|
|
The Academic Workplace
FALL/WINTER 1997 — VOLUME 8, NUMBER 1
In This Issue
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.
Letter from the Editor
Change and community are the stuff of speculation and declaration in just about every arena of American life. While the former seems to be exploding everywhere, the latter is threatened with extinction. Neither is entirely true. But the perception of chaos and loss rules. Amid this disorder, we turn to models from the past to help us manage a present that feels fragmented and atomized.
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
— Back to Top
Events
Think Tank members: hold these dates!
MARCH 6, 1997: An Evening Conversation with Arthur Chickering
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.
— Back to Top
Funded Projects
Project Colleague
Through its Program on Faculty Professional Service and Academic Outreach, NERCHE learned that faculty are heavily engaged in work with the external community, but their efforts are largely individualistic and often invisible to their colleagues and institutions. Collaborative efforts are the exception rather than the rule. We also learned, however, that by working together on community outreach, faculty enrich their teaching and research and reduce their isolation through partnerships with colleagues. Project Colleague helps faculty members with different kinds of expertise work together to acquire the skills and relationships necessary to support effective professional service and outreach. Project Associates will work with experts to develop methods to impart conceptual, interpersonal and administrative skills to faculty from campuses nationwide. Project Associates faculty who are respected scholars and skilled in doing outreach, are: Mary Foertsch, Bentley College; Peter Kiang, UMass Boston; Ann Larkin, Lesley College; Hugh Lena, Providence College; Dan Lloyd, Trinity College; Ed Meagher, Salem State College; Barbara Paul–Emile, Bentley College; Devdas Shetty, University of Hartford; Cass Turner, UMass Boston; Diane Zannoni, Trinity College.
Faculty Professional Service Project
Last spring, teams of research associates visited regional institutions to identify support for faculty service, barriers and problems, and the effect that service has on teaching and research. While an initial goal of the Project was to discover model institutions with regard to service, research associates instead encountered groups of faculty, or service collaboratives, that support service as a facet of faculty work within institutions. These collaboratives are characterized by institutional support and visibility, integration of service with research and teaching, and active leadership.
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
The W.K. Kellogg Foundation has awarded NERCHE a grant for a 15–month pilot project to develop prototype portfolios documenting faculty professional service. NERCHE Senior Associate Ernest Lynton and Portland State University's Amy Driscoll co–direct Project Portfolio which brings together four faculty members from each of four institutions (Indiana University–Purdue University at Indianapolis, Michigan State University, Portland State University, and the University of Memphis). Participating faculty will document a recent outreach project and will collaborate with faculty from their campuses and other institutions to develop a mode of documentation that is appropriate for a broad range of fields, professions, and service projects.
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.
— Back to Top
The Faculty in Transition:
Implications for a New Era in Higher Education
by Jack H. Schuster, Professor of Education and Public Policy at the Claremont Graduate School
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
Teaching and Research
(expressed in percentages of total work time)
|
|
Actual Teaching
|
Preferred Teaching
|
Actual Research
|
Preferred Research
|
Difference*
|
|
ALL FACULTY
|
53.7%
|
48.3%
|
20.3%
|
26.8%
|
–5.4
|
|
New Faculty
|
51.0
|
44.9
|
22.8
|
30.0
|
–6.1
|
|
Senior Faculty
|
55.0
|
50.0
|
19.9
|
25.2
|
–5.0
|
|
BY GENDER
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Faculty
Males
|
46.0
|
40.7
|
27.4
|
34.7
|
–5.3
|
|
Females
|
58.3
|
51.1
|
16.2
|
23.1
|
–7.2
|
|
Senior Faculty
Males
|
52.6
|
48.3
|
21.0
|
27.1
|
–4.3
|
|
Females
|
61.2
|
54.2
|
13.8
|
20.2
|
–7.0
|
|
BY INSTITUTIONAL TYPE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Faculty
Doctorate Granting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(incl. res. univ.)
|
36.0
|
32.2
|
38.0
|
44.6
|
–4.2
|
|
Comprehensive
|
59.0
|
50.2
|
14.6
|
23.9
|
–8.8
|
|
Liberal Arts
|
62.2
|
53.5
|
11.5
|
20.7
|
–8.7
|
|
Public 2-Year
|
68.9
|
63.0
|
4.7
|
9.9
|
–5.9
|
|
Senior Faculty
Doctorate Granting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(incl. res. univ.)
