|
The Academic Workplace In This Issue
Letter from the Editor Many writers and thinkers — the popular, the political, and the pundits — are nostalgic for the kind of community from the American fifties with its seductive facade of simplicity and solidarity. Perceptions of order, sameness and predictability are attractive to the memory. But memory is selective, obscuring the contradictions of a society that traded heavily in denial. We buried the anguish of economic devastation and war underground. The promise of control over people, information, ideas, the environment was irresistible. We turned to the comfort of rules, which while rigid, were clear. Limits were set, boundaries drawn. Middle American families shrank to the smallest acceptable proportions, jettisoning extended kin to migrate to the isolation of the suburbs. The cities, with their miscellaneous populations, represented the pathology of change to be managed by social programs designed to decrease difference. Change, we thought, could happen when and where we wanted it to. We believed we knew who we were, and we were all part of the same seamless story. But this story lacked context. It was a tale disconnected from the past and fearful of the future. Life was reduced to tractable units, which, when held up to the mirror, gave the illusion of community. Yet, not one face was visible. As always, beneath the surface, change moved at its own constant pace, and marginal groups lived rich, though eclipsed, lives. Women, bridled by repressive patriarchal values, found ways to fracture the silence of isolation and forge connections through volunteer activities and neighborhood gatherings. Ethnic and racial minorities thwarted the racist configurations of an anxious public and built networks among themselves through extended families and churches. Deep in the shadows, gays and lesbians created intricate communities. Over the past few decades, these voices have gotten louder and more insistent. The changes that took place in relative obscurity are now "out of the closet" and affect almost every American institution. The agents of these changes are often the target of accusations that they are responsible for the dissolution of American society, as if it were ever truly whole. Higher education also lived its own ironic existence as an exclusive enclave claiming omnipotence in the creation and dissemination of knowledge. As with the rest of society, change in higher education feels like it is out of control, its traditional fellowship threatened. Now everyone and everything is getting in, from increasingly diverse student and faculty populations with their variously different world views to the often unbending rules of the marketplace. Higher education now finds itself choked by information. The paradox of technology — phone and fax, email and voicemail — gives us the false impression of increased productivity. In truth, it often facilitates reaction time, not reflection. The sense of urgency, while partially real, escalates. Change is not out of control, but we may be. In his feature article, Jack Schuster highlights the conflict between tradition and transition. He summarizes the changing demographics of the new faculty, noting that while their composition is altered, their work priorities are not, and the effects of both on the quality of undergraduate education are sobering. Diana Brigham Beaudoin, in her review of Bensimon's and Tierney's Promotion and Tenure, points to the troubling realities of these new faculty negotiating traditional promotion and tenure systems. She underscores the authors' warnings not to rush to dismantle what we have until new systems are in place, wise advice about the general process of change. While higher education is in the knowledge business, it has only a modest understanding of the nature of change — with its rhythms and tides, its relentless resistance to excessive control. We need to learn when it is appropriate to float on the tide and when to lower the oars. Sharon Singleton Events Following our successful think tank symposium last spring, NERCHE will convene members from its five think tanks for two events at the Harvard Faculty Club with prominent figures in higher education. Participants in these "informal chats" will consider critical issues facing institutions of higher education today. On Thursday, March 6, 1997 Arthur Chickering, Senior Associate at NERCHE and Visiting Distinguished Professor at Vermont College, Norwich University, will discuss "Breaking Down Boundaries Between Academic and Student Affairs." Chickering, well known for his Seven Principles for Undergraduate Education co–authored with Zelda Gamson, will talk about the creation of a University Center at George Mason University which bridges the functional and theoretical areas of the academic and co–curriculum. As part of the dialogue, think tank members will share their efforts to create a similar synergy. June 12, 1997: End of the Year Talk by Judith Ramaley On Friday, June 12, 1997, Judith Ramaley, President of Portland State University, will join think tank members for lunch and a conversation about "Creating Community in the Midst of Change." Ramaley will describe Portland State's multi–staged effort to create a model urban research university that engages faculty, staff, students and community participants in public scholarship. Funded Projects Faculty Professional Service Project NERCHE will publish detailed findings of the research in articles and a series of short reports over the coming year. Plans are underway to present the findings to participating institutions in a series of on–campus roundtable discussions. Portfolio Project For more information on the Program on Faculty Professional Service and its projects, contact Cathy Burack, Project Director, at (617) 