession.

In 1994, the federal law banning agediscrimination removed the age limit onmandatory retirement for faculty mem-bers, thus posing a major issue for seniorfaculty and for institutions. Because of this law, many higher education faculty members are working longer, leading to a skewed age structure in many depart-ments and institutions.39 For both menand women, aging generates complicatedprofessional and personal issues revolvingaround anxiety that one’s knowledge is outof date, one’s scholarly legacy is endan-gered, one’s own health (or the health ofone’s spouse or parents) is declining, one’senergy and enthusiasm are reduced, orone’s financial circumstances are not asrobust as might have been hoped.40

Of all the challenges of senior faculty,retirement proves to be particularly intim-idating. Moving into retirement is simplynot an easy transition to make. For aca-demics, whose careers have become sointricately entwined with their personallives, suddenly severing all ties to one’s life achievements is frequently daunting.Moreover, with the current low returns onpension plans and the high cost of healthinsurance, many academics have delayedretirement, often compromising an insti-tution’s capacity to replace them with newtenure-track assistant professors and limiting the hiring and advancement of

junior faculty members. Senior professorsmay feel undervalued or intimidated iftheir institutions view them in this light.

The National Panel urges institutionsto adopt phased retirement plans underwhich full professors may continue teaching or conducting research, or both,part time, with appropriate incentives forprofessors to choose such an option. Evenafter professors retire, the Panel suggeststhat institutions continue to use theexpertise of those willing to serve as special teachers, fund raisers, public lecturers, and student and faculty men-tors. To encourage retirement of seniorfaculty, the National Panel recommendsthat presidents and chancellors:

• Provide phased retirement plansunder which senior, retirement-ageprofessors may continue teachingor conducting research, or both,part time for a limited number ofyears.

• Offer partial or full coverage forhealth insurance to faculty for a setnumber of years after retirement, or implement retirement healthsavings programs.

• Provide space on campus where faculty retirees can convene toshare intellectual ideas, presenta-tions, and so forth with one anotherand the campus community. Findappropriate ways to continue toengage retired faculty.

For academics, whose careers have become sointricately entwined with their personal lives,suddenly severing all ties to one’s life achievements is frequently daunting.


Improving the Quality and Competitiveness ofU.S. Higher EducationSome university leaders may be concernedthat changes in institutional culture thatrun counter to current recruitment andretention practices could threaten institu-tional excellence. But several leading institutions have already begun to addresssome of these work-life issues without sacrificing quality. In fact, many of theinstitutions would argue they have become more competitive in attractinghigh-quality faculty as a result of new prac-tices. For example, a 1999 MassachusettsInstitute of Technology (MIT) School ofScience report found that women had beenmarginalized in the male-dominated culture of the institution: Women werepaid less, received fewer resources, andwere often treated as invisible.41 Thereport had a wide impact and promptedsimilar studies at other research universities, particularly those with a strong emphasis on science and engi-neering. Since then, MIT has begun

publishing regular reports on the status ofits women faculty members and has madesystemic progress through the appoint-ment of more women to academic leader-ship positions, including the recent selec-tion of its first woman president. Morewomen are now on the faculty (in 2001,women represented 17 percent of the

faculty, up from 11 percent in 1993);women have received salary increases; theinstitution has developed a more collegialenvironment and has set forth guidelinesfor diversifying hiring practices; and newfamily/work policies and programs havebeen implemented, such as stopping thetenure clock and making on-campus childcare available.42

By placing greater emphasis onrecruiting and retaining women among itsfaculty and in leadership positions, MIThas enhanced its reputation. While it isstill viewed as a research university committed to the advancement of knowledge in science and technology, MIT is no longer viewed exclusively asmale-dominated.

In order for American institutions,particularly those that focus on developingthe future workforce in science, technology,and engineering, to remain competitive inrecruiting the most talented faculty in theUnited States and throughout the world,institutional leaders must think creativelyabout policies and programs that willattract and retain the best possible work-force. They must place a special focus onaccommodating the growing numbers ofwomen and people of color in the pipeline.

While U.S. higher education institu-tions, particularly research universities,have traditionally dominated the market inattracting distinguished internationalscholars and researchers, this trend hasbegun to change since September 11,2001. For decades prior to 9/11, manyinternational scholars were trained at U.S.institutions and remained in the countryto assume faculty or research careers.

[S]everal leading institutions have already begunto address some of these work-life issues without sacrificing quality. In fact, many of theinstitutions would argue they have becomemore competitive in attracting high-quality faculty as a result of new practices.


Others were recruited to the United Statesafter being trained elsewhere. In a speechto the American Association for theAdvancement of Science (AAAS) on thisissue, Shirley Jackson, president ofRensselaer Polytechnic Institute, commented:

In the past, we have imported the science, engineering, andtechnological expertise we needed. This has been, and continues to be, an importantsource of talent distributedacross all sectors of our economy. But in an era of turbulent global relationships andsecurity concerns at home, this is beginning to be more difficult.International students and scientists have begun to chooseto return home in greater numbers—sometimes becauseof, sometimes irrespective of,global conflicts.43

In addition, a recent article in the New York Times reported that India andChina, the two countries that send thelargest numbers of international studentsto the United States for undergraduate andgraduate study, have played a critical role inproviding the workforce for American science, engineering, and informationtechnology research.44 However, in theaftermath of 9/11, with increased securitydelaying the processing of foreign stu-dents’ visas and with a new Visa Mantisprocess—a system that conducts extrasecurity checks on visa applicants whowish to study in some 200 scientific and technical fields related to nationalsecurity—increasing numbers of Indianand Chinese students are seeking admis-sion to universities in their home countriesor elsewhere.45 Meanwhile, other English-speaking countries are reaping the benefits of America’s loss. In particular,

