|
A "SILENT REVOLUTION"
Across the nation in higher education today, faculty scholarship is in a crisis as a result of several factors. In 1998, the "Final Report of the MLA Committee on Professional Employment" says: "Higher education in the fields our organization represents has reached a crisis that has been building for a long time - a crisis not yet fully understood either by the public at large, whose intellectual destiny is closely bound up with the future of our colleges and universities, or by the professoriate, whose careers are intimately linked with the fate of those institutions." A 2001 report on the changing demographics of the academic profession by Finkelstein and Schuster confirms that, "The American faculty has been undergoing dramatic changes in who it is, what it does, and the career trajectory of its members. While many of the changes - especially the demographic ones - have been evident for years, other key dimensions of the faculty's transformation have been far less visible. Taken together, these elements constitute, in effect, a silent revolution."
This silent revolution has transformed the face of higher education and calls for new approaches, new solutions, and new programs to meet the needs of a new faculty situation. The Faculty Forum, one response to one part of this crisis, is a practical, cost-effective, and easily implemented approach.
CAUSES
Historical Causes
The MLA Committee's explanation of the causes of this crisis focuses on the confluence of a number of factors, including the dual but conflicting imperatives since WWII of greater student access to education (resulting in a large influx of often unprepared students and need for large numbers of remedial courses), juxtaposed with an increased emphasis on advanced research, often federally funded, (resulting in institutional encouragement of professorial interests to become more specialized and esoteric, rewarded as more prestigious and desirable work than teaching growing basic or remedial undergraduate classes). Add to this an oversupply of PhDs, and, since the end of the Cold War, the loss of much government funding and National Science Foundation endowments to public higher education. Include the increase of entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid since the mid-70's for which education funds have served as a "cash cow" ("Final Report"). All of these factors, and more, have served to contribute to the 600% increase in college educational costs per student between 1961 and 1995 ("Final Report").
The Recent Recession
The financial problems affecting the universities will not pass with the passing of the current recession; they are "long-term and structural" (Guskin and Marcy). The executive director of the National Governors Association, Ray Scheppach, summarizes the states' fiscal problems: "Two longstanding structural problems - an eroding tax base and the explosion of health care costs - are the major causes. Both of these problems were camouflaged by the phenomenal economic growth in the second half of the 1990s" (qtd. in Guskin and Marcy 12). The recession merely revealed, rather than caused the problems. David Breneman explains the effect of the states' decline on the universities:
Increasingly, tax revenues are insufficient to support the myriad social services expected of state governments, including public higher education. The shift of many social-service obligations from Washington to the states has only amplified this problem. The late Harold A. Hovey, a former budget director in Illinois and Ohio, estimated in 1999 that the high level of economic activity was masking structural deficits in 39 states. His analysis, which many states ignored at the time, was prescient(qtd. in Guskin and Marcy 12).
Present Financial Situation
Universities no longer have the same financial resources they once did and have been "muddling through" for years (Guskin and Marcy), cutting corners in a variety of ways, expecting the financial situation to change, when it has not and will not any time soon. Mistakenly perceiving the economic difficulty as only a temporary crunch, university administrators have not been prepared with any long term or cohesive plans to address this situation. At this point, cost cuts must be drastic. Guskin and Marcy see this affecting the faculty role: "…fairly significant layoffs and early retirements are a prominent part of budget reduction and, wherever possible, vacated faculty positions are filled with instructional staff who teach more and are paid less" (13).
OTHER CHANGES IN HIGHER EDUCATION TODAY
Compounding the economic problems, the higher education crisis has been accompanied by a variety of other changes, including but not limited to:
Changes in student body: Formerly male, white, middle to upper class, 18-22 years old and single, the average student is now a 36-year-old female, usually working full time with families to boot.
Changes in kinds of schools: Only 6.6% of institutes of higher education are traditional research universities; for-profit universities abound (15.7%). The largest private university in America is the University of Phoenix, an entirely non-traditionally delivered (all evening and accelerated, or on-line, classes) education for working adults using solely adjuncts for professors. Even those that are not for-profit are more and more considering profit and are advertising.
