Report of the Provost s Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty in Interdisciplinary Programs

Report of the Provost s Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty in Interdisciplinary Programs Executive Summary As a result of recent initiatives in cluster hiring, an increasing proportion of faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison will have responsibilities to interdisciplinary programs. The Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty in Interdisciplinary Programs (Appendix 1) was constituted to identify potential disparities in responsibilities and rewards between faculty with interdisciplinary responsibilities and those without. We commissioned a study by the Office of Academic Planning and Analysis (Dr. Martha Casey, Director; Margaret Harrigan, Analyst) to identify potential differences in tenure, salary and access to university research funds associated with multi-departmental appointments. The results show no difference in the likelihood of achieving tenure among probationary faculty with multiple appointments compared to those with appointments in only one department. Among all faculty, probationary and tenured, salary increases and access to university research funds were similar for those with and without multiple appointments. The report discusses the limitations of these data for drawing firm conclusions about potential penalties associated with work in interdisciplinary programs. We also informally canvassed faculty in each of the four Divisions, including a few recent cluster hires, about their experiences with interdisciplinary programs and departments within which they are evaluated and rewarded. On the basis of these data as well as literature on interdisciplinary scholarship, we identify potential opportunities and challenges of interdisciplinary work as well as institutional barriers. Our review and deliberations have made us aware of the wide variation in experience among faculty with interdisciplinary responsibilities, variation that makes it difficult if not impossible to make recommendations that will apply to all faculty in all settings. We recognize that the university already makes great efforts to facilitate interdisciplinary work, for example, as evidenced in setting up this committee. Nevertheless, we believe that support for and recognition of interdisciplinary work can be improved and have identified several general strategies to do so; see body of report for detailed suggestions.

2 1. Direct Support for Interdisciplinary Programs. Cluster hiring and positions allocated to interdisciplinary units are an important base for interdisciplinary work. Clusters or interdisciplinary units need sufficient initial funding not only for faculty salaries, but also for program development (e.g., administrative staff, course buyouts for lead faculty). 2. Allocation of Credit to Academic Units. Creative administrative mechanisms are needed to ensure that departments as well as interdisciplinary programs receive appropriate credit for supporting the interdisciplinary work of their faculty. 3. Evaluation Process. The process of evaluation for tenure, salary increases, and internal grant support should ensure that a faculty member s interdisciplinary activities are recognized and appropriately rewarded. 4. Physical, Social and Organizational Integration. Space and administrative resources should flow along interdisciplinary as well as disciplinary lines. Introduction As a result of recent initiatives in cluster hiring, an increasing proportion of faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison will have responsibilities to interdisciplinary programs. The Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty in Interdisciplinary Programs (Appendix 1) was constituted to identify potential disparities in responsibilities and rewards between faculty with interdisciplinary responsibilities and those without. By interdisciplinary responsibilities we mean responsibilities to more than one academic unit, including departments, schools and centers for interdisciplinary research, teaching or outreach. We realize that some interdisciplinary work is carried out within departments or schools. For example, chemistry faculty are organized into divisions (e.g., organic, analytical, physical), but research interests cross divisional lines (e.g., bioinorganic). In such programs, responsibilities and rewards for the interdisciplinary scholar are organized within the traditional organizational structure of the university. Potential differences arising between scholars engaged in interdisciplinary work and those who are not may be attributed to the department s or school s view of such work, rather than to organizational structures that hide the contributions of a faculty member to the university s interdisciplinary enterprises. Our focus is on the potential organizational barriers and facilitators for the vast majority of interdisciplinary work that crosses departmental boundaries or that combines responsibilities to departments and to interdisciplinary research or instructional programs. Interdisciplinary programs are not, of course, new phenomena associated with the cluster hiring initiative. To the contrary, many clusters were developed around a set of ongoing research, teaching or outreach activities that cross departmental, school and/or college boundaries. As a result, the University already has considerable experience that can inform strategies to ensure that interdisciplinary work is appropriately rewarded and does not place undue burdens on faculty.