|
41.3
|
38.1
|
31.5
|
37.5
|
–3.2
|
|
Comprehensive
|
59.6
|
52.9
|
14.0
|
21.5
|
–6.7
|
|
Liberal Arts
|
63.0
|
56.0
|
11.8
|
20.2
|
–7.0
|
|
Public 2-Year
|
71.8
|
66.2
|
4.8
|
9.0
|
–5.6
|
|
|
* Difference between percentage of time (self–reported) engaged in actual teaching and percentage of time preferred to be engaged in teaching.
|
|
Implications. These few observations must suffice for now to support this proposition: the faculty are indeed in transition toward richer diversity demographically, but they appear to cling to priorities that tend to undervalue teaching, at least at campuses with complex missions. Many developments presumably contribute to this state of affairs: the faculty reward system has not moved materially in the direction of prizing teaching; the newer faculty were deeply socialized during their graduate training into a research– oriented ethos; teaching loads have grown more onerous and, as student–to– faculty ratios increase, faculty members naturally seek relief. No doubt a combination of these factors, among others, applies. But as the pressure abounds to pay more, not less, attention to teaching, the warning signs are clear.
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.
— Back to Top
NERCHE Consultation & Outreach
Consultants affiliated with NERCHE have been providing workshop and evaluation services to a number of New England colleges and universities, as well as institutions in other parts of the country. NERCHE prides itself on working closely with campus contacts to determine an institution's needs and design a forum or process that will meet them. NERCHE also offers a number of special workshops to campuses.
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.
— Back to Top
Think Tanks
One of NERCHE's hallmarks is its Think Tanks for faculty and administrators from New England colleges and universities. Think tanks meet five times a year for intense discussions of the most serious issues facing higher education.
Academic Affairs Think Tank
Robin Jacoby, Dean of Academic Affairs and Planning at Lesley College, is the new co–leader of the Academic Affairs Think Tank this year and is joined this semester by NERCHE's Acting Director, Deborah Hirsch, while Zelda Gamson is on sabbatical. Zelda will resume her role as co–leader in the spring.
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
Deborah Hirsch, Co–leader, Acting Director, NERCHE; Robin M. Jacoby, Co–leader, Dean of Academic Affairs and Planning, Lesley College; Michael A. Baer, Provost & Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, Northeastern University; John B. Bennett, Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs, Quinnipiac College; Diana Brigham Beaudoin, Interim Vice President, Academic Affairs, Bryant College; Theodore DiPadova, Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, University of New England; Brian Donnelly, Dean of the College, Urban College of Boston; Barbara Douglas–White, Academic Dean, Capital Community–Technical College; Carol Eaton, Academic Dean, Manchester Community– Technical College; Walter Eggers, Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs, University of New Hampshire; Louis Esposito, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, University of Massachusetts Boston; Malcolm Forbes, Vice President, Academic Affairs, Roger Williams University; Philip Friedman, Vice President of Academic Affairs & Provost, Bentley College; Hannah Goldberg, Provost & Academic Vice President, Wheaton College; Robert Golden, Vice President, Academic Affairs, Keene State College; Albert Hamilton, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Salem State College; David Harnett, Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs, Sacred Heart University; Nancy Hensel, Vice President for Academic Affairs, University of Maine–Farmington; Steven Ingram, Dean of Academic Affairs, Vermont Technical College; David Kale, Vice President for Academic Affairs & Academic Dean, Eastern Nazarene College; Bonnie Kind, Vice President, Academic Affairs, Worcester State College; Lanny Kutakoff, Vice President & Dean of the College, Dean College; Mark B. Lapping, Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs, University of Southern Maine; Cathy Livingston, Dean of Academic Affairs, Lasell College; Tamar March, Dean of Educational Programs & Director of Undergraduate Programs, Radcliffe College; Joseph T. Mark, Dean of the College, Castleton State College; James Martin, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Mount Ida College; Robert Martin, Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs, Westfield State College; Janet Schulte, Interim Vice President of Academic Affairs, Bradford College; Patrica Sharpe, Dean, Academic Affairs, Simon's Rock College of Bard; Charmian B. Sperling, Provost & Dean of Faculty, Middlesex Community College; M. Beverly Swan, Provost & Vice President, Academic Affairs, University of Rhode Island; Paul F. Tero, Dean of Academic Affairs, Lyndon State College; John Weston, Vice President, Academic Affairs, Newbury College
Associate Deans Think Tank
The Associate Deans Think Tank, co–led by Milton Kornfeld, Associate Dean at Brandeis University and Deborah Hirsch of NERCHE, will spend this year discussing a series of topics under the rubric of Critical Issues from the Standpoint of Associate Deans.