Increasing reliance on technology: Technology is increasingly used in instructional delivery, as well as every other area of university functioning, for a variety or reasons. It is cost-effective and its convenience meets the demanding schedules of the new type of student. Many schools deliver on-line and "hybrid" courses. Even traditional schools are jumping into the fray; the June '03 issue of "University Business" considers the controversy of "Harvard On-line" and the educational compromises that may or may not be entailed with this kind of education delivery.
Changes in the American professoriate: The job crisis means sometimes 33% - 50% of a department's faculty are adjunct, removed from the collegial support and culture of the school and profession. Non-tenure track appointees are greater, with primarily teaching responsibilities. In addition, the professoriate is now more diverse - greater cultural representation so that only 20% of new faculty hired are now white males, though statistically it is the men who are awarded traditional research positions (Finklestein & Schuster). Fewer faculty are doing research.
Broadening of scholarship definitions: Formerly only traditional research, scholarship now has come to mean any disciplined investigation into an area of teaching or one's field that is systematic, documentable, presented to the public.
Changes in perception of the teaching-scholarship relationship: A fledgling but very real new awareness of scholarship's effect on teaching which means that teaching colleges may have a vested interest in scholarly activities of their professors, yet a culture of scholarship does not often exist at such schools. Accrediting agencies are starting to recognize this with new faculty requirements for all degree-granting institutions. The benefits of scholarship to teaching are that it improves content area knowledge, ensures professional and academic currency, revitalizes faculty, facilitates networking, improves critical thinking skills, improves communication skills, and creates needed communities internally and externally. Essentially scholarship creates better, more informed and involved teachers both academically and professionally and improves the quality of education significantly, yet scholarship guidance is becoming less and less a reality in the new educational environment.
Increase in Use of Adjunct Faculty
One primary result of these complex, interwoven factors is the trend of campus administrations to offset rising costs by turning to increasing "staffs of ill-paid, overworked part- or full-time adjunct lecturers and graduate students to meet instructional need" ("Final Report"), a detriment to all involved in the educational system - students, professors, institutions, and society. Margaret Calahan reports that, "In 1970, 22% of faculty nationwide consisted of part-timers, but by 1993 the face of higher education had changed so drastically that part-timers constituted 40% of the faculty (qtd. in "Final Report"). Another study in Fall 1992 reports that in two year colleges, the figures are even more alarming: part-timers account for "two thirds of foreign language faculty members… and half of English faculty members" ("Final Report"). As universities cut costs to make up for lost revenue, qualified professionals with the terminal degree in hand become over-worked, under-employed, under-compensated, part-time transients - "freeway fliers" as the MLA terms them. Finkelstein and Schuster report: "[N]o more than one in four recent faculty hires holds a regular, traditional appointment. (Very roughly, close to half of faculty members are part-time and, among the full-timers, half are being hired into term appointments.)" The fabric of departmental life is unraveling, and scholarship mentoring is lost.
THE NEED FOR SCHOLARSHIP MENTORING
Necessity of Collegial Support and Its Absence in the Current Educational Environment
Unless a pro-active approach takes place regarding scholarship, essentially no change will occur: there will be little or no increase in scholarship despite policy changes and despite new accreditation requirements. Studies done on the topic reveal that scholarship does not occur in isolation (Jarvis). For scholarship to occur, there must be the following factors: (a) a recognition and rewards system, (b) administrative support, and © collegial support. For those faculty who do not have scholarship mentoring available, an internal support network is requisite, and the benefits will be evident in terms of increased faculty productivity and vitality. And once faculty know how to engage in scholarship, a scholarship program is still necessary; Jarvis and others report that even those faculty who know how to engage in scholarship are not likely to stay involved in that without collegial support, administrative support, and a recognition and rewards system. (Again, those factors were present in the old university structure and are absent in the majority of universities today). At colleges where a scholarship culture does not exist, faculty are less likely to independently initiate and maintain scholarship, hence the importance of institutional structure and support.