3 Analysis of Faculty Outcomes Associated with Multiple Appointments Most interdisciplinary work is unrecorded in University data bases. We know that more than 250 centers have been constituted within the university; the sheer number and variety of such programs require that a large minority, perhaps a majority of faculty have interdisciplinary responsibilities of one sort or another. By definition, faculty hired within the cluster initiative have responsibilities to an interdisciplinary program. Even those responsibilities will not be documented if a data base is not created to record them. We commissioned a study by the Office of Academic Planning and Analysis (Dr. Martha Casey, Director; Margaret Harrigan, Analyst) to identify potential differences in tenure, salary and access to university research funds associated with interdisciplinary appointments. As shown in Table 1, Appendix 2, of the 534 faculty hired between May 1990 and May 1995, only 4 percent were appointed with more than one tenure home. Another 31 percent had formal (budgeted or unbudgeted) appointments in more than one department. Such appointments are more common among those appointed with tenure than among probationary faculty. Among the 88 cluster faculty hired through October 2002, 7 percent were appointed in more than one department, only one of which was a tenured faculty member. The progress toward tenure of cluster faculty, particularly those with dual appointments, is therefore a significant concern. Data on appointment type were matched to data on promotion (probationary faculty), salaries and university research awards (courtesy of Jim Knickmeyer and Steve Schwoegler, Graduate School). Table 2 in Appendix 2 demonstrates that the likelihood of achieving tenure is not lower but in fact higher for candidates with joint appointments or multiple tenure homes. Because the numbers on which these percentages are based are quite small, we cannot conclude that multiple appointments are advantageous, but we feel confident in concluding that they do not reduce the chances of tenure. Neither do salary increases appear to be influenced by joint appointments or multiple tenure homes (Table 3 and 4, Appendix 2). The probability of receiving start-up funds or subsequent awards from the Graduate School is not only high but quite similar across types of appointment (Table 5, Appendix 2). Can we conclude from these analyses that interdisciplinary programs pose no particular barriers to success at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and/or that departments are appropriately rewarding faculty with interdisciplinary responsibilities? Perhaps. But two important caveats remain. First, the analysis does not identify faculty with single appointments who nevertheless have considerable responsibilities for interdisciplinary programs. For example, the vast majority of cluster hires would not be identified in either of the categories discussed above. If the challenges for such faculty fall between those for faculty who are not connected to or have few responsibilities toward interdisciplinary programs and those with joint appointments, the analysis is conservative, underestimating potential differences between outcomes for those with and without interdisciplinary responsibilities. If, on the other hand, multiple appointments make

4 interdisciplinary responsibilities visible so that departmental expectations are adjusted, the lack of difference we observe could mask lower rewards for faculty with interdisciplinary responsibilities but single-department appointments. Second, faculty with interdisciplinary responsibilities may be drawn from a pool of particularly energetic and able scholars. If they are rewarded at the average level, they may still be under-rewarded. The data are also inadequate to address perceptions of disadvantage experienced by those with responsibilities for interdisciplinary programs or with appointments in more than one department. Because the data have inherent limitations, our results are not likely to be viewed as definitive by many colleagues. Furthermore, even if no real disadvantage exists, attention to institutional mechanisms for facilitating interdisciplinary work can in and of itself improve the climate for and thereby encourage interdisciplinary work. Further Explorations of Interdisciplinary Challenges and Opportunities A considerable scholarly literature exists on the challenges and opportunities inherent in interdisciplinary work (e.g., Appendix 3). We investigated perceptions of the current climate for interdisciplinary work at UW-Madison by conducting several informal interviews and reviewing responses to email inquiries. Our informants include faculty who were hired within the last few years as part of clusters and faculty who have had cross-departmental responsibilities for several decades. We asked them to address the potential opportunities and challenges facing faculty who engage in interdisciplinary work, and to identify institutional mechanisms that would enhance the quality and rewards or reduce the costs of such work. Appendix 4 provides an example of the experience of faculty with interdisciplinary responsibilities, consistent in many respects with the experiences of other informants. The fact that many if not most of UW-Madison s faculty engage in interdisciplinary activities is evidence that the opportunities and rewards of such work usually outweigh the challenges and costs. A key benefit identified by our informants is that the most exciting research often occurs at the interface between traditional disciplines. Interdisciplinary activities widen both intellectual and personal horizons, both of which are important intrinsic rewards of scholarly work. The vast majority of comments we received focused, however, on the significant challenges of interdisciplinary work for individual researchers and institutions. Interdisciplinary work, particularly that which crosses organizational boundaries is perceived to (1) require increased time and effort; (2) produce lower rewards per unit of effort; and (3) face serious institutional constraints. Increased Time & Effort. The increased time and effort required by interdisciplinary work arises from the intellectual and administrative organization of scholarship. Most scholars engaged in interdisciplinary work were trained in one discipline and had to learn enough about a second discipline to be able to engage it. Interdisciplinary scholars must also learn the craft of scholarly production in other disciplines -- journal audiences and prestige rankings, styles of