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
Deborah Hirsch, Co–leader, Acting Director, NERCHE; Milton Kornfeld, Associate Dean, Academic Affairs, Brandeis University; Dorothea Alexander, Assistant Dean, Academic Affairs, Northshore Community College; MaryAnn Alexander–Ellis, Associate Dean, School of Undergraduate Studies, Lesley College; Connie Bosse, Associate Dean, Babson College; Duane Bruce, Assistant Academic Dean & Dean of Freshman, St. Anselm College; Neal Bruss, Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, University of Massachusetts Boston; Joseph Burns, Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, Boston College; Eugene E. Du Bois, Academic Dean, Urban College of Boston; Mark Freeman, Associate Dean, Holy Cross; Jean Herbert, Associate Dean of the Colleges, Tufts University; Susan Lane, Associate Dean, Graduate College of Continuing Education, Massachusetts College of Art; Dorothy Laton, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies, Assumption College; Myra Lerman, Director of Undergraduate Affairs, Sawyer School of Management, Suffolk University; David Levinson, Associate Dean for Liberal Arts, Mass Bay Community College; James McCroskery, Associate Dean, Faculty of Arts & Sciences, Rhode Island College; Victoria McGillin, Dean for Advising, Wheaton College; Kevin McKenna, Associate Dean, Clark University; Lois Nuñez, Associate Dean, Academic Affairs, Sargent College, Boston University; Sr. Mary Daniel O'Keeffe, O.P., Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, Boston College; Melissa Read, Dean, Advising & Academic Support, Dean College; Sarah H. Rockett, Assistant Academic Dean, University College, University of Rhode Island; Gwendolyn Rosemond, Associate Dean, Academic Advising, Salem State College; Emilie Steele, Associate Dean, Academic Affairs, College of Public & Community Service, University of Massachusetts Boston; Jean Woodbury, Assistant Dean, Academic Affairs, Framingham State College
Liberal Learning Think Tank
The Liberal Learning Think Tank, co–led by NERCHE Senior Associate Jan Civian and Charles Combs, Chair of the General Education Department at the Berklee College of Music, has a new name and a revised focus. Founded as the "General Education Interest Group," the think tank retains its emphasis on general education — but with an added element. As the General Education Resource Network (GERN), the members will spend this year engaged in professional development activities as they form a consulting network to serve campuses involved in, or thinking about, revising their general education programs. The group, representing a variety of campus types, combines much collective experience with general education reform.
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
Jan Civian Co–leader, Director for Policy Research, Wellesley College; Charles Combs, Co–leader, Chair, General Education Department, Berklee College of Music; Sally Boland, Professor of English, Plymouth State College; Maureen Goldman, Associate Undergraduate Dean, Bentley College; George Humphrey, Director of Arts & Sciences, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy; Gordon Leversee, Dean of Sciences, Keene State College; Howard London, Professor of Sociology, Bridgewater State College; Robert Newton, Associate Academic Vice President, Boston College; Nancy Northrop, Dean of Curriculum, Emmanuel College; Sheila Post–Lauria, Associate Provost, University of Massachusetts Boston; Diane W. Strommer, Dean, University College, University of Rhode Island; Jack Waggett, Associate Dean, Trinity College; Richard G. Weeks, Jr., Vice President, Academic Affairs, Franklin Pierce College
Department Chairs Think Tank
This year, the Department Chairs Think Tank, co–led by NERCHE Senior Associate Janice Green and Ellen Kosmer, Chair, Visual and Performing Arts, Worcester State College, will explore The Mentoring Role of the Chair as it relates to senior and junior faculty, part–timers and minorities. At the first meeting, NERCHE Visiting Fellow, Joy Eisen, presented her study of academic departments in a large research university viewed through the lenses of departmental decision–making, faculty–chair interaction and the parameters of the chair's power and authority.