Until schools reach a level wherein their professors commonly and regularly engage in scholarship, a formal scholarship program is necessary if scholarship is to occur at any kind of proportionally significant rate. After that, a successfully implemented program will serve to continually increase quality and ensure success in faculty work. Scholarship programs benefit both new scholars and experienced scholars. They can be "how to" programs for those who have never engaged in scholarship, and support and improvement programs for those who already have. Even those professors who are comfortable with scholarship can benefit from such a program. Mike Rose writes that, "The quality of scholarly writing is widely bemoaned in the academy." The Faculty Forum's writing workshops and writing information address this need.
MARKET TRENDS
Faculty Professions Suffer
The faculty situation will continue its trend towards greater adjunct use, towards greater proliferation of non-traditional educational delivery with non-traditional students, towards greater departmental fragmentation, increasing faculty academic frustration, and deteriorating educational quality as measured by degree worth decades ago. The educational system is increasingly transforming the career of "professor" into a part-time job, affecting the professor, the students, the educational system itself, and the country.
Guskin and Marcy consider the universities' "muddling through" approach as seriously undermining the nature of the academic profession with several negative effects:
Increasing faculty workload,
Reducing faculty security associated with teaching and scholarship,
Reducing faculty salary to the point that it does not compete with alternative professions,
Thus resulting in loss of best faculty members - either through leaving or not joining the profession, and
Thus resulting in reduction of quality of education/curricula delivery. (14)
In addition, the increasing use of adjunct faculty has far-reaching implications for the kind of education America delivers today and to the shape and definition of faculty role. Jane Harper of the MLA reports, "With no responsibility or remuneration for activities other than their teaching, part-timers are not available … for advising and mentoring students, answering questions about programs, committee work, curriculum development, materials review and selection, test-bank development and other necessary professional functions that maintain the integrity of a department and its curriculum" ("Final Report").
Finklestein & Schuster found that adjunct faculty:
Devote about five hours a week less to their institutional responsibilities (as much as 10 fewer hours at the research universities) than do their regular counterparts.
Spend more time teaching, less time in service activities (governance and committee work), and much less time in research (the area the FF will address).
Are about twice as likely as regulars to spend no time whatsoever in "informal interaction" with students.
These duties then fall as burdens on the shoulders of remaining full-time faculty, who may never meet or know their other half. Not only faculty, both permanent and part-time are cheated, but students are obviously the losers in this game of economic gain for the university.
Finkelstein and Schuster believe that "this makeover of the faculty members and their careers is likely to accelerate - The number of retirements… the spread of instructional technology…[and finally,] changing accreditation standards …[will] exert a subtle but powerful influence. Accreditors are striving hard to accommodate the 'new realities' and, in so doing, are de-emphasizing the roles of - and, thereby, the need for - a substantial cadre of traditional full-time faculty members."
Naturally occurring scholarship mentoring suffers in this new environment: Finkelstein and Schuster say "the day of the full-service professor - teaching, research, service - is becoming an anachronism." There is now an "unraveling of the 'holy trinity' which may have serious implications for the quality of academic work, the quality of teaching and advising, and the quality of the research enterprise." Even more, there are "longer-term implications for the academy."
Faculty Interest in Scholarship
Even though the university has changed and the climate of higher education has changed, many college professors want to do scholarship. The November 2001 AAHE Bulletin reports that, at least among a sample of graduate students surveyed at the University of Michigan, 66% sought to integrate teaching and research about equally, while fewer wanted either a teaching oriented (26%) or research-focused job (9%) (Cook 4). This is a total of 75% of graduate students soon to be faculty, that want to do scholarship in their careers. These graduate students also indicated the desire to work in many different types of colleges - some students wished to find employment in a research university but some wanted to teach at four year colleges or others that were more teaching focused. This seems to indicate that not only will educational institutions benefit from a more equal balance of teaching and scholarship, but faculty actually prefer such a balance.