Australia, Britain, and Canada have been vigorously recruiting international students. One article reported that “datasuggest that [these other countries] aresucceeding in attracting students who inprevious years might have gone to theUnited States.”46

Because this practice of importing thescience and technology workforce for boththe academy and industry is currentlybeing threatened and challenged, U.S.leaders in American higher educationmust think creatively and strategicallyabout the development of this future laborforce. One particular project—the NationalScience Foundation’s ADVANCE program—stands out as a model of promising prac-tice. The goal of the ADVANCE program

is to increase the participation of womenin the scientific and engineering workforce through the increased representation and advancement ofwomen in academic science and engineering careers. Almost all of the universities awarded ADVANCE grantshave added policies and programs tostrengthen their family-friendly practices,as well as transformation initiatives thatare more supportive of women’s advance-ment in academic science and engineeringfields.

Because this practice of importing the scienceand technology workforce for both the academyand industry is currently being threatened andchallenged, U.S. leaders in American higher education must think creatively and strategicallyabout the development of this future labor force.


Given the time and financial invest-ment that individuals and institutionsmake in producing science and technologyresearchers, it is critical for institutionalleaders to devise strategies for attractingthem into and retaining them in academia.As the United States continues to lose thescience and technology workforce that weare accustomed to importing from abroad,the country needs its homegrown scienceand technology researchers now morethan ever before. The obstacles that faculty face in managing work and familyresponsibilities significantly reduce thetalent pool available for this country’s scientific workforce. Shirley Jackson saidit well in her position paper on the “gapbetween the nation’s growing need for scientists, engineers, and other technicallyskilled works, and its production of them.”In her publication, The Quiet Crisis:

Falling Short in Producing American

Scientific and Technical Talent, she refersto this gap as having reached crisis propor-tion:

[This] crisis … could jeopardizethe nation’s pre-eminence andwell-being. The crisis has been mounting gradually, butinexorably, over several decades.If permitted to continue unmiti-gated, it could reverse the globalleadership Americans currentlyenjoy.… The need to make thenation safer from emerging terrorist threats that endangerthe nation’s people, infrastruc-ture, economy, health, and environment makes this gap allthe more critical and the need foraction all the more urgent.47

A recent Chronicle of Higher

Education article interviewed a femalechemist at the University of Oregon aboutthe dearth of female PhDs seeking academic careers at elite research universities. She said, “Women just are notapplying,” and referred to the climate oftop-notch science departments as having“toxic atmospheres.” She further stated,“Women are scared away because theydon’t see how they can put together a lifethat satisfies their personal and profes-sional goals.… They see that the best jobsare obtained by people who want to only doscience and give it 100 percent.”48

Because young scholars of today’s generation are demonstrating greater concern with managing personal and professional life issues, higher educationcan capitalize on the needs and desires of these new recruits to the academy.Institutional leaders can do this by providing the kind of flexibility that current scholars seek in order to have both fulfilling careers and personal lives.Institutional leaders can use policies andprograms that allow career flexibility as atool to recruit scholars to and retain themin the academy—those from science andtechnology as well as all other fields.


While these efforts are just the beginning of initiatives needed to makecultural shifts to attract, accommodate,and retain a more diverse group of scholars, they illustrate strategies neededto attract and retain the best faculty, espe-cially the growing numbers of women andpeople of color who are increasingly entering the academic career pipeline.Universities, such as the University ofMichigan, Ohio State University,Pennsylvania State University, and theUniversity of California, Berkeley, regularly assess the composition of the faculty by gender and race, some throughcohort studies of their faculty. These insti-tutions and others also have policies andprograms in place to improve faculty satisfaction and productivity as well as to enhance the institution’s competitiveadvantage in recruiting and retaining valued faculty members.

To lead on these issues—and to beeffective—may cost money. The NationalPanel plans to investigate financial modelsfor various scenarios of flexible facultycareer pathways to share soon. But the keyquestion for institutional leaders is, “Canwe afford not to invest in the future of our institutions by not investing in our faculty?” By spending money to establishflexible faculty career pathways, institu-tional leaders are investing in a more

diverse, more satisfied, and more produc-tive faculty, especially among those whoare hardest to attract and hold. Such aninvestment in tenure-track faculty members will bring a handsome return interms of loyalty and productivity and willexpand the pool of potential faculty members through supportive and friendlypolicies, programs, and environments. Inthis way, institutions will be better able toattract and keep the best talent available.

Institutional leaders can use policies and programs that allow career flexibility as a tool to recruit scholars to and retain them in theacademy—those from science and technology aswell as all other fields.


VIGNETTES

he Chronicle of Higher Education

is filled with first-person accounts fromwould-be, current, and in some cases, former academics, sharing their everydaywork and life experiences and adversitiesin the professoriate. In the vignettes thatfollow, several first-person stories havebeen borrowed from the Chronicle, othersare composed from stories told and heardon campuses across the country. Thesestories are shared here to demonstratehow tenure-track and tenured facultymight take alternative paths in theircareers when they have access to flexibleoptions through the implementation ofpolicies and programs such as those listedas recommendations in this report.