5 presentation and writing, co-authorship norms, etc. They regularly experience challenges to their taken-for-granted understandings and expertise necessary, of course, to further intellectual inquiry but at the same time being hard on the ego. Colleagues from other disciplines may have a narrow and misinformed knowledge of one s own discipline, so that much time is spent in teaching that would not be necessary within the discipline. The burdens are particularly great for the scholar whose discipline is viewed as less prestigious or demanding or productive than the disciplines of her/his colleagues, (See Appendix 3 for a discussion of difficulties encountered by social scientists who work with physical and life scientists on environmental research.) 1 Interdisciplinary work often carries an additional burden, that of defining a new field. The task of defining the rationale for and boundaries of the field goes well beyond the campus, requiring extensive interactions with colleagues from other institutions. Scholars must engage questions about the unique contributions, cohesion and boundaries of the new field; define needed undergraduate and graduate training programs; and consider alternative institutional mechanisms to support the emerging field. (See Appendix 3 for a case study of this type of work.) To develop new programs takes additional work -- acquiring resources, recruiting colleagues, organizing interactions among program participants to develop a group identity, hosting visitors to help establish the program, and so forth. Appointments in more than one department or in a department and an interdisciplinary program increase, often double the number of faculty meetings, seminar series, etc. Having to deal with two sets of administrators and different departmental administrative practices is also time consuming. Research often can count for both units, but the teaching, outreach and service obligations often need to be tailored to each department. Demands are particularly great if the interdisciplinary program has graduate students who are not enrolled in one s own department. Fewer Rewards per Unit of Effort. Interdisciplinary work takes more time and effort but may not produce more output, so that the rewards per unit of effort are lower. Fewer outlets exist for interdisciplinary than for disciplinary research. It is difficult to evaluate interdisciplinary work, so that the risks of rejected manuscripts is higher. Articles and books are more likely to be coauthored, reducing the amount of credit to any particular participant. Because of the difficulties of the work, both scientifically and organizationally, there is a higher risk than with disciplinary work that the project will not produce high-quality work. Attendance at meetings outside one s discipline produces a lower proportion of useful information and contacts than at disciplinebased meetings. Interdisciplinary proposals sent to disciplinary panels fare poorly and insufficient funds have been set aside for interdisciplinary work. 1 One informant mentioned that scholarly contributions may be more highly valued by another discipline than one s own; even well-known theories and methods from one discipline can contribute enormously to scholarship when they are combined with theories and methods of another discipline. He also wondered whether such contributions should be viewed as highquality scholarship or as outreach to another discipline.