Faculty Interest in Scholarship at Specialized Institutions
The number of faculty at non-traditional schools like the for-profits who want to do scholarship may be different - for example, the DeVry University new faculty policy manual faculty job evaluation breakdown was originally 40-20-20-20 (40% teaching, 20% committee work and administrative duties, 20% professional development (includes scholarship), and 20% university service) as determined by administration but was changed to 65-10-15-10 at some faculty's request. This may be due less to whether or not faculty "want" to do scholarship, and far more to plain ignorance about what scholarship is (many picture a lab or a library and hard-core original research), and even much more to faculty fear that job security may be tied to scholarship production, an activity that seems immensely fraught with difficulty and that they have no idea how to do. These schools compensate in the area of faculty support and development by leaning towards an emphasis on surface methods to enhance teaching, such as pedagogical technique and non-traditional scholarship "count." This trend will also continue. As long as it is financially desirable to reduce educational quality, and as long accrediting institutions and students cooperate, entrepreneurs will jump into the education business to turn a profit and will compensate for the hard, mysterious work of scholarship production (that comes naturally and obviously in traditional academic environments) with weaker substitutes.
The Rise of Technology - and Technopoly - in Education
Other market trends include greater use of the Internet; there are more and more on-line delivered classes, educational services, and faculty development services. The Internet will increasingly become an irreplaceable tool in teaching and education in many ways: as a communication tool (e-mail, threaded discussions, both synchronous and asynchronous communication) for traditionally delivered classes, as a supplement for lack of face-to-face contact in accelerated classes, as the sole means of class delivery for on-line classes. Students increasingly use it for research. It is and will increasingly be used for administrative purposes by the college - for registration, for job advertisements, for advertisement. And, it is used for quite commonly for professional/faculty development services. Today and in the future, every college professor is expected to be computer and Internet literate - and they usually are.
Growth of on-line distance learning can be seen in the following figures: in 2002-03, on-line learning constituted 3.5 billion revenues in tuition dollars, in 2003-04 the projection is 4.5 billion, and 5.4 billion is projected in 2004-05. The percentage of students that are fully online were 3% in 2001-02, and with a growth rate of 1.5% per year, are projected at 7% in 2004-05 (Gallagher). These figures do not include the increasingly popular "hybrid" courses, which come in a variety of formats, such as an accelerated class that supplements class time with on-line materials and discussions. And of course, even more students participate on-line on a part-time basis, supplementing their traditional classes with an on-line course or two that fits into their schedule much better. Flexibility is the key word here: as the demographic composition of college students have changed, the schools adjust to deliver education that is convenient to the needs of working students with families.
Educational services are now and increasingly will be commonly delivered through the Internet, and the university is adjusting to this slowly, often using outside web services to meet their needs. According to University Business magazine:
Many institutions have decided to outsource various components of their technology architecture - most commonly and visibly by licensing course management systems from firms such as Blackboard and WebCT. Others have outsourced the entire technology infrastructure (including hosting on a vendor's databases and servers elements of faculty support and student help desks, etc.) to firms such as eCollege, EMBANet, or Collegis. Large for-profits and smaller, resource-constrained IHEs such as community colleges have been particularly inclined to outsource these functions, while many research/doctoral universities have decided to address technology in-house. Yet, technology selection is just the tip of the iceberg, as the online learning infrastructure must encompass all of the institution's student and faculty services. Often, this requires an entire re-envisioning or restructuring of how various institutional functions will operate and how services will be delivered in the online environment. (Gallagher)
Technology's rise to prominence in higher education has been financially helpful as well. Technology has become the new savior for the schools' economic crunch. By using technology to streamline processes, schools can cut costs and more efficiently provide the same service - whether it is registration of students or delivery of classes.
Results of These Trends
In this scenario, there is more and more use of adjuncts. There is less emphasis on and prevalence of the traditionally-delivered college education, college student, and faculty departmental life. Instead of face-to-face interaction, learning (both student and faculty learning) is electronic, sometimes engaging people around the world in on-line interaction. All of this produces greater fragmentation in the educational field, and faculty "say-so" and involvement in producing and creating their own job definition and conditions, even in their class syllabi, is deteriorating. Rather than the professor in the office next door guiding and mentoring his junior colleague in all aspects of the job, there is now a "top-down, institution-wide mentality" (Gallagher), with administrators determining uniform conditions, courses, and requirements for all. And at schools like DeVry University and University of Phoenix, even class textbooks and syllabi for all classes are nationally and uniformly determined by a corporate office decision.