CarolynFor new PhDs who initially choose non-academic careers or who do not, atfirst, succeed in getting tenure-track positions, the National Panel suggests considering late entry or re-entry positions for those who want to consider atenure-track faculty career later in life. Forexample, Carolyn, who recently received adoctorate in chemistry from an Ivy Leagueuniversity, was described by her graduateadviser as having what it takes to land atenure-track position at a major researchuniversity. Instead, Carolyn has chosen to

work at a two-year college in Maryland topursue her love of teaching and spendmore time with her family. Should Carolyndecide a few years down the line that shewould like to pursue a tenure-track position at a major research university, re-entry options should be available to herto begin a line of research as an assistantprofessor with supervision from a senior

colleague. Such opportunities could be set up in a similar manner to most post-doctoral positions with supervision andguidance from senior colleagues.

Reconceptualizing theTenure-Track FacultyCareer Path

T

These stories are shared here to demonstratehow tenure-track and tenured faculty might takealternative paths in their careers when they have access to flexible options through theimplementation of policies and programs suchas those listed as recommendations in thisreport.


JonFor tenure-track or tenured faculty members who have difficulty handlingtemporary dependent care, health, orother personal issues along with their professional responsibilities, the NationalPanel suggests considering, for those whoseek them, temporary or permanent part-time positions that would not jeopardizetheir chances for future tenure or promo-tion. Jon, for instance, might be a candi-date to take advantage of a temporary,part-time tenure-track position. Jon, a his-torian at a Midwestern research university,describes himself as a “part-time singleparent” because his significant otherworks at another institution three hoursfrom their home, to which she commuteson Tuesday mornings and returns onThursday afternoons. While she’s away,Jon handles the care of their two pre-school–age children. Should Jon

and his partner find their professionalschedules, care for the children, and thecommute becoming increasingly unbear-able, Jon might consider dropping to parttime for a limited time period whileremaining on tenure track, to give himneeded time to focus on personal and professional priorities.

Max and WandaFor faculty members who seek to takeadvantage of family-friendly institutionalpolicies but are hesitant to do so for fear of later discrimination, the National Panel suggests that institutions make it apriority to redefine the model of the idealworker, in terms of the characteristicsappropriate for faculty members at 21st century colleges and universities.Then, women, persons of color, and thosewith dependent care responsibilities,health problems, or professional growthdilemmas will be in a position to succeedlike all other academics. Such accommo-dations would produce a climate in whichall faculty members would continue to bemore productive, more loyal, and ofgreater service to their institutions andtheir profession.

In some cases, life’s events preventacademics from being the ideal workersthat they are expected or even want to be. In fact, Max, whose wife has breast cancer,recalled:

I was an invited speaker at aCalifornia conference. I canceled.I had put together a panel for themajor meeting in my field, theOrganization of AmericanHistorians gathering in Memphis.The panel had been accepted. Ibowed out. I was on the editorialboard of a political-intellectualjournal. I resigned. I had invitedAmerican scholars—eight ofwhom had accepted—to fly toHungary to honor my graduateadviser in a symposium thissummer partially sponsored bythe Hungarian-AmericanFulbright Commission. I wrote toeveryone, apologized, and canceled the whole thing.

[T]he National Panel suggests that institutionsmake it a priority to redefine the model of theideal worker, in terms of the characteristicsappropriate for faculty members at 21st centurycolleges and universities.


In another case, Wanda was deniedtenure after she took two maternity leaveswhile on the tenure track. The university’sprovost reportedly told faculty membersthat taking maternity leave would “preju-dice the case for tenure,” and criticizedthe faculty member for failing to teachclasses while on maternity leave and forbeing unable to present a paper at a conference she could not attend becauseof medical complications during her pregnancy.

In the case of Wanda, she had legalrecourse and decided to follow that path.However, in both of these cases, availableinstitutional policies should have been inplace to assist them in managing their personal life dilemmas or crises. The climate of their institutions and their colleagues should be supportive to theextent of helping them overcome thesepersonal predicaments, not penalizingthem professionally or forcing them toretaliate (as in the case of Wanda) becauseof what they have to endure personally.

EllenFor faculty members who are seeking mentorship and guidance from senior colleagues or peers, the National Panelsuggests considering it an institutionalpriority to establish a more collegial environment in which faculty members are rewarded, not just for their individualsuccesses, but for collaborating, guiding,

and mentoring their colleagues. Ellen, a psychologist, describes the typical situation:

The new academic, looking tosenior colleagues for informationand advice, encouragement andfeedback, is likely to come awaydisappointed. The overemphasison individual achievement in ahighly competitive environmentmakes scholars focus on theirpersonal productivity. Gettingyour head out of your work longenough to notice the needs ofothers isn’t typically high on anacademic’s priority list.

Ellen goes on to give numerous helpful tips for individuals to network andbuild relationships. However, institutionalleaders also must play a role in creatingmore supportive and less competitiveenvironments, by rewarding faculty collaboration, mentoring, and increasedcollegial interactions.

[I]nstitutional leaders also must play a role in creating more supportive and less competitiveenvironments, by rewarding faculty collaboration,mentoring, and increased collegial interactions.