6 Interdisciplinary programs may also have difficulty attracting the best graduate students. Some scholars question the wisdom of interdisciplinary graduate training (e.g., Appendix 3), suggesting that the quality of interdisciplinary work requires thorough training in at least one of the participating disciplines. The academic job market is organized to a great extent by disciplines, so that it may do students a disservice to attempt to provide them with an interdisciplinary degree. One informant suggested that weaker students are directed toward faculty with interdisciplinary responsibilities perhaps because such faculty are perceived to be less demanding of students. Institutional Constraints. Interdisciplinary work faces a number of institutional constraints. Most obvious is the fact that office space is usually allocated by discipline. The physical and institutional organization of the university serves to keep faculty with related interests but different disciplinary homes apart. Joint work and meetings require coordination of schedules that are constrained by departmental schedules and require at least part of the team to work or meet away from their primary offices. Perhaps more important, however, is the allocation of credit for work in more than one department or in interdisciplinary programs. Several informants identified problems related to allocation of credit not only to the individual scholar but also to the departments or programs with which she/he is affiliated. 1. Grants. Interdisciplinary research centers often have resources that facilitate the submission and administration of research grants. When grants are submitted through the interdisciplinary center, the home departments of participating faculty get no credit for generating external resources and/or overhead. One informant had requested a joint appointment in an interdisciplinary center, but the department refused to approve (and the dean would not overrule) because significant overhead would be lost to the department. Even when grants are credited to one investigator s home department, collaborators departments receive no credit. 2. Teaching. The official UW-Madison credit tally counts student credit hours in the department in which the students registers; interdisciplinary courses by design attract fewer students from the instructor s own department(s) and therefore produce fewer credit hours for the department paying the bill. The Academic Planning and Analysis Office has now developed an alternate report that also existed from 1978 to 1995 -- allocating credit hours to the employing department(s). As this "credits follow the instructor" accounting system becomes more widely recognized and used, it should lower barriers to or costs of participating in interdisciplinary teaching programs. Team-taught courses present another challenge to the credit-keeping system. Departments are sometimes reluctant to reduce teaching loads so that faculty can participate in interdisciplinary programs even when the faculty member can buy out the course. Interdisciplinary courses are not the bread and butter of departmental teaching and may generate fewer student credit-hours. Departmental colleagues may be concerned about adequate teaching in areas of departmental emphasis.

7 3. Graduate Training. Principal Investigators on large interdepartmental training grants are critical for the campus as a whole but may not have significant impact on any single department. They may therefore not receive adequate departmental recognition or compensation for this work. One informant administers a training grant with 14 graduate students, none of whom are obtaining degrees in his home department. Neither does he receive teaching credit for the heavy load of providing these students professional socialization and seminars on interdisciplinary research. 4. Visibility. Departments with faculty split 50/50 often feel that they are not getting their money's worth, even if the faculty member is actually putting in a 75% effort in its department. This is an especially acute problem with cross-college appointments where one department is on a 12-month and another is on a 9-month basis. Faculty members with 100% 12-month appointments are being compared with faculty members with 50% 9-month appointments. In the former case, one department is paying 100% of their salary, while in the latter the department is paying only 37.5% of their salary, but expects at least half-time work. 5. Distribution of credit and rewards is even more problematic when as is common for interdisciplinary appointments one or both departments is small. Small departments have less flexibility in allowing faculty to teach outside the department. The size and lumpiness of the merit pool means that lack of appreciation by one s peers for interdisciplinary work has larger effects on merit increases. When departments are requested to provide resources for an interdisciplinary program, smaller departments are less able to do so without jeopardizing their primary mission. Institutional Supports for Interdisciplinary Work Interdisciplinary scholarship presents two paradoxes for an academic institution. First, to maintain high quality standards for interdisciplinary research, the institution must have strong disciplinary structures. But the strength of those structures may inhibit the development of effective interdisciplinary programs. Second, much interdisciplinary work has an applied or policy focus and is therefore subject to greater public scrutiny than is work within a traditional disciplinary framework. The need for the protection of tenure may be greater for interdisciplinary researchers, while the nature of interdisciplinary work makes it more difficult to obtain tenure. Institutional mechanisms that facilitate interdisciplinary work must therefore find some sort of middle ground. We identified four general strategies for facilitating interdisciplinary work and ensuring that faculty with interdisciplinary responsibilities are appropriately rewarded: direct support for interdisciplinary programs; allocation of credit for interdisciplinary work; evaluation and reward structure for interdisciplinary work; physical and organizational integration.