Whether these trends are a move to greater quality and control for the institution, or a frightening "Brave New World" loss of free thought, intimate relationships, and uniqueness in the name of greater company profit, it does bode well for the timeliness of a "canned" and outsourced mentoring project like the Faculty Forum. In addition, this means that marketing to top administrators, who have become the decision-makers for sometimes even minute aspects of faculty working life, will be the most effective method of selling the project.
AWARENESS OF SCHOLARSHIP MENTORING NEEDS BY INSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
The perceived need for faculty scholarship will affect a school's awareness of its need for scholarship mentoring program like the Faculty Forum. This will vary, generally by type of institution:
At the highest Carnegie Classification levels of institutes of higher education, the research universities, scholarship is seen as imperative, often as more important than teaching or any other faculty job duty. Tenure (job security) and promotion are often tied more to scholarship accomplishment than to any other professorial duty.
At the levels in the middle, baccalaureate and associates colleges, administrators usually feel this kind of faculty professional development is important and necessary or at least helpful for a quality faculty and quality institution. The Faculty Forum will probably be most easily received by these schools (because mentoring is also needed). Both professors and institution are aware that faculty scholarship involvement is beneficial and desired for the professors and the school.
At the lowest levels, specialized institutions that often consider and portray their faculty as solely teaching-focused, scholarship is usually seen as optional and superfluous. However, individual school administrators will vary according to their perception of their faculty's need for involvement and its importance. For the Faculty Forum to be well-received by these institutions, persuading and educating administrators of the benefits of scholarship to their faculty and institution must be done.
Doctoral Universities and Scholarship
At the doctoral universities, only 7% of total IHEs according to 2000 Carnegie figures, the percentage of full time faculty members holding doctorates is high, and their colleagues and senior faculty members are all active in the area (or they would not be employed by the institution) and can assist their junior colleagues in this area. There is often greater departmental cohesion, and sometimes even a conscious mentoring through programs and classes for graduate students (who are usually teaching assistants with on-campus offices within the department). The natural structure of writing the dissertation encourages the same kind of mentoring. At these levels, where strong buy-in into scholarship as essential, even required, already exists, so does the practice of scholarship: the Faculty Forum may not be necessary at these schools for existing faculty members; however, doctoral universities may find the program helpful for their graduate students.
Master's, Bachelor's, and Associates Colleges and Scholarship
Master's universities (15.5% of total IHEs by 2000 Carnegie Classification) will have environments that are in-between that described of doctoral universities (above) and four-year colleges (below). How similar each institution is to either of the other two kinds depends on the institution itself as well as the number of masters degrees or doctoral degrees (as they may offer a limited amount and still be classified as Master's Universities) they offer.
Associates colleges (which constitute 42.3% of institutions of higher education) and four-year colleges (15.4%) are likely to be most consciously aware of the need and desire for scholarship mentoring. The Ph.D. attainment of their professors is less common - often two thirds to three quarters of community college faculty have completed their education at the Master's level only. As a result, they are less likely to have publishing/presenting know-how, but these colleges usually have the format, values, and expectations of traditional universities that consider scholarship important and see that activity as part of a professor's job description and as beneficial to the university.
In addition, publication and presentation are often not required for job security or tenure, so less professors are doing that. Frequently over half of the department is filled by adjunct professors. This environment is not conducive to naturally occurring scholarship mentoring, and so it often does not occur at these schools. But since these kinds of schools often find scholarship activity valuable, they are ideal candidates for implementing the Faculty Forum project. Thus, baccalaureate and associates colleges are the best fit for the service the Faculty Forum provides as they have a greater need of the project and usually have a clearer awareness of the need for scholarship.