SamuelFor faculty members stressed by the multiple, competing demands to fulfillprofessional duties, or in need of down-time after completing a major researchproject, the National Panel suggests con-sidering the organization of departmentalunits’ work so that faculty members mayfocus on individual areas of interest(teaching, research, and professional service) while crediting the unit as a group for fulfilling departmental responsi-bilities. In the case of Samuel, a computerscientist at a northeastern research university, he needed his department to

pick up his teaching and advising respon-sibilities for an indefinite amount of timewhile he was on research leave so he coulddevote his attention to cutting-edgeresearch and development that would ultimately benefit the university and thecountry’s national security. To do this, thedepartment chair needs to distributeSamuel’s teaching and advising responsi-bilities among Sam’s colleagues, and the colleagues need to willingly assumethe extra responsibilities with the under-standing that they too will be on thereceiving end of such career flexibility inthe future.

PaulaFor mid-career or senior faculty memberswho are in need of refocusing their profes-sional energies and efforts for serving theinstitution in a different capacity, theNational Panel suggests providing optionsfor them to consider new leadershipopportunities, mentoring, and other professional development programs eitherwithin or outside the university. Havingreached a point in her life in which she had an empty nest (both children hadgraduated from college and were living ontheir own), Paula was looking for new professional challenges. She was growingtired of her professional routine as a sociologist: teaching, grading papers, and conducting research, and wanted toexplore administrative leadership oppor-tunities. Her provost nominated her andshe was accepted to pursue a yearlong fellowship with the American Council onEducation Fellows Program to introduceher to the world of administrative leader-ship and alternative career opportunities.

HenryFor senior faculty members who are nearing retirement, the National Panelsuggests implementing phased retirementincentives to allow senior retirement-agefaculty to leave their careers comfortablyand gracefully. With phased retirement,academics like Henry, a professor of history at a college in the Northeast, could ease into retirement instead of considering whether or not to retire.

Taken together, these options create anew vision of the academy as a place wherework and personal responsibilities co-existin a healthy, productive balance. The newacademy then would be a place that nur-tures all its constituencies, values all itsindividuals, and encourages all its mem-bers to flourish.

[T]hese options create a new vision of the academy as a place where work and personalresponsibilities co-exist in a healthy, productivebalance.


A NEW ACADEMY WITHIN REACHStrategic planning with respect to thetenure-track faculty career cycle requireshigher education leaders to reconceive thenotion of the ideal worker in academia andto incorporate into that model those whoare required by life’s circumstances to pursue alternative, nontraditional careerpaths. Before implementing policies andprograms that will help shape the newmodel of the ideal academic, the NationalPanel strongly recommends that institu-tional leaders conduct campus dialogueson these issues with all relevant partiesinvolved in the discussions in order todetermine the best approaches for theirinstitutional culture.

In spite of the varied approaches toimplementing these changes, there aresome commonalities that exist. Forinstance, ideal workers in the academy of the future should be able to enter thetenure-track professoriate at any age.Faculty should have the flexibility toachieve tenure after the sixth year reviewof their tenure portfolios, or later if theytake time off for paid or unpaid leave orbecause they temporarily work part timeto accommodate work-life issues. In otherwords, the ideal worker should have theflexibility, without loss of quality in theiroverall productivity, to address work-lifedilemmas for a period of time according tohis or her personal and family demands ifand when necessary.

Faculty also should have clear criteriaregarding what is expected of them inteaching, research, and service to achievetenure and promotion. They should beencouraged and provided time for profes-sional activities they find most compatiblewith their talents, and those activitiesshould be credited. They should be able toreadily find colleagues in and out of theinstitution with whom they can work collaboratively, from whom they receivementorship and career guidance, and in

whom they can trust to develop and maintain respectful collegial relations andinteractions.

Faculty should have professionalopportunities to explore intellectualrenewal when they are burned out in theclassroom, need time away from theresearch lab, or need respite after havingjust completed a book. Those among thesenior ranks should be willing to giveguidance to junior faculty as they oncereceived it (or should have received it) and they should be rewarded for doing so.Those facing the end of their careersshould be able to phase into retirement by,for example, teaching an occasionalcourse, completing a major research project or collaborating with another faculty member on a research project,advising students, helping the institutionraise money, or giving public lectures for aspecial institutional events.

The National Panel is convinced thateffective and strategic implementation ofthe policies, programs, and practices setforth in this report will ensure the preser-vation and nourishment of American col-leges and universities’ most valuable asset:faculties of bright, talented, committed,and diverse individuals, whose scholar-ship, research, and teaching will build onthe excellence that is our institutions’hallmark and retain the nation’s positionas having the finest system of higher edu-cation in the world. It is this institutionalcommitment that will permit our nationto retain its position as a leader in globaleducation, research innovation, and competitiveness worldwide.


References

1 Trower, C. A. & Chait, R. P. (2002, March/April). Faculty diversity: Too little for too long.Harvard Magazine, 104(4), 33–37.

2 Fogg, P. (2003, June 13). Family time: Why some women quit their coveted tenure-track jobs.The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(40), p. A10.

3 Clark, R. L. (2004, April). Changing faculty demographics and the need for new policies. Paper pre-sented at the meeting for the TIAA-CREF Institute Conference, New York, NY.

4 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated PostsecondaryEducation Data System (2001). Fall enrollment survey.

5 Trower & Chait, op. cit.

6 Flemming, J. (1984). Blacks in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

7 Trower & Chait, op. cit.

8 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated PostsecondaryEducation Data System (2001). Fall enrollment survey.

9 Williams, J. C. (1999). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it.New York: Oxford University Press.

10 University of California, Berkeley, UC Faculty Family Friendly Edge. (2003). Leaks in the academicpipeline for women. See http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/leaks.html.

