Changes in Faculty Composition at Independent Colleges

Transcription

1 Changes in Faculty Composition at Independent Colleges CIC CAO Institute Baltimore, MD November 8, 2015 Kelly Ward, Washington State University Christopher Morphew, University of Iowa

2 Background Project is part of the CIC s Project on the Future of Independent Higher Education, a multi-year initiative to identify and examine the forces shaping the future of independent colleges and universities and to help member institutions prepare for new challenges and opportunities.

3 Who are contingent faculty? Full and part time faculty not in tenure track or tenured positions. This definition includes all those not on tenure-track appointments, including full-time faculty on multi-year contracts, one year year appointments, and course contract faculty.

4 What comes to mind about contingent faculty on your campus??

5 Why the focus on contingent faculty? Dramatic changes in faculty composition over the past 30 years The majority (75%) of new faculty hires are in non-tenuretrack appointments Institutions reliant on contingent faculty for a broad base of roles--not just teaching

6 Why the focus on faculty composition? Concerns about quality of teaching and student-faculty interaction inside/outside of classroom Concerns about support provided to contingent faculty As faculty with different types of appointments work side by side it s important to more fully understand different roles

7 What we know about contingent faculty Variance in background and roles Inequities in working conditions, salary and benefits Workloads increasing/expanding Lack of resources (computers, training, travel support) Operate on margins of shared governance Broadened participation in all aspects of teaching,

8 What do you know about contingent faculty at your institution??

9 Purpose of the study To provide empirical understanding about faculty composition and the roles and responsibilities of different types of faculty at CIC institutions.

10 Guiding research questions 1. How are faculty members distributed by discipline/field, tenuretrack and multi-term/contingent, part-time/full-time? 1. How do faculty roles differ by tenure-track and multiterm/contingent, part-time/full-time? 1. How is the composition of the faculty connected to issues of institutional mission, shared governance, strategic planning, and institutional decision making?

11 Survey of CAOs Data Sources IPEDS trends comparisons Survey of IR officers composition areas of study

12 IPEDS Analysis/Findings

13 Full-time faculty shares fell between 2000 and 2012

14 Full-time faculty shares not equally distributed in 2000 and 2012 Analysis by decile distribution of full-time faculty revealed: CIC institutions at bottom of distribution were more likely than non-cic private peers to use full-time faculty in 2000 & In 2000, CIC institutions at each decile employed similar or greater proportions of full-time faculty than did four-year public colleges and universities. By 2012, this was generally true (not at 20% decile). Non-CIC private institutions exhibited the biggest range in full-time faculty employment percentages in both 2000 and Public colleges and universities exhibited the smallest range in both years.

15 Carnegie Classification of CIC Members Two most frequent UIP classifications in 2000 for CIC and non-cic IHEs were Balanced arts and sciences/professions, some graduate coexistence and Professions plus arts and sciences, some graduate coexistence. Professions plus arts and sciences, some graduate coexistence category grew significantly among CIC members by 2012; 35 institutions migrated from Balanced arts and sciences/professions, some graduate coexistence. Significant stability across the two snapshot years and classifications. In general, the trend among CIC and non-cic colleges and universities was to confer more professional and graduate degrees.

16 Faculty utilization by Carnegie Classification Utilization of full-time faculty ranged significantly by Carnegie Classification in 2000 and 2012 In 2000, range was 80% among Arts and sciences focus, some graduate coexistence IHEs to 57% among Professions focus, some graduate coexistence IHEs. By 2012, range was 75 percent to a low of 37 percent of full-time faculty by Carnegie Classification.

17 IPEDS Analysis Summary Among CIC institutions, fewer shares of full-time faculty were utilized in 2012 than 2000, similar to trends among non-cic privates and publics. Undergraduate profile by Carnegie Classification remains relatively stable among CIC members. There is a link between undergraduate program classification and the utilization of full-time faculty. Specifically, CIC members that offer more adult, professional, and graduate degree programs are more likely than institutions that serve exclusive or majority traditional undergraduate student populations to utilize part-time faculty.

18 Institutional Research (IR) Survey Findings

19 Organization of IR Survey Respondents Undergraduate: Undergraduate programs on a single campus Undergraduate plus: Undergraduate programs, either on multiple campuses or online Graduate: Undergraduate and graduate programs on a single campus Graduate plus: Undergraduate and graduate programs at multiple campuses or online

20 Fields With Large Percentage (40%) of Growth in Fulltime faculty

21 Fields with Large (20%+) Declines in Full-Time Faculty

22 Fields with Reported Growth or Stability

23 Full-time Faculty utilization by CIC Type Across categories, numbers of full-time faculty members in biology, chemistry, psychology and the arts (fine art, theater, and dance) grew. Business and Nursing fields showed similar growth in full-time faculty, with most growth among graduate plus respondents. Education and English were unstable fields. Undergraduate IHEs were least likely to report education declines. Undergraduate IHEs were more likely to report increases in full-time math faculty; 2x more reported growth than decline or no change. Undergraduate IHEs more likely to report growth in full-time social science faculty. Graduate and Graduate Plus IHEs were more 3.5x more likely to report increases - rather than decreases -- in communications.