"Teaching" Institutions and Scholarship
Specialized or career oriented schools (19.4%) usually have the least scholarship activity and so the least scholarship mentoring. Business, engineering, computer training, medical training, and art and design schools are in this category. Examples include DeVry University and University of Phoenix, which have campuses nationwide and quite large in terms of students and employees. The largest private university in America today is University of Phoenix - which uses a policy of ALL adjunct professors to staff its classes. These colleges, like two-year colleges, generally do not have the preponderance of PhDs or the tight departmental collegiality that provides mentoring and scholarship encouragement. Faculty development is often provided on-line (another distancing factor) and is purely pedagogical. Therefore, the need for scholarship mentoring at these universities is strong and often there are many faculty at these universities who are just as interested in increasing their scholarship activity as faculty at more traditional universities.
The Artificial Dichotomy
At the levels below the master's and research universities, scholarship may sometimes be considered unimportant and unnecessary. This attitude is especially strong at specialized institutions offering primarily career-focused training. Sometimes at these schools, often called "teaching oriented" schools, scholarship may even be seen as detriment - a distraction from the "real work" of teaching duties and a vehicle for a career path out of the school. This perceived "artificial dichotomy" between scholarship and teaching is widespread in higher education, but not insurmountable. This "artificial dichotomy" between the "research professor" and the "teaching professor," reinforced by these schools, is that the teaching professor's duties and job description is not compatible with scholarship (and vice versa). The atmosphere of these universities, especially the for-profit ones relying heavily on adjuncts, de-emphasizes the role of scholarship in favor of teaching skills - for a variety of reasons, including lack of understanding of types of scholarship, lack of understanding of scholarship's benefit to teaching and the "teaching professor," and desire to take the easiest route in staffing their school/company/business. Some believe scholarship distracts a professor from teaching duties; others see it as an escape route to a higher level university. Usually these schools do not require or encourage scholarship of their professors; their emphasis is "real-world" experience and teaching skills. Hence, the solely pedagogical nature of their faculty development programs.
Scholarship's Relationship to Teaching
However scholarship activity improves teaching. The success of the Faculty Forum is partly contingent on administrative acceptance of the benefit of scholarship mentoring and the benefit of faculty scholarship to their institution's mission and goals. A teaching institution must realize that scholarship positively influences teaching. (See Benefits of Scholarship for more discussion of this.)
The Faculty Forum at Teaching Institutions
The Faculty Forum's success lies also partly with the administration's belief that faculty scholarship at their school can be accomplished through the Faculty Forum program. And for it to be successful, the Forum activities also need to be tied to the university's recognition and rewards system (i.e.: the university recognizes and rewards the professor's scholarly accomplishments), which will require administrative buy-in as well as the school makes the appropriate policies for this.
Mixed Messages in a Changing Environment
However, there is in reality no clear or consistent feeling about scholarship at any of these schools. Value of scholarship varies greatly; often a "mixed message" is given as presenting and publishing are often informally admired and rewarded by many. For example, University of Phoenix pays its professors $500 if they present or publish a paper. And even the for-profits have "professional development" (usually defined as some kind of scholarly involvement, though substitutes are accepted) if not required for tenure, written into the faculty job description. Many people/participants at these schools do intrinsically value scholarship, while others shun it, sometimes out of fear of their inability to succeed, of job security tied to the activity, or of the greater work load.
Therefore, the program can be appropriate at the career-focused specialized institutions, but with certain considerations. The specialized universities will require greater education of the idea of scholarship activity and its relationship with teaching than the community colleges and baccalaureates. Awareness of the positive benefit of scholarship activity to improving the teacher's teaching is necessary for teaching institutions to see its value. Fortunately, this is confirmed in many recent studies and is beginning to become a general accepted principle.