Mason, M., Stacy, A., & Goulden, M. (2004). Report on the University of California work and family survey: Developing new initiatives for a family friendly package.See http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/uc%20family%20friendly.ppt.

Wolfinger, N., Mason, M., & Goulden, M. (2004). Problems in the pipeline: Gender, marriage, andfertility in the ivory tower. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American SociologicalAssociation, San Francisco.

11 Williams, J. C. (2003, April 18). The subtle side of discrimination. The Chronicle of HigherEducation, 49(32), p. C5.

12 Mason, M., Stacy, A., & Goulden, M. (2004). Report on the University of California work and familysurvey: Developing new initiatives for a family friendly package.See http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/uc%20family%20friendly.ppt.

13 Drago, R., Crouter, A. C., Wardell, M., & Willets, B. S. (2001, March 14). Final report to the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation for the faculty and families project: The Pennsylvania State University.Work-family working paper #01-02.


14 Trower, C. A. & Bleak, J. L. (2004). Study of new scholars: Statistical report. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Graduate School of Education.

15 Aguirre Jr., A. (2000). Women and minority faculty in the academic workplace: Recruitment,retention, and academic culture. ASHE-Eric Higher Education Report, 27(6). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Tierney, W. & Bensimon, E. (1997). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe.Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Turner, C. S. V. & Myers, S. L. (2000). Faculty of color in academe: Bittersweet success. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.

16 Blackburn, R.T., Hollenshead, C., Coen, P., Thomas, G., Waltman, J., & Wenzel, S. (1999). Universityof Michigan faculty work-life study report. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

17 Mason, M. & Goulden M (2004). “Marriage and baby blues: Redefining gender equity in the academy,” in Mommies and daddies on the fast track: Success of parents in demandingprofessions, edited by J. Jacobs & J. Madden.

18 Blackburn, op. cit.

19 Tierney, W., & Rhoads, R. (1993) Enhancing promotion, tenure and beyond: Faculty socialization asa cultural process. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports No. 6. Washington, DC: George WashingtonUniversity.

20 Aguirre Jr., op. cit.

Tierney & Rhoads, op. cit.


Tierney & Bensimon, op. cit.


23 Tierney & Bensimon, op. cit, p. 84.

24 Trower & Bleak, op. cit.

25 Blackburn, R.T., Hollenshead, C., Coen, P., Thomas, G., Waltman, J., & Wenzel, S. (1999). Universityof Michigan faculty work-life study report. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

The Ohio State University Commission on Staff Development and Work/Life. (2003). The Ohio StateUniversity faculty work environment and work/life quality report. Columbus: WFD Consulting, Inc.

Trower, C. A. & Bleak, J. L. (2004). Study of new scholars: Statistical report. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2004.

26 Trower & Bleak, op. cit.

27 Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: TheCarnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

28 Boyer, op cit.


29 Blackburn, R.T., Hollenshead, C., Coen, P., Thomas, G., Waltman, J., & Wenzel, S. (1999).University of Michigan faculty work-life study report. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Stacy, A (2004). Report on the University of California, Berkeley faculty climate survey, 2003.Unpublished report. See http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2004/10/08_climate.shtml.

The Ohio State University Commission on Staff Development and Work/Life. (2003). The Ohio StateUniversity faculty work environment and work/life quality report. Columbus: WFD Consulting, Inc.

30 The Ohio State University Commission on Staff Development and Work/Life, op. cit.

31 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1999). National survey ofpostsecondary faculty.


Stacy, op. cit.

The Ohio State University Commission on Staff Development and Work/Life, op. cit.

33 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1999). National survey ofpostsecondary faculty.


Stacy, op. cit.

The Ohio State University Commission on Staff Development and Work/Life, op. cit.

35 Aguirre Jr., A. (2000). Women and minority faculty in the academic workplace: Recruitment,retention, and academic culture. ASHE-Eric Higher Education Report, 27(6). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Tierney, W. & Bensimon, E. (1997). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe.Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Turner, C. S. V. & Myers, S. L. (2000). Faculty of color in academe: Bittersweet success. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.



38 Bland, C. J. & Bergquist, W. H. (1997). The vitality of senior faculty members: Snow on the roof—fire in the furnace. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 25(7). George Washington UniversityGraduate School of Education and Human Development.

39 Clark, R. L. (2004, April). Changing faculty demographics and the need for new policies. Paper presented at the meeting for the TIAA-CREF Institute Conference, New York, NY.

40 Clark, op. cit.

41 A study of women faculty in science at MIT. The MIT Faculty Newsletter. March 1999, 11(4).See http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html.

42 Massachusetts Institute of Technology News Office (2002, March 18). MIT completes ground-breaking studies on status of women faculty. See http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/genderequity.html.


43 Jackson, S. (2003, April 10). Standing on the knife-edge: The leadership imperative. The 2003William D. Carey Lecture presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Sciencemeeting, Washington, DC.

44 Dillon, S. (2004, December 21). U.S. slips in attracting the world’s best students.The New York Times.

45 Harty, M. (2004, October 8). State Department: We don’t want to lose even one student.The Chronicle of Higher Education.

46 Bollag, B. (2004, November 19). Enrollment of foreign students drops in U.S. The Chronicle ofHigher Education.

47 Jackson, S. The quiet crisis: Falling short in producing American scientific and technical talent.San Diego, CA: Building Engineering & Science Talent.See http://www.bestworkforce.org/PDFdocs/Quiet_Crisis.pdf.