24 Rate of contingent faculty utilization by field In humanities and social sciences, undergraduate and undergraduate plus IHEs utilize contingent faculty at lesser rate than others Graduate plus IHEs utilize higher rates of contingent faculty Fields exhibiting highest rates of contingent faculty members include business, education, foreign language, music and the arts Traditional liberal arts field exhibit lowest rates of contingent faculty utilization Undergraduate and undergraduate plus IHEs exhibit highly varied rate by field: e.g., 2.0 rate in professional fields;.2 rate in history and economics

25 Rate of contingent faculty utilization by field Graduate and graduate plus IHEs exhibit different patterns than do undergraduate-focused IHEs Greater use of contingent faculty in liberal arts and humanities fields Most fields have contingent rate of greater than 1.0; exceptions include religion, biology, chemistry and physics

26 IR Survey Summary Respondents reported significant variance in growth and decline of full-time faculty over past decade; not always in predictable ways. In addition, results illustrate significant variance in utilization of full-time faculty by field and by IHE type. Finally, there were broad and predictable differences in reported contingent faculty utilization by IHE type.

27 What rings true?? How does this compare to your institution??

28 Chief Academic Officer (CAO) Survey Findings/Analysis

29 Chief academic officer survey analysis Four faculty categories: Full-time Tenure-track/Multi-Year Contract Full-time Annual Contract Part-time Course Contract

30 Expectations by faculty type

31 Institutional Mission and Program Scope Programs for traditional-aged students essential (98%) On campus programs essential (95%) Adult undergraduate programs very important or essential (60%) Graduate programs very important or essential (70%) Online programs offered by 80%+ and very important or essential (41%) International programs very important or essential (<20%)

32 Work expectations by faculty type Modal workload for full-time tenure-track/long-term contract faculty members 60-70% teaching (8 courses), 10-20% research and 10-20% service Modal workload for full-time annual contract faculty is 80% teaching (8 courses), 10% research and 10% service Modal workload for part-time faculty is 100% teaching (4 courses) Modal workload for course contract faculty is 100% teaching (2 courses)

33 Teaching workload by student population and faculty type Tenure-track/long-term contract faculty members disproportionately teach traditional-aged students in oncampus programs. About 20% of tenure-track/long-term contract faculty members do spend a small portion (10%) of their time teaching adult undergraduates. On a minority of campuses (20%) tenure-track/long-term contract faculty spend as much as 50% of their time teaching online and in graduate programs.

34 Teaching workload by student population and faculty type Full-time annual contract faculty members are more likely than tenuretrack/long-term contract faculty to teach non-traditional-aged students, adult students, graduate students, and in online programs and at satellite campuses. Part-time faculty members are more likely than tenure-track/long-term contract faculty to teach in adult programs, graduate programs, and online programs. Course contract faculty disproportionately teach traditional-aged undergraduate, on-campus courses, as well as graduate courses.

35 Faculty hiring practices Bimodal differences in use of traditional search processes (e.g. search committee, campus visit): nearly all CAOs report using them for tenure-track/multi-year and annual contracts, very few use them for part-time and course contract Chair appoints course contract faculty at nearly all campuses Mission fit is important consideration for tenure-track/long-term faculty but fewer than half consider it for part-time or course contract faculty

36 Professional development and support by faculty type Nearly all CAOs report robust professional development (e.g., orientation, mentoring) and support (e.g., travel, computer, student evaluation) for tenuretrack/long-term contract faculty Most (80%+) full-time annual contract faculty receive strong professional development and are equally likely to be evaluated; support (e.g., mentoring, travel) is less likely (<80%) among this group Half of respondents report providing part-time faculty with orientation or staff support; even fewer are provided computer or annual evaluation; very few are provided with travel support, offices or research support Course contract faculty are provided with orientation, staff support (<60%),

37 Faculty, student populations, and expectations Faculty teaching in traditional undergraduate programs are widely (98%+) expected to participate in broader academic/student development experience (e.g., hold office hours, advise students, attend events, create syllabi, work with learning communities) Faculty members teaching nontraditional students are more likely to be expected to teach online and on evening/weekend. Majority of CAOs expect this group to integrate tech, engage in active learning strategies, and create syllabus. About half of CAOs expect office hours and advising. Fewer than half expect engagement in other student activities.

38 Faculty, student populations, and expectations Faculty teaching in graduate programs are very often (89%+) expected to teach on evenings/weekend and online. Most (<80%) are expected to integrate tech, engage in active learning, create syllabus, advise students and hold office hours. Just over half of CAOs expect faculty members in graduate programs to supervise internships. Fewer than half of CAOs expect faculty members in graduate programs to engage in outside-the-classroom (e.g., integrate service learning, attend events, work with learning communities) activities.

39 Summary findings from CAO survey analysis Faculty workloads and contact are not evenly distributed by student population or location of course delivery Expectations for faculty vary widely by faculty type biggest divide between full-time and part-time faculty members; and between faculty members teaching traditional students on campus versus those teaching nontraditional students Support and professional development opportunities vary widely by faculty type

40 Now...what??

41 Examine the student experience Recommendations for Practice Clarify roles and rewards for all faculty Update hiring and orientation (e.g., half-day workshop, online practices Be aware of equity concerns for faculty and students Maintain focus on mission centrality and fiscal necessity (and their relationship)

42 Take away. Holistic perspective on contingent faculty--mission, student experience, and faculty work influenced by changes in faculty composition Small changes can make a big difference (e.g., orientation for all) Mission centrality for all faculty Contingent faculty increasing presence--asset instead of

43 Comments, questions, insights?