287–7745. The New England Resource Center for Higher Education is devoted to strengthening higher education's contributions to society through collaboration. It does this by working on a continuing basis with colleges and universities in New England through think tanks, consultation, workshops, conferences, research, and action projects. The Faculty in Transition: What does the future hold for the faculty at American colleges and universities? Who will these faculty members be? To what extent will their roles change? And what are the implications of these issues for the challenges of creating and maintaining campuses that thrive as teaching– learning communities? The answers to these basic questions are critical. To a large degree, who the faculty are and what they do define how effectively higher education functions and shapes the contributions of our campuses to society. In a rapidly changing environment that presses on higher education from so many directions, it is too easy to lose sight of the central importance of recruiting and maintaining a dedicated and competent faculty. I will argue here that while faculty demographics are changing quickly and dramatically, the work of faculty has largely remained the same, posing a particular challenge to higher education. Much of what I report here grows out of a study undertaken with two colleagues, Martin J. Finkelstein and Robert K. Seal, for the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics. We were commissioned to conduct a secondary analysis of the Center's 1993 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, the largest national survey of faculty in two decades. The changing faculty profile. For purposes of our study, we bisected the faculty into two cohorts: new and senior, confining our analysis to full–time actively teaching faculty. We defined the "new cohort" as faculty members with seven or fewer years of full–time teaching. Perhaps our most surprising finding was the sheer size of the new cohort which accounted for fully one–third (161,000 or 33.4%) of the full–time faculty (483,000). In an academic labor market perceived to be almost stagnant, the reality is that a steady stream of hiring has been ongoing. While there are appreciable differences by field and institutional type, across all fields and types of institutions, one of every three regular faculty members is relatively new to his or her academic career. The future of the academy surely resides with this sizable contingent, soon to rise to significant influence. So, what do we know about these newcomers? Here are a few highlights from our findings: Gender. Two of five (40.7%) of these new entrants are women (compared to 27.9% women among the senior faculty cohort). Their presence has increased in every sector of the academy. For instance, women account for the majority (54.3%) of the new hires in the humanities. And, while only 28.5 percent of the new cohort natural scientists are women, that is a considerable increase over their proportion, 16.4 percent, among senior cohort scientists. At research universities, the new cohort women account for nearly half (48.0%) of all women faculty, whatever their academic field. Race. Whereas 11.1 percent of the senior faculty cohort are non–white, the proportion rises to 16.6 percent among new cohort faculty. Most dramatically, Asians/Pacific Islanders, who constituted 4.2 percent of the senior cohort, account for 7.7 percent of the new cohort and 9.4 percent of new cohort males. Nativity. Similarly, whereas non–native US citizens comprise 12.2 percent of the senior cohort, their numbers have increased to 17.0 percent among their new cohort colleagues. Summarizing the magnitude of this demographic shift is the change in the proportion of "traditional" faculty members. While native–born white males, who for so many decades dominated the faculty ranks, account for 59.5 percent of the senior cohort, among new cohort faculty, this proportion shrinks to 43.4 percent. This shift is particularly evident at the research universities (from 64.0% native–born white males in the senior cohort to 45.2% in the new) and, among program areas, in the humanities (54.2% to 36.3%) and the natural sciences (67.0% to 46.2%). Another development regarding the composition of the faculty is profoundly important: the proportion of faculty members who are part–time continues to rise as the proportion of full–time faculty who are on the tenure track diminishes. Current estimates suggest that about 42 percent of all faculty, by headcount, are part–timers — up sharply from about one–third a decade or so ago. As noted, our study focused on full–time faculty, and found that among this group, only two thirds (67.2%) of the new cohort faculty are in tenured or tenure track appointments compared to 84.2 percent of their senior colleagues. Taken together, these two trends translate into a rapidly shrinking cadre of core faculty members. The Work of Faculty. Despite the changes in who the faculty are, the degree of change in what the faculty do is much more attenuated. Both cohorts tend to rely on the same (mostly traditional) teaching techniques. That is, these acorns did not fall very far from the tree. More problematic is what we found about the faculty's preferences for how they spend their time. In an era of pressure both from within and from outside the academy to pay more attention to undergraduate education, it might have been expected that the newer faculty would evince more interest in teaching than their (admittedly more secure) senior colleagues. In actuality, the opposite holds true: the preference of the new faculty cohort — in all fields, in all types of institutions, and of both genders is to shift some of the time that they currently devote to teaching into research. A Comparison of New and Senior Faculty Cohorts