48 Wilson, R. (2004, December 3). Women in higher education: Where the elite teach, it’s still a man’sworld. The Chronicle of Higher Education.


any colleges and universi-ties nationwide have already begun to realize the benefits of addressing facultywork-life issues, gender and racialinequities, faculty productivity, revitaliza-tion, and retirement. Provided in thisappendix are some promising practicesidentified on research university campusesto address these very issues. Effectivenessin implementation and use, as well as thecomprehensiveness of the programs,varies from institution to institution.While the practices are listed in terms ofthe issues they address, institutions willfind that concurrent implementation ofseveral solutions to issues at the differentstages of faculty careers will have a greaterimpact than just tweaking individual programs and policies. To address the cul-tural causes of the identified challenges,institutions and their leaders must thinkstrategically, not piecemeal.

The “promising practices” are listedhere not because all of them show evi-dence of having made a difference in themanagement of work and life for facultymembers or in changing the culture ofacademia, but because they hold thepromise of being able to do so. TheNational Panel recognizes that many other colleges and universities have takensteps to implement other policies and programs on their campuses to provide

their faculty with the kind of flexibilitythat is encouraged in this report. Thepractices that are cited here are listed onlyto serve as examples.

PROMISING PRACTICES TO ADDRESSWORK-LIFE ISSUES

• Paid leaves. Faculty membersshould be offered paid leaves forpregnancy, family care, and emer-gencies, with the option of longer-term unpaid leaves depending onindividual circumstances.

• Active Service with Modified Duties.

Faculty members should have theoption of a reduced workload, with-out loss of status, to handle familyresponsibilities.

• Stopping the Tenure Clock. Facultymembers should have the option toextend the probationary period upto two years following the birth oradoption of a child. The option ofstopping the tenure clock should beprovided with or without a leave ofabsence. Tenure decisions shouldbe made according to the same cri-teria (not higher expectations). Thetenure clock should be stoppedupon request and not be considereda matter for special negotiation.

Appendix I: Promising InstitutionalPractices

M


PROMISING PRACTICES FOR CAREERSOCIALIZATIONThe promising practices that campuseshave initiated to alter faculty career socialization are more programmatic thanpolicy-based. Some of the practices thatcampuses have adopted include the following:

• New Faculty Orientation. Theseprograms can be effective whenorganized and facilitated as manda-tory sessions for new faculty hiresacross schools and disciplines.Orientation programs enable newfaculty to network and to identifysupportive colleagues in their facultycohort and are particularly helpfulfor women and persons of color whomight be the sole woman or racialminority in their departments.

• Mentorship and Faculty Support

Networks. Faculty mentoring andsupport networks help new facultymembers gain greater confidencein their skills, become more politi-cally sophisticated, and learn howtheir institutions work and how toget things done. The mentor rolefor senior faculty also allows themto become an integral part of thedepartment/institution as theyserve to socialize new faculty to theprofession. Such initiatives enhancethe satisfaction and success of allfaculty members, but are especiallyhelpful to women and persons ofcolor.

• Department Chair Training.

Training to enhance the effective-ness of the chair as an academicleader within the department andwithin the institution as a wholeshould include training to sensitizedepartment chairs to race and gender differences in values, behav-iors, and interests and to encouragedepartment chairs to appreciate thedifferent strengths each facultymember brings to teaching,research, and institutional service.

• Departmental Handbook. This doc-ument should be updated regularlyto communicate clearly to facultyexpectations for research, teaching,and service. Tenure decisionsshould be based upon establishedcriteria.

• Commissions or Committees on the

Status of Women and/or Minorities.

Such official groups are typicallystaffed by deans of schools or colleges or other senior facultymembers and administrators whoreport to the provost or chief aca-demic officer. The major charge ofthese groups is generally to assessregularly the status of facultythrough surveys and interviewsanalyzed by gender and race, andreport their findings to the execu-tive team of the university. Manyuniversities distribute this informa-tion to the wider community forpublic scrutiny. Such groups oftenhave the stated objectives ofincreasing the representation andadvancement of women and facultyof color in tenure-line academic and of encouraging the equitableparticipation of all faculty ranks inleadership positions.


PROMISING PRACTICES FOR ENHANCINGFACULTY PRODUCTIVITYBecause research universities reward productivity in research and publications,promising practices for enhancing facultyproductivity are generally focused onincreasing scholarly output. The majorityof the established practices are developedfor tenure-track assistant professors toaugment their chances for achievingtenure. Such practices include:

• Reduced teaching load in first

semester or year. By reducing theteaching load to one or two coursesper semester, junior faculty are provided more time to focus ontheir research.

• Research Leaves. Such leaves, typically for one semester or year,excuse junior faculty from all teaching responsibilities, and faculty are remunerated with full orproportional pay and benefits.

• Opportunities for Research

Collaboration. Providing opportu-nities for junior faculty to collabo-rate with senior colleagues—eitherwithin or outside the institution—helps junior faculty establish theirline of research and networks withcolleagues and, theoretically, shortens the time needed to complete projects, thereby increasing productivity. This practice may be easier to accom-plish in the physical, natural, andsocial sciences than it is in thehumanities.

• Buy Out of Teaching Time. Somefaculty members obtain researchgrants from outside funding sourcesto buy out their teaching time sothey may focus primarily on theirresearch.

• Institutional Research Grants. Someinstitutions make such awards on acompetitive basis across schools and

disciplines; others provide them tothe departments to distribute.These grants are usually small butcritical in meeting the financial needsof faculty to conduct their research.