8 Direct Support for Interdisciplinary Programs. A great deal of the interdisciplinary work at UW-Madison is driven by external funding agencies. In some fields, interdisciplinary research and training is a requirement for positive evaluations and funding. In others, special funds are set aside for interdisciplinary research and training. In order to increase the University s ability to compete for these funds (as well as to maintain high-quality research and training), internal support is also required. Some possibilities include: 1. UW-Madison could continue the cluster hiring initiative as part of the regular faculty appointment process. The cluster hiring process has helped formalize interdisciplinary connections across the campus. Clusters must, however, have sufficient initial funding not only for faculty salaries, but also for initial program development. Cluster faculty should have money for program staff and course buy-outs for lead faculty who will take on the work of organizing the cluster and developing its collective identity and operation. 2. Special funds could be set aside for travel and project assistants, or other research support earmarked for interdisciplinary research. This could be part of the Graduate School Research Committee s mandate. 3. Special funds could be provided for group sabbatical leaves during which faculty would work together on a new interdisciplinary course or research project. Ideally, the University might also provide some flexible office space and basic administrative support for these groups of faculty so that they would not be available to their home departments (an advantage of offcampus sabbaticals). 4. The University could provide direct salary adjustments or free research assistants for faculty who take on extensive responsibilities for interdisciplinary programs, to compensate for the additional efforts required and lack of recognition within home departments. 5. The University could provide funding for faculty time or paid consultants to develop interdisciplinary research proposals and to train graduate students in interdisciplinary research methods and craft. A series of administrative seminars on interdisciplinary research could be established. A bibliography of interdisciplinary research methods with reviews of successful cases could be produced. Guidelines could be developed for maintaining interpersonal relations with colleagues in interdisciplinary projects. Allocation of Credit to Academic Units. Creative administrative mechanisms are needed to ensure that departments as well as interdisciplinary programs receive appropriate credit for supporting the interdisciplinary work of their faculty. Whether it is grant dollars, teaching credits, or graduate degrees, credit should be distributed in proportion to the percentage of support provided by each unit providing resources salary, space, etc. to the participating faculty. To recognize the commitment made by faculty to programs outside their home departments, it may be sensible to exclude such faculty from a department s FTE count for example in calculating indicators of department productivity.

9 The University should also consider allowing some faculty to have 100% appointments in interdisciplinary units, acting as interdisciplinary "change agents". Most faculty do interdisciplinary work on top of their regular obligations. Why shouldn't some people make interdisciplinary work their first, and only, priority? One informant whose budgeted appointment is full-time in an interdisciplinary program noted that her colleagues in that program were unusually predisposed to understand demands of the disciplinary department with which she is affiliated. Because several other members of the interdisciplinary program were also based in the same disciplinary department, she had peer support in the disciplinary setting. Large departments should be expected to devote a higher proportion of resources to interdisciplinary programs than smaller departments associated with the same program. This recognizes the greater flexibility of large departments in terms of course offerings, administrative organization, etc. Evaluation Process. The process of evaluation for tenure, salary increases, and internal grant support should ensure that a faculty member s interdisciplinary activities are recognized and appropriately rewarded. 1. Guidelines should be developed and expectations clearly spelled out for faculty members with joint appointments or other interdisciplinary responsibilities. The participating units and the faculty member should work together to write a memorandum of understanding, clearly outlining the teaching and service obligations of the faculty member in question. This is especially important for junior faculty. 2. Frequent and open communication must occur between chairs of departments that share one faculty member. This is again particularly important for junior faculty. Both departments must provide strong mentoring and give routine feedback. At least one person from each department or from the interdisciplinary program must be on the mentoring committee in order to comment on quality of publication outlets and standing in the field. 3. Because of the inherent difficulty of interdisciplinary work, departments should lower service expectations for faculty engaged in such work. The usual practice of avoiding service obligations for junior faculty is especially important for those with interdisciplinary responsibilities. Department chairs should carefully coordinate service requests with the other departments or programs to which faculty have responsibilities. Such conversations can increase awareness of the extra service burdens of faculty with responsibilities to more than one department or program. 4. Evaluation of faculty should incorporate the views of the interdisciplinary program and/or the other department. Departments involved in dual appointments may differ in prestige and it is important that the more prestigious department or program give full weight to reports from the less prestigious department or program. For tenure decisions, letters from UW-Madison colleagues or mentors in interdisciplinary programs should be considered.