As one advocate of giving teaching an "upgrade," let me sound a more hopeful note. Study upon study, including our own analysis, has established that women faculty in all types of institutions and fields tend to look more favorably on their teaching responsibilities than do their male colleagues. With the steady infusion of women into the faculty ranks, a balance that is more sensitive to the needs of undergraduate education may be forthcoming. Faculty and Community. These changes present formidable challenges to the creation of community. They reflect the corresponding challenges that confront the larger society as the nation leaves further behind the illusory melting pot image it once embraced. In addition, the inexorable momentum of academic specialization, the growing pace of faculty diversification, and the increasing proportion of academic appointments going to part–time or limited–term contracts create powerful fragmenting effects. And, too, the escalating uses of technology have made less imperative the direct human contact that for centuries has defined traditional teaching — learning communities. In the face of these powerful centrifugal forces, are there strategies that will facilitate a more communitarian approach to higher learning? Will it suffice for campuses to devote their efforts to facilitating cyber–communities? Easy answers do not exist. Inevitably, different educational philosophies about what is important clash as these issues are confronted. Nevertheless, several ideas come to mind for helping the ever more diverse faculty to become agents for the solution, rather than exacerbaters of the problem. Organize and support more activities around effective teaching. While teaching techniques appropriately vary from one field to another, there are huge expanses of common ground on which teaching–related activity can be developed. Encourage and support efforts to expand interdisciplinary curricula and team teaching. Take seriously the importance of shared governance principles in the development of a campus's priorities, both short–term and long–range. In this pursuit, genuine support of academic administrators is always crucial. Extend multicultural programming on campus which actively involves faculty as resources. As mentioned above, the American faculty is becoming increasingly internationalized. The tasks of diversifying the faculty and contributing intrinsically to a multicultural environment on campus are vital to the nation's growing interdependence in a shrinking world. In the face of increasing diversity on campuses and the forces that propel us in more insular directions, an agreement upon basic strategies designed to reinforce community will surely make a significant difference. NERCHE Consultation & Outreach Under the auspices of the Program on Faculty and Professional Service and Academic Outreach, NERCHE offers consultations and specially designed workshops to campuses at all stages of thinking about or implementing policies and structures that support service and outreach. Most recently, we have added Exploring Faculty–Community Partnerships, a series of workshops designed by Cheryl Gooding, NERCHE Visiting Fellow 1995–1996, to help faculty plan and engage in work with communities. Our consultation services in general education grow out of NERCHE's work in this area and coincide with the publication of Revitalizing General Education in a Time of Scarcity, edited by NERCHE Associates Sandra Kanter, Howard London, and Director Zelda Gamson. In addition is the General Education Resource Network (GERN), a consulting group comprised of members of the Liberal Learning Think Tank and focused on assisting campuses in the process of rethinking their general education programs. The Challenge of ADA – What Faculty and Administrators Can Do To Support Disabled Students offers models of collaboration between administrative divisions and faculty and is presented by Jean Woodbury, Assistant Dean, Academic Affairs at Framingham State College, Vicki McGillin, Dean for Advising and Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Wheaton College, and Lynn Willett, Vice President for Student Affairs at Bridgewater State College. NERCHE is also available to provide assistance or referral on any number of topics. Please don't hesitate to call (617) 287–7740 for more information or return the form on NERCHE's Back Page. Think Tanks Academic Affairs Think Tank While technology is on many of NERCHE's think tank agendas this year, the Academic Affairs Think Tank will devote the entire year to the theme, The Impact of Technology. Among the topics the group will examine are: planning issues, distance learning, curriculum and instruction, and libraries and academic support. As chief academic officers, this group must think strategically about technology in relation to campus mission and, perhaps, to a larger state system. At the first meeting, think tank members discussed issues which complicate planning and policy development on their campuses. The group cited a number of difficulties, including: the need to make decisions about an area where they may have no experience or expertise, how to balance competing academic and administrative needs, and the possible long term expense of choosing one system over another. Despite these and other challenges, members were enthusiastic about the potential of technology to build community on campus, to infuse new interest into the teaching–learning process, and to reconfigure faculty–student relationships. Several of the members currently engaged in these issues have shared their institutional examples as case studies for the group. Members of the Academic Affairs Think Tank 1996–1997 Associate Deans Think Tank Dorothea Alexander, Assistant Dean of Academic Affairs at