• Professional Development Fund.

This funding supports faculty toattend conferences to present theirresearch, to enhance their nationalor international reputation, and tobecome involved in national profes-sional organizations.

• Faculty Development. These services are broadly defined andvary from institution to institution.Some universities have facultydevelopment centers that assist faculty—junior and senior—in theirteaching and grant writing for theirresearch; others focus exclusivelyon developing pedagogical skills.

• Department Chair Responsibility.

Department chairs trained to beeffective in their critical role ascareer guides and directors for junior faculty recognize theirresponsibility to ensure than juniorfaculty members are not overbur-dened with teaching and serviceresponsibilities and have sufficienttime for research.

• Periodic Dossier Review. Someinstitutions incorporate this prac-tice before the third or fourth yearpre-tenure review, typically con-ducted by the department chair andincluding written feedback. Alongwith the review, some institutionsoffer faculty workshops for tenure-track faculty to help them buildtheir dossiers in preparation for therequired reviews.

• Third or Fourth Year Review. Thisadditional review is also conductedby the department chair with clearfeedback, expectations, objectives,and guidelines for achieving tenure.


PROMISING PRACTICES FOR FACULTYREVITALIZATIONSome initiatives and strategies are specifi-cally designed to help keep tenured facultymembers engaged, motivated, and excitedabout their work as academics. A few ofthese practices are:

• Post-tenure Review. This practice canbe used as a means to engage seniorfaculty in a reflective exercise toexplore new opportunities based ontheir strengths and interests.

• Accommodation of Shifts in

Professional Priorities and Values.

As faculty priorities and values shiftthroughout their careers, depart-ment chairs and deans help seniorfaculty preserve their vitality.Accommodations to such shiftsinclude affording senior facultymembers the opportunity to focuson specific interests (research orteaching) while balancing and integrating a range of professionalduties, as long as the department iscollectively meeting its workrequirements.

• Appointment to Important

Institutional Committees and Other

Campus-wide Leadership

Opportunities. Leadership opportunities play a critical role inindividual and institutional vitality.Valuing senior faculty memberswho assume leadership positionsprovides them greater self-esteem,engagement with colleagues, andan opportunity to develop orenhance their skills.

PROMISING PRACTICES FORENCOURAGING ACADEMIC CAREERCOMPLETION

• Phased Retirement Programs. Suchprograms allow faculty members tocontinue to teach and be active participants in their department orinstitution part time for a fixednumber of years.

• Faculty Retirement Cohorts. Suchgroups are organized with the goalof encouraging cohort members toassist each other in the preparationfor and adjustment to retirement.

• Faculty Emeritus Center. Withgrowing numbers of faculty retire-ments and healthier retirees, suchcenters are being developed oncampuses around the country tocombat the isolation many profes-sors feel once retired. Such centersalso offer retired faculty members achance to socialize, discuss topicswith fellow intellectuals, teach anoccasional course, advise juniorprofessors or students, give a lecture, and find encouragementfor their scholarly pursuits.

• Post-career Counseling. Such programs offer opportunities forretirees to explore possible part-time options at the institution orelsewhere.

• Use Expertise of Retired Faculty.

Retired faculty members may beactively engaged in the institutionor department through giving occasional lectures or public presentations, helping withfundraising, or mentoring juniorfaculty members or students.

American Association for HigherEducation (AAHE)Project Title: Special Issue of Change

Magazine on the Work-Family Lives ofFaculty

The goal of this project is for AAHE toproduce a special issue of Change on work-family issues faced by faculty at institutions of higher education. The issue will distinguish between the diag-noses of problems facing faculty and theidentification of possibilities for alternatecareer paths, including part-time tenuredpaths. In addition, AAHE will organize aface-to-face seminar and web cast of 100 people in Washington, DC, of issuescovered in the articles.

American Association of UniversityProfessors (AAUP)Principal Investigator: John Curtis Project Title: Access to the Profession

The goal of this project is to support thedevelopment of policies, procedures, andresources that will enable tenure-track faculty in their probationary period tosimultaneously pursue tenure and partici-pate fully in the lives of their family mem-bers. Other goals include to help initiate anew discussion on the status of contingentfaculty, to explore models of academicwork that preserve academic freedom for part-time faculty, and to investigatelimitations on tenured positions and theprocess by which those positions are allocated.

American Sociological AssociationPrincipal Investigators: Roberta Spalter-Roth, Ivy Kennelly, and William ErskineProject Title: A Study of the Effects ofResource Allocation and Family FormationStrategies on Achieving Tenure by Parents

In this recently completed project, theinvestigators found that using work-lifepolicies as a form of resources increasesthe probability that academic mothers will simultaneously work fewer than 50 hours a per week and publish morethan mothers who do not have or do notuse these policies. The investigators havepublished a research brief, When Is the

Best Time to Have a Baby? Institutional

Resources and Family Strategies Among

Early Career Sociologists.

American Women in Science (AWIS)Principal Investigator: Catherine DidionProject Title: A Literature Review ofGender Differences Among Non-TenuredFaculty in Science and Engineering

The goals of this project are to review literature on the status of non–tenure-trackfaculty in science and engineering; collectand review institutional and national data related to tenure status, gender, anddiscipline; identify gender differencesamong non–tenure-track faculty in scienceand engineering; review current trendsand gaps in research; and finally, dissemi-nate literature and resources from thereport on the AWIS web site.