Accreditating Agencies and Scholarship Requirements
Other market trends, positive ones in fact, include accrediting agencies' increased awareness of the value of faculty development, including scholarship activity, on the quality of teaching and the quality of institution. Accrediting agencies have expectations for some semblance of faculty professional development, which is traditionally considered scholarship, for all degree-granting institutions. This expectation is growing. The NCA (North Central Accrediting Agency) will require some form of scholarship involvement of faculty for institutional accreditation in 2004. Specifically, this reads: "Criterion Four: Acquiring, Creating, and Applying Knowledge: The organization promotes a life of learning for its faculty, administration, staff, and students by fostering and supporting inquiry, creativity, practice, and social responsibility in ways consistent with its mission." Few of the for-profits will be prepared to meet this criterion fully and in its strongest spirit (though often alternate definitions of "acquiring creating and applying knowledge" than traditional scholarship can be used to pass accreditation.) Depending on how strictly this criterion is interpreted and enforced, and depending on those of other accrediting institutions such as SACS, these changing accreditation guidelines may open up new markets for the Faculty Forum.
These changes in accreditation standards reflect a growing value in the higher education field that scholarship, broadly defined, is beneficial to teaching and to an institution's delivery of a quality education. This new awareness of scholarship's value should be perceived by most administrators who stay abreast of educational trends, and they may be looking for a project similar to the Faculty Forum to implement at their institution.
Back to Top
Bibliography:
Works Cited and Works Consulted
Axtell, James. The Pleasures of Academe: A Celebration and Defense of Higher Education. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1998.
Berube, Michael. The Employment of English: Theory, Jobs, and Future of Literary Studies. New York: New York UP. 1998.
Bourdieu, Pierre. "For a Scholarship with Commitment." Profession (2000): 40-45.
Boice, R. (1992). The New Faculty Member. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boyer, Ernest L. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990. [Also: Revised Edition, 1997]
"Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education." Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 2000. Available at: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/Classification/index.htm
Chait, R. (1998). Ideas in Incubation: Three Possible Modifications to Traditional Tenure Policies. New Pathways Working Paper Series, inquiry #9. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
------ . (Fall 1999). "The Future of Tenure." The Department Chair 10(2): 3-5.
Chomsky, Noam. "Paths Taken, Tasks Ahead." Profession (2000): 32-39.
Cook, Constance E., Matthew Kaplan, Jana Nidiffer, and Mary C. Wright. "Preparing Future Faculty - Faster." AAHE Bulletin 54:3 (November 2001): 3-7.
Dillard, Annie. Living By Fiction. New York: Harper & Row, 1982.
"Final Report of the MLA Committee on Professional Employment." ADE Bulletin 119 (1998): 27-45. Available at: http://www.mla.org/
Finkelstein, Martin J. and Jack H. Schuster. "Assessing the Silent Revolution: How Changing Demographics Are Reshaping the Academic Profession." AAHE Bulletin. October 2001.
Available at: http://www.aahebulletin.com/public/archive/silentrevolution.asp
Fried, Michael. "Commitments." Profession (2000): 12-20.
Friedman, D.E., C. Rimsky, and A.A. Johnson. (1996). College and University Reference Guide to Work-Family Programs: Report on a Collaborative Study. New York: Family and Work Institute.
Fritz, Holly, and David Sherman. "The Academic Job Crisis and the Small-Schools Movement." Profession (2001): 58-70.
Gallagher, Sean Robert. "Maximum Profit and ROI in Distance Ed." University Business (May 2003). Available at: http://www.universitybusiness.com/page.cfm?id=256
Gilman, Sander. "Jobs: What we (Not They) Can Do." MLA Newsletter 72.4 (1995): 4- 5.
Gaff, Jerry, et al. (2000). Building the Faculty We Need. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities.
Gappa, J.M., and S.M. MacDermid. (1997). Work, Family, and the Faculty Career. New Pathways Working Paper Series, inquiry #8. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Glassick, Charles, Mary Taylor Huber, and Eugene Maeroff. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Guskin, Alan E., and Mary B. Marcy. "Dealing with the Future Now: Principles for Creating a Vital Campus in a Climate of Restricted Resources." Change (35:4) July/August 2003. 10-21.