10 5. Faculty members should be able to use the same documents for review in both departments, requiring coordination of the two review processes. One informant mentioned that his department s adoption of a one-page prose overview of his work enabled him to explain to his colleagues the nature and significance of his interdisciplinary responsibilities and output. He also noted that the post-tenure review had been an excellent mechanism to provide this sort of insight. 6. When departments use graphs, tables, etc. to determine salary increases, they should consider only those funds that arise from the department's pool. 7. The University could improve the reward for interdisciplinary research by establishing a special award for outstanding interdisciplinary research or activities on campus. At the very least, interdisciplinary work should be considered as a criterion in the regular evaluation processes (e.g., tenure guidelines, merit exercise). To ensure that interdisciplinary work is appropriate evaluated, committees dealing with faculty governance and research agenda-setting should include a significant number of faculty with interdisciplinary experience. Physical, Social and Organizational Integration. Space and administrative resources should flow along interdisciplinary as well as disciplinary lines. Perhaps some buildings could eventually be dedicated for interdisciplinary projects. Perhaps "incubator space" could be set aside to help new interdisciplinary projects get off the ground -- let's say with a ~3-5 year "lease". When a faculty member is expected to work in another location, departmental colleagues may be less concerned with her/his absence from the hallways of the department. Interdisciplinary units also simplify administrative work for faculty having to deal with only one set of administrators. Funds could be allocated to social spaces for interdisciplinary conversation (coffee rooms, etc.), for travel with research colleagues, field work to bring people together for extended periods. Mechanisms such as departmental open houses or exchanges could help identify people with overlapping interests. * * *

Table 1 Analysis of Faculty With Interdisciplinary Appointments: Faculty Hired Between May 1990 and May 1995 Number Percent of Appointment Type Hired Total Hires Single Department Total 368 69% Tenured 65 57% Probationary 303 72% Joint/ Affiliate/ or Multiple Tenure Total 166 31% Tenured 49 43% Probationary 117 28% Multiple Tenure Only Total 24 4% Tenured 8 7% Probationary 16 4% Total Hired May 90-May 95 Total 534 100% Tenured 114 100% Probationary 420 100% Source: UW Madison Tenure file and IADS appointment information system, August 2002. Notes: For this table, an individual who had a tenure home in more than one department is shown as "Multiple Tenure". An individual who held a Joint Departmental, Affiliate or Tenure relationship with two or more departments at any time is shown as "Joint/Affiliate/Mulitple Tenure". Faculty with only one department relationship are shown under "Single Department". Excludes faculty hired with administrative appointments (such as deans). Prepared by: Margaret Harrigan, Academic Planning and Analysis

Table 2 Faculty Promotions to Tenure by Interdisciplinary Appointment For Faculty Hired Between May 1990 and May 1995 100.0 Percent Probationary Faculty Promoted Single Department Joint/ Affiliate/ Multiple Tenure Multiple Tenure Only 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 Promoted within 6 Years Promoted within 9 Years Left within 6 Still Left within 9 Promoted Years w/o Probationary Promoted Years w/o within 6 Years Tenure after 6 Years within 9 Years Tenure Appointment Total Type Hired Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Single Department 288 128 44.4 81 28.1 79 27.4 175 60.8 108 37.5 Joint/ Affiliate/ Multiple Tenure 116 69 59.5 17 14.7 30 25.9 89 76.7 25 21.6 Multiple Tenure Only 16 13 81.3 1 6.3 2 12.5 14 87.5 2 12.5 Source: UW Madison Tenure file and IADS appointment information system, July 2002 Notes: Probationary faculty only. Adjustments made for time on tenure clock outside UW; no adjustments for tenure clock extensions. Two faculty hired in 1992-93, one hired in 1993-94 and one in 1990-91 still hold probationary appointments after more than 9 years. Faculty hired between May 1994 and May 1995 may not have reached 9 years on tenure track but are included in the final columns. (Four faculty hired between May 1994 - May 1995 are still in probationary status with 7.5-9 years on tenure track.) For this table, an individual who had a tenure home in more than one department while in probationary status is shown as "Multiple Tenure". An individual who held a Joint Departmental, Affiliate or Tenure relationship with two or more departments at any time during the probationary period is shown as "Joint/Affiliate/ Multiple Tenure". Faculty with only one department relationship (excluding funding-only relationships) during their probationary period are shown under "Single Department". Prepared by : Margaret Harrigan, Academic Planning and Analysis