Appendix II: Other Alfred P. SloanFoundation–Funded Projects that Focuson Enhancing Academic CareerFlexibility



Brandeis UniversityPrincipal Investigator: Linda PololiProject Title: Research on Barriers andOpportunities to Women’s Advancementin Academic Medical Careers

The goal of this project is to examine the possible reasons, including familydemands that limit women’s advancementin academic medical careers. The prin-cipal investigator and her colleagues areassembling a National Advisory Board ofMedical School Deans, teaching hospitalchief executive officers, and presidents ofinfluential professional organizations.Results will be disseminated to help develop a more aggressive examination of what needs to be changed to remedywomen’s lack of advancement in academic medicine.

College of William and MaryPrincipal Investigator: David LeslieProject Title: Phased Retirement

The goal of this project is to translate intobroader suggestions for policy and prac-tice the experiences of institutions andindividuals involved in retirement plansthat provide incentives for faculty tochoose flexible—often part-time—work.Phased retirement plans are the specificfocus.

Pennsylvania State UniversityPrincipal Investigators: Robert Drago and Carol ColbeckProject Title: The Mapping Project:Exploring the Terrain of U.S. Colleges andUniversities for Faculty and Families

In this recently completed project, theinvestigators extended the theory of biasavoidance, finding three categories thereof: bias acceptance—the making andmeeting of family commitments withresulting career penalties assumed orplanned for; daddy privilege—men arelauded for intrusion of family on workcommitments, women would experiencebias against caregiving for similar intru-sions; and bias resistance—actions thateither directly or indirectly challenge biasagainst caregiving.

Purdue UniversityPrincipal Investigators: Judith Gappa, Ann Rice, and Andrea TriceProject Title: Alternative Faculty Careers

The goal of this project is for the investigators to publish a book in whichthe authors will examine what constitutesmeaningful careers for the changing academic workforce that is composed ofolder faculty and more women, and toidentify alternative career paths that aremore relevant than the paths of the currenttenure-track system.


University of California, BerkeleyPrincipal Investigators: Mary Ann Mason,Angelica Stacy, Marc Goulden, and Carol HoffmanProject Title: Research on FamilyFormation and Professional Advancementin Academia

The goals of this project are to determinewhich women are most disadvantaged inobtaining tenure-track positions in thebench sciences, the humanities, and thesocial sciences at four-year colleges anduniversities. Can publication historyexplain the deleterious effects of familyformation on women’s academic careers?Can childbirth account for the higher rate at which women take non-tenure instructor or research staff positions?

University of KansasPrincipal Investigators: Lisa Wolf-Wendelland Kelly WardProject Title: Research on the InstitutionalBarriers and Facilitators to Family-Friendly Policies for Faculty Members

The goal of this project is to influence colleges and universities to increase theiradoption and use of work and family policies. The investigators will identify theconditions within campus cultures thatsurround the creation, implementationand use of campus work-family policies.

University of Michigan, Center for theEducation of WomenPrincipal Investigators: CarolHollenshead, Jean Waltman, JeanneMiller, Louise August, and Beth SullivanProject Title: The Dual Ladder in HigherEducation—Research, Resources, and theAcademic Workforce Dual LadderClearinghouse

The goal of this project is to examine howthe “dual ladder” for faculty in higher education affects non–tenure-track faculty.This project will support efforts toimprove the academic workplace, by conducting research on institutionalemployment policies and work-life condi-tions for non–tenure-track employees;establishing a central clearinghouse ofresearch, policies, and practices; anddeveloping specialized print and otherresources for use by key academic audiences.

University of VirginiaPrincipal Investigators: Steven Rhoads andCharmaine YoestProject Title: The Family, Gender andTenure Project

The goal of this project is to assess theeffect of parental leave and stopped tenureclock policies on “leveling the playingfield” for female professors. The broaderobjective is to identify the policies, practices, and procedures that are mosthelpful in promoting achievement amongfemale professionals.


University of Washington ADVANCECenter for Institutional ChangePrincipal Investigators: Eve Riskin, KateQuinn, Sheila Edwards Lange, and Joyce YenProject Title: Part-Time Faculty Careers atthe University of Washington

In this recently completed project, theauthors found that few faculty membersutilized the progressive part-time optionavailable to them, but that those who didwere pleased with the flexibility a part-time appointment provided. These facultyacknowledged the chilly climate for theuse of family-friendly policies. Salaryreductions were seen as disincentives, andthese policies were not widely known orimplemented. Their findings can be foundin a published report, Exploring Part-Time

Tenure Track Policy at the University of

Washington.

University of Wisconsin SystemPrincipal Investigators: Bernice Durandand Louise Root-RobbinsProject Title: Academic CareerAdvancement

The goal of this project is to reduce thelimitations and restrictions of academiccareer paths, so that individuals whochoose to work in the academy can havemore flexibility and more options thanwhat currently exists to achieve a satisfying and successful career that can be accomplished without sacrificing a fulfilling personal life. The objectivesinclude collecting and analyzing employeedata with the intention of raising awareness of current trends and employment practices for faculty andinstructional academic staff (both tenureand non-tenure line); identifying thosepolicies and practices that can beimproved and applied more consistently;and designing processes to efficiently andeffectively bring about constructive, sustainable changes.



One Dupont Circle NW

Washington, DC 20036-1193

Phone: (202) 939-9390

Fax: (202) 833-5696

[email protected]

www.acenet.edu

an agenda for excellence - american council on education · 2019-06-05 · excellence in teaching...

Documents