North Shore Community College, and Gwendolyn Rosemond, Associate Dean at Salem State College, facilitated a session on the impact of the increase in adjunct and part–time faculty at all institutions — public and private, two–year and four–year. In addition to this workforce shift, members discussed the effects of a renewed focus on student retention and faculty workload on the training, mentoring and supervision of adjuncts and part– timers, and shared their own experiences with professional development for part–timers. Among other topics to be discussed this year is the relationship between technology and academic advising and the role of general counsel in academic decision–making, with guest Nancy Thomas, NERCHE Visiting Fellow. Members of the Associate Deans Think Tank 1996–1997 Liberal Learning Think Tank At its first meeting, NERCHE Senior Associate Jan Green, who has consulted on this topic for many years, helped the group map upcoming sessions. Topics will address campus mission, curriculum design, program implementation, faculty development, outcomes issues, evaluation, grant writing and reaccreditation as they relate to general education programs. In addition, GERN members expect to produce a general education consultant resource book for use in the field. Members of the Liberal Learning Think Tank 1996–1997 Department Chairs Think Tank The ensuing discussion raised a number of important issues and questions. Has the chair's relationship with faculty changed in this era of new demands and problems? Does the chair's role vary among different types of institutions? What do we mean by "collegiality" and does this notion necessarily connote "collaboration" and "community"? How do we define "democracy" and "consensus" in the departmental context? Other topics discussed were the optimum length of the chair's tenure and the chair's ambiguous and bifurcated role in representing both institutional and faculty goals and interests. At the next meeting, Ronnie Elwell, Chair, Human Services and Social Sciences at Lesley College, led a discussion of mentoring new faculty. In addition to their continuing conversations about important issues for chairs, the group will prepare to assist other chairs as they wrestle with complex and changing responsibilities. Members of the Department Chairs Think Tank 1996–1997 Student Affairs Think Tank At this meeting, members reflected on their personal changes since beginning work in Student Affairs, contemplating the tensions between pragmatism and idealism, the passion for and belief in the importance of work with students, and the balance between personal life and work. Moving from the personal to the institutional, the group discussed the need for a broader institutional view, for new knowledge to address student and institutional demands, and new roles for mentors. The conversation then turned to the future of higher education from the vantage point of members' campuses, previewing the topics for future meetings — accountability, governance, technology and leadership. The meeting concluded with the "New and Improved Round Robin," an opportunity for members to present new research, books, articles, practices, policies and legislation of importance to Student Affairs. Among those discussed were Joining the Tribe: growing up gay and lesbian in the `90's by Linnea Due; "Cohen v. San Bernadino," a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that will require very specific language in sexual harassment policies regarding "hostile environments," and the "Solomon Amendment" which requires that campuses provide upon request names and addresses of students to the military for recruitment purposes. Members of the Student Affairs Think Tank 1996–1997 Visiting Fellows Judith Miller is currently Associate Professor of English, a teaching scholar in British Romanticism at Sacred Heart University, where she was formerly the Chair of the Faculty of Communi-cation Studies. Her background includes administrative roles in developmental education and departmental leadership, with faculty development being one of her greatest interests. Along with Janice Green, Raquel Halty, and Walter Carroll of NERCHE's Department Chairs Think Tank, she served on a panel discussing the changing role of the departmental chair at last spring's AAHE Faculty Roles and Rewards conference in Atlanta. She will continue to work with the Department Chairs Think Tank this year. Nancy Thomas, an attorney with expertise in higher education law, has served as counsel to a university, independent schools, and other nonprofit organizations. In 1990, she took a sabbatical from the law to attend the Harvard Graduate School of Education, earning an Ed.D. in June 1996. Her research interests include the ethical choices and obligations of faculty members and administrators, developing and maintaining an ethical campus climate, and the role of the higher education community in defining, enhancing, and modeling "character." Jean Woodbury returns to NERCHE as a Visiting Fellow to offer the workshop, The Challenge of ADA — What Faculty and Administrators Can Do To Support Disabled Students, to regional audiences. Book Review From l992 to l994 the authors conducted over 300 interviews with faculty at l2 colleges and universities — public and private institutions, research universities, and liberal arts colleges. While the framework for promotion and tenure varies among institutions, Tierney and Bensimon conclude that the experiences, frustrations, and challenges of faculty members are often remarkably similar. "Some faculty feel isolated, and others never `learn the rules of the game.' Administrators often want to hide the `bad news,' and others do not want to believe stories about life `in the trenches' that document overwork and stress for women and faculty