Table 3 Analysis of Faculty With Interdisciplinary Appointments For Faculty Hired Between May 1990 and May 1995 Change in Salary over Five Years Assistant Professors Tenured Faculty Joint/ Joint/ Affiliate/ or Mulitple Affiliate/ or Mulitple Single Multiple Tenure Single Multiple Tenure Percent Increase Department Tenure Only Department Tenure Only 0.0-10.0 1 2 0 1 1 0 10.0-15.0 30 14 1 5 6 1 15.0-17.5 25 7 1 10 9 3 17.5-20.0 32 18 4 12 6 0 20.0-25.0 48 23 3 14 5 0 25.0-30.0 33 16 3 5 8 3 30.0-40.0 29 13 1 7 5 0 40.0-50.0 9 4 0 0 1 0 50.0-60.0 4 1 1 1 0 0 over 60 percent 5 3 1 1 0 0 Total 216 101 15 56 41 7 mean 0.250 0.258 0.302 0.231 0.218 0.202 median 0.223 0.218 0.217 0.202 0.191 0.171 standard dev 0.128 0.170 0.263 0.098 0.077 0.057 Assistant Professors Tenured Faculty Joint/ Joint/ Affiliate/ or Multiple Affiliate/ or Multiple Single Multiple Tenure Single Multiple Tenure Percent Increase Department Tenure Only Department Tenure Only 0.0-10.0 0% 2% 0% 2% 2% 0% 10.0-15.0 14% 14% 7% 9% 15% 14% 15.0-17.5 12% 7% 7% 18% 22% 43% 17.5-20.0 15% 18% 27% 21% 15% 0% 20.0-25.0 22% 23% 20% 25% 12% 0% 25.0-30.0 15% 16% 20% 9% 20% 43% 30.0-40.0 13% 13% 7% 13% 12% 0% 40.0-50.0 4% 4% 0% 0% 2% 0% 50.0-60.0 2% 1% 7% 2% 0% 0% over 60% 2% 3% 7% 2% 0% 0% Source: UW Madison Tenure file and IADS appointment information system, August 2002

Notes: For this table, an individual who had a tenure home in more than one department is shown as "Multiple Tenure". An individual who held a Joint Departmental, Affiliate or Tenure relationship with two or more departments is shown as "Joint/Affiliate/Mulitple Tenure". Faculty with only one department relationship are shown under "Single Department". Includes only those faculty with five years of salary history. Excludes $0 appointments, faculty hired to serve as administrators (e.g., Dean), faculty with a change in pay basis. Prepared by : Margaret Harrigan, Academic Planning and Analysis 30% Change in Salary over 5 Years: Assistant Profs 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 15.0-17.5 17.5-20.0 20.0-25.0 25.0-30.0 30.0-40.0 40.0-50.0 50.0-60.0 over 60% Single Department Multiple Tenure Only Joint/ Affiliate/ or Multiple Tenure Change in Salary over 5 Years: Tenured 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 15.0-17.5 17.5-20.0 20.0-25.0 25.0-30.0 30.0-40.0 40.0-50.0 50.0-60.0 over 60% Single Dept Jt/Affil/Mult Ten Mult Ten