Jarvis, Donald K. Junior Faculty Development: A Handbook. New York: MLA, 1991
Kretovics, Mark A. and James A. McCambridge. "Determining What Employers Really Want:
Conducting Regional Stakeholder Focus Groups." Journal of Career Planning &
Placement. National Association of Colleges and Employers." (Winter 1998): 25-
30.
McHaney, Thomas L., Chair. Panel Presentation. I Contain Multitudes: Achievement, the Resume, and the Job Search. South Atlantic Modern Language Association. Westin Peachtree Plaza Hotel. Atlanta. 11 Nov. 2001.
NCA Higher Learning Commission. "Proposed New Criteria for Accreditation by The Higher Learning Commission." July 1, 2002. Available at: http://www.ncahigherlearningcommission.org/restructuring/
McCormick, Kathleen. "Pedagogical Possibilities: The Needs and Benefits of Working at Teaching Oriented Institutions." ADE Bulletin. Number 133. Winter 2003. 50-56.
Menges, R.J., and Associates. (1999). Faculty in New Jobs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moody, J. (1997). Demystifying the Profession: Helping Junior Faculty Succeed. West Haven, CT: University of New Haven Press.
Ogden, Daryl. "The Marion L. Brittain Teaching Fellowship: A Model for Postdoctoral Training." Profession (2000): 138-148.
Perkins, Karey L. "The Crisis in Higher Education and Three Approaches." Paper presented at the Modern Language Association Annual Convention. New Orleans Sheraton. New Orleans. 28
December 2001. Available at: http://www.atl.devry.edu/kperkins/papers/papers.html
Rice, R.E., M.D. Sorcinelli, and A.E. Austin. (2000). Heeding New Voices: Academic Careers for a New Generation. New Pathways Working Paper Series, inquiry #7. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education..
Rose, Mike, and Karen A. McClafferty. "A Call for the Teaching of Writing in Graduate Education." Educational Researcher (March 2001): 27-33
Rosemond, John. "Character, not Genius, Best Indicator of Success." Atlanta Journal/Constitution. Dec. 1999/Jan. 2000.
Said, Edward. "Restoring Intellectual Coherence." MLA Newsletter 31.1 (Spring 1999): 3-4.
Said, Edward. "Scholarship and Commitment: Introduction." Profession (2000): 6-11.
Scarry, Elaine. "Beauty and the Scholar's Duty to Justice." Profession (2000): 21-31.
Scott, Martin. "Pagers, Nikes, and Wordsworth: Teaching College English in a Shopping Mall." Profession (2001): 92-98.
Sorcinelli, M.D., and A.E. Austin, eds. (1992). Developing New and Junior Faculty. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 48. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sorcinelli, Mary Deane."Principles of Good Practice: Supporting Early-Career Faculty." (Available at: http://www.aahe.org/ffrr/principles_brochure2.htm) and The Heeding New Voices study (Rice, Sorcinelli, and Austin, 2000
Stolpa, Jennifer M. "Settling for a Great Job." Profession (2001): 85-91.
Tierney, W.G., and E.M. Bensimon. (1996). Promotion and Tenure: Community and Socialization in Academe. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Trower, C.A., ed. (2000). Policies on Faculty Appointment. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Understanding Teaching (Session 442). With the following papers: "Scholarship of Teaching: Beyond the Anecdotal," by Mariolina Salvatori. "Rethinking Methodology in Research and Practice," by Clare Kransch. "Research on Teaching, Teaching about Research: An Awkward but Necessary Alliance," by Judith Liskin-Gasporro. "Opening the Classroom Door: Lessons from a Classroom Initiative," by Pat Hutchings. Modern Language Association Annual Convention. New Orleans Sheraton. New Orleans. 28 December 2001.
Whitted, Brent. "Why I Teach in an Independent School." Profession (2001): 71-77.
Wolfe, Daniel. "Language and Literature Jobs Increase, But So Do New Ph.D.s." Press Release. Modern Language Association of America. 14 December 2001.
Woo, Celestine. "Teaching the Urban Under-prepared Student." Profession (2001): 78-84.
Back to Top
|