of color" (p. 4). In Chapter l, Tierney and Bensimon analyze current critiques of higher education ills in terms of three philosophical frames of reference — conservative, liberal humanist, and critical postmodernist — and the implications of each view for the promotion and tenure system. I found this discussion of multiple interpretations of understanding academic communities and the values they transmit to be provocative and enlightening, worthy of assigned reading to every new student of higher education. In a literature replete with negativism and criticism often directed at faculty, Promo-tion and Tenure offers sometimes painful insights into the ambiguities and stresses in the lives of junior faculty. Using qualitative interview data on faculty socialization, the authors provide accounts of the experiences of junior faculty in the interview and hiring process, their entree into the organization and evolving relationships with colleagues, (the sources through which they come to understand what is expected of them) and, ultimately, their success or failure in the promotion and tenure process. Underscoring these accounts are the strong personal and professional feelings generated by the outcome of a long and arduous process. A female professor expresses the loneliness and isolaltion of feeling she doesn't fit in. An African–American professor is overworked by committee assignments and a steady stream of minority students who look to him for advice and support. This "hidden workload," however, is overlooked when he comes up for promotion and tenure. A new faculty member is pressured to publish with little time for his family. While the academy espouses the virtues of teaching, research and publishing, and service, the fact is that research and publishing are the coin of the realm. Teaching is not weighted heavily in most promotion and tenure proceedings, and service seems even less valued, in spite of the fact that it is expected of everyone, consumes large amounts of time, and often contributes significantly to campus governance and the quality of student life. Tierney and Bensimon conclude that the system needs to be changed and, in the final chapter of the book, offer suggestions for reform. While they raise fundamental, legitimate questions about the tenure process and what it professes to support and value, with all its inconsistencies and contradictions, they wisely caution against dismantling a system that may have outlived its usefulness before a constructive substitute has been created. I liked this book for its straightforward treatment of a complex and emotionally charged topic and would put it on every academic's "must read" list this year. Nevertheless, the authors give scant treatment to several important influences that shape the promotion and tenure process. First, the degree to which the authors suggest fundamental change is heartening, and threatening, to the academy and its reward structure as we now know it. Little is said about overcoming the human instincts to put other junior members through the same socialization gauntlet that we ourselves have run as scholars and tenured members of the academy. Second, the study ignores pressures from outside the academy, e.g., accrediting agencies, that exert strong influence over standards of faculty excellence and reward systems. Finally, the pressures to act quickly and decisively in today's rapidly changing environment with cost containment as a guiding premise would seem to preclude long, philosophical, and often contentious discussions about mission and purpose that Tierney and Bensimon advocate. "Creating community in the midst of change" is a central proposition of Tierney's and Bensimon's study. It is understood that different individuals and groups will have competing interpretations of reality and that these differences are essential as organizations continue to change and evolve. Rather than demanding suppression of one's identity and expecting new faculty to simply cope with the situations in which they find themselves, the challenge facing the academic community is to support the development of organizations in which concern for others is central. The term "academic community" rings hollow if there is little sense of social obligation to one another and a reward system that does not reflect this as an important community value. Higher Education Sites on the World Wide Web
NERCHE News Alan E. Guskin, Chancellor of Antioch University, addressed the assembly on "Facing the Future: The Change Process in Restructuring Universities." This topic is Part III of his series entitled Reducing Student Costs and Enhancing Student Learning – the University Challenge of the 1990's. NERCHE Director, Zelda Gamson, moderated a panel of think tank members who responded to Dr. Guskin from the perspective of their campuses. Following the general session, think tank members led a series of breakout sessions focusing on the key issues of rethinking academic community to support student learning. The day concluded with NERCHE Senior Associate Arthur Chickering's remarks and observations. This fall, NERCHE published a white paper, the second in a series, summarizing Guskin's remarks. (See Back Page for ordering information.) New NERCHE Staff Outreach Coordinator, Jane Dixon, has been a NERCHE Research Associate with the Faculty Professional Service Project and has conducted research on low-income and minority students' access to higher education. Before joining NERCHE, she worked as a project manager for The Education Resources Institute (TERI). Katherine Honey, Departmental Assistant, comes to NERCHE with an extensive background in primary and secondary education and continues to pursue her interests in improving education and promoting gender equity. Presently, she is developing a network