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
Janice Green, Co–leader, Senior Associate, NERCHE; Ellen Kosmer, Co–leader, Chair, Visual & Performing Arts, Worcester State College; Kathleen Aguero, Chair, Humanities Division, Pine Manor College; Gail Carney, Director of Education Programs, Women's College, Lesley College; Walter Carroll, Chair, Sociology/Anthropology, Bridgewater State College; Iain Crawford, Chair, English, Bridgewater State College; Joy Eisen, NERCHE Visiting Fellow; Ronnie Elwell, Chair, Human Services & Social Sciences, Lesley College; Harriet Miller, Chair, Sociology, Framingham State College; Lynne Morrow, Program Director, Humanities & Management, Lesley College; James Phillips, Chair, Biology, Westfield State College; Nancy White, Chair, Division of Social Sciences, Pine Manor College
Student Affairs Think Tank
The theme for the Student Affairs Think Tank this year is Student Affairs' Role in Preparing for the Future. This is an extension of last year's discussions about student affairs' values regarding learning and the shift from a primary focus on student development. The first meeting, conducted by co–leaders Cathy Burack of NERCHE and Tammy Lenski, Dean of Students at Trinity College of Vermont, was hosted by Student Affairs Think Tank alumnus, Robert Minnetti, Vice President for Student Services at Bentley College.
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
Cathy Burack, Co–leader, Project Director, NERCHE; Tammy Lenski, Dean of Students, Trinity College of Vermont; Sue Alexander, Dean of Students, Wheaton College; Ron Chesbrough, Dean of Students, Johnson State College; Anne Fitzmaurice, Dean of Students, University of Hartford; Paula Gagnon, Vice President of Student Affairs, New Hampshire Technical Institute; Marlene Godfrey, Dean of Students, Lesley College; Richard Hage, Dean of Student Affairs, Plymouth State College; Karen Haskell, Vice President for Student Affairs & Dean of Students, Roger Williams University; Barbara Hazard, Dean of Students, University of New England; Joseph Horton, Dean of Students, Saint Anselm College; Joyce Judy, Associate Dean of Student Services, Community College of Vermont; Mary Kay Kennedy, Vice President for Student Affairs, Champlain College; Sharon Kipetz, Dean of Students, University of Connecticut–Storrs; Susan Moore Lincoln, Dean of Student Services, Gateway Community–Technical College; Leila Moore, Vice President for Student Affairs, University of New Hampshire; Sheila Murphy, Dean for Student Life, Simmons College; Marva Perry, Vice President for Student Development, Wheelock College; Dorothy Pierson–Hubeny, Dean of Students, Naugatuck Valley Community–Technical College; Charles Ratto, Vice President of Student Affairs, Fitchburg State College; Dwight Rideout, Assistant Vice President & Dean of Student Services, University of Maine; Karen T. Rigg, Vice President for Student Affairs, Northeastern University; John Rubino, Dean of Student Affairs, Husson College; Judy Ryan, Vice President for Student Development, University of Southern Maine; T. Neil Severance, Dean of Student Affairs, Rhode Island School of Design; W. Gregory Swett, Dean of Student Affairs, Eastern Maine Technical College
— Back to Top
Visiting Fellows
Joyce Eisen recently completed her doctorate at the Harvard Graduate School of Education in the area of Administration, Planning, and Social Policy in Higher Education. Previously, she worked as an administrator in student and academic affairs at several institutions, including Tulane University, Keller Graduate School of Management in Chicago, Chaminade University of Honolulu, and Hawaii Pacific University. As her current research focus is on the role of the chair in departmental decision making, she will work with the Department Chairs Think Tank this year. Through development of the collegial model of academic governance, her research strives to bring about a better understanding of decision making patterns at the departmental level, the relationship between chairs and their faculty colleagues, and the organizational split between academic departments and senior administration.
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.
— Back to Top
Book Review
Promotion and Tenure: Community and Socialization in Academe
William Tierney and Estela Mara Bensimon of the University of Southern California have produced one of the most interesting, revealing, and refreshing studies of higher education culture, promotion and tenure that I have read in some time. Tenure, with its origins in the concept of academic freedom, is questioned and criticized with increasing frequency by people outside the academic community. This study contributes to our understanding of the process and its implied values through vivid accounts of actual experiences of junior faculty.
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 pressu |