Table 4 Analysis of Faculty With Interdisciplinary Appointments For Faculty Hired Between May 1990 and May 1995 Change in Salary over Three Years Assistant Professors Tenured Faculty Percent Single Joint/ Affiliate/ or Multiple Mulitple Tenure Single Joint/ Affiliate/ or Multiple Mulitple Tenure Increase Department Tenure Only Department Tenure Only 0.0-5.0 7 3 0 1 0 0 5.0-7.5 37 21 3 9 6 1 7.5-10.0 71 33 6 19 17 3 10.0-12.5 47 24 3 12 10 1 12.5-15.0 36 9 2 10 3 0 15.0-20.0 34 14 1 6 3 2 20.0-30.0 18 5 0 1 6 0 30.0-40.0 4 0 0 0 0 0 40.0-50.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 over 50 percent 0 2 1 1 0 0 Total 255 111 16 59 45 7 mean 0.122 0.124 0.140 0.124 0.117 0.113 median 0.103 0.100 0.093 0.102 0.099 0.099 standard dev 0.062 0.123 0.163 0.122 0.047 0.048 Change in Salary over Three Years Assistant Professors Tenured Faculty Joint/ Affiliate/ Mulitple Joint/ Affiliate/ Mulitple Percent Single or Multiple Tenure Single or Multiple Tenure Increase Department Tenure Only Department Tenure Only 0.0-5.0 3% 3% 0% 2% 0% 0% 5.0-7.5 15% 19% 19% 15% 13% 14% 7.5-10.0 28% 30% 38% 32% 38% 43% 10.0-12.5 18% 22% 19% 20% 22% 14% 12.5-15.0 14% 8% 13% 17% 7% 0% 15.0-20.0 13% 13% 6% 10% 7% 29% 20.0-30.0 7% 5% 0% 2% 13% 0% 30.0-40.0 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 40.0-50.0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% over 50% 0% 2% 6% 2% 0% 0% Source: UW Madison Tenure file and IADS appointment information system, July 2002 Notes: For this table, an individual who had a tenure home in more than one department is shown as "Multiple Tenure". An individual who held a Joint Departmental, Affiliate or Tenure relationship with two or more departments is shown as "Joint/Affiliate/Mulitple Tenure". Faculty with only one department relationship are shown under "Single Department". Includes only those faculty with three years of salary history. Excludes $0 appointments, faculty hired to serve as administrators (e.g., Dean), faculty with a change in pay basis.

Prepared by: Margaret Harrigan, Academic Planning and Analysis Change in Salary over 3 Years: Assistant Profs 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0.0-5.0 5.0-7.5 7.5-10.0 10.0-12.5 12.5-15.0 15.0-20.0 20.0-30.0 30.0-40.0 40.0-50.0 over 50% Single Department Jt/Affil/Mult Tenure Mult Tenure Change in Salary over 3 Years: Tenured 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0.0-5.0 5.0-7.5 7.5-10.0 10.0-12.5 12.5-15.0 15.0-20.0 20.0-30.0 30.0-40.0 40.0-50.0 over 50% Single Department Jt/Affil/Mult Tenure Mult Tenure

Table 5 Faculty With Interdisciplinary Appointments: Analysis of Receipt of Graduate School Funds for Faculty Hired Between May 1990 and May 1995 Received Grad Start- Received Grad Fall up Funds Research Awards Appointment Type Count Percent Count Percent Single Department Total 285 77% 272 74% Tenured 51 78% 39 60% Probationary 234 77% 233 77% Joint/ Affiliate/ or Multiple Tenure Total 130 78% 126 76% Tenured 35 71% 28 57% Probationary 95 81% 98 84% Multiple Tenure Only Total 21 88% 20 83% Tenured 6 75% 5 63% Probationary 15 94% 15 94% Total Hired May 90-May 95 Total 415 78% 398 75% Tenured 86 75% 67 59% Probationary 329 78% 331 79% Source: UW Madison Tenure file and IADS appointment information system, August 2002. Graduate School Start-up funds and Fall Competition Research Awards data bases, July 2002. Notes: For this table, an individual who had a tenure home in more than one department is shown as "Multiple Tenure". An individual who held a Joint Departmental, Affiliate or Tenure relationship with two or more departments at any time is shown as "Joint/Affiliate/Mulitple Tenure". Faculty with only one department relationship are shown under "Single Department". An individual is reported as having received a Grad School Research Award above if he or she received any Graduate School Fall Competition Awards granted between 1991-92 and 2000-2001. The Graduate School data base does not keep track of who applied for a grant, only those whose application was successful. Excludes faculty hired with administrative appointments (such as deans). Prepared by: Margaret Harrigan, Academic Planning and Analysis