of support and information for parents of students with disabilities and a photography exhibit on women who use math, science, and technology in their work. Sponsors News from the Doctoral Program The Program Office is located in the Graduate College of Education on the first floor of the Wheatley building. To receive a brochure or other information, please call Virginia MacKay at (617) 287–7601; (617) 287–7664 (fax). Program faculty include: NERCHE Director Honored "The spirit of collaboration gives shape and meaning to your life's work. With consummate skill, you unwind common purpose from the tangle of sometimes conflicting goals and agendas that is higher education. An unflagging belief in the power of community propels you across academic boundaries. With your roots as a sociologist at the University of Michigan and, since 1988, at the University of Massachusetts Boston, you have been both professor and administrator. Builder of bridges and consensus, you call these different camps to action on behalf of a single mission: the pursuit of educational excellence. Your own scholarship has contributed much to the pursuit. A tireless advocate for the value — indeed, the necessity — of liberal learning, you have led studies to examine the state of undergraduate education in the U.S. and the impact of general education curricula. In articles and lectures, and in books such as Seven Principles for Good Practice in Higher Education, you have influenced colleagues in national and international forums. A commitment to innovation fuels your work as founder and director of the New England Resource Center for Higher Education. With vigor, vision, and a commendable tolerance of red tape and tight budgets, you guide the center's efforts to improve colleges and universities as workplaces, to strengthen faculty–administration ties, and to raise the profile of women and minorities in higher education. That the Center so ably practices the collegiality it preaches is eloquent testimony to the effectiveness of your leadership — and to the genuine warmth and caring you bring to the task. In word and deed, you invite us to step outside the comfortable confines of established practice, to seek creative solutions, to embrace change. You inspire on all counts. We thank you for that inspiration, Zee Gamson, and for sharing so generously your keen insight and unquenchable optimism." Congratulations To Sandra Elman, Academic Affairs Think Tank member, has moved from the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) to Seattle, where she is the Executive Director of the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education at the Northwest Association. Student Affairs Think Tank member and former Dean of Student Affairs at Lyndon State College, Paula Gagnon, is now Vice President of Student Affairs at New Hampshire Technical Institute. Liberal Learning Think Tank member and Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education at Northeastern University, Andrea Leskes, has taken the position of Vice President for Academic Affairs and Professor of Comparative Literature at the American University of Paris. Academic Affairs Think Tank member, William Lopes, is now Interim President at Westfield State College, where he was formerly Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. Peggy Maki, Academic Affairs Think Tank member and former Vice President, Academic Dean, and Dean of the Faculty at Bradford College is now Associate Director of the Commission for Higher Education at the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC). Tamar March, Academic Affairs Think Tank member and former Vice President of Academic Affairs at New England College, has moved to Radcliffe College, where she is Dean of Educational Programs and Director of Undergraduate Programs. Academic Affairs Think Tank member, Ray Rodrigues, has left his post as Vice President for Academic Affairs at North Adams State College to become Vice President of Academic Affairs at the University of Texas at Brownsville. Ira Rubenzahl, of the Academic Affairs Think Tank, has moved from Greenfield Community College where he was Vice President of Academic Affairs to become President of Capital Community–Technical College. NERCHE's Back Page Scholars of higher education have long recognized that existing reward systems and structures in academic communities do not weight faculty professional service as they do teaching and research. In the past five years, however, many colleges and universities have found innovative ways to define, document, and evaluate faculty professional service in traditional promotion and tenure systems. Other institutions have created or expanded alternate faculty reward systems, including faculty profiles in service, merit pay, and post–tenure reviews emphasizing service. Based on data from a nationwide sample, this paper discusses a variety of innovations and offers conclusions and recommendations. The NERCHE Working Papers Series covers a range of educational and workplace concerns in the following areas: General Education, Faculty Labor Market, Professional Service, and Organizational Change. See below for ordering information. A New Book by NERCHE Staff and Associates If you would like more information on NERCHE Working Papers or other NERCHE offerings, please return the form below to: New England Resource Center for Higher Education, University of Massachusetts Boston, Graduate College of Education, 100 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, MA 02125–3393. Telephone: (617) 287–7740; Fax: (617) 287–7747 |
We are part of the
Graduate College of Education
at UMass Boston
|
Think Tanks | Projects | Campus-Community Partnerships | Lynton Award | Publications |
|
Regional Resources | National Resources | Contact Us | Directions | Search |
