Success after Tenure: Supporting Mid-Career Faculty [1 ed.] 9781620366820

Citation preview

SUCCESS AFTER TENURE

Baker.indb 1

19-09-2019 15:20:27

Baker.indb 2

19-09-2019 15:20:27

SUCCESS AFTER TENURE Supporting Mid-Career Faculty

Edited by Vicki L. Baker with Laura Gail Lunsford, Gretchen Neisler, Meghan J. Pifer, and Aimee LaPointe Terosky Foreword by Mary Deane Sorcinelli

STERLING, VIRGINIA

Baker.indb 3

19-09-2019 15:20:27

COPYRIGHT © 2019 BY STYLUS PUBLISHING, LLC. Published by Stylus Publishing, LLC. 22883 Quicksilver Drive Sterling, Virginia 20166-2019 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, recording, and information storage and retrieval, without permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Baker, Vicki L., 1978- editor. | Neisler, Gretchen, editor. | Lunsford, Laura Gail, editor. | Pifer, Meghan J., 1978- editor. | Terosky, Aimee LaPointe, editor. Title: Success after tenure : supporting mid-career faculty / edited by Vicki L. Baker, Gretchen Neisler, Laura Gail Lunsford, Meghan J. Pifer, and Aimee LaPointe Terosky ; Foreword by Mary Deane Sorcinelli. Description: First edition. | Sterling, Virginia : Stylus Publishing, [2018] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018012526 (print) | LCCN 2018028011 (ebook) | ISBN 9781620366820 (uPDF) | ISBN 9781620366837 (ePUB, mobi) | ISBN 9781620366806 (cloth : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781620366813 (paperback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781620366820 (library networkable e-edition) |ISBN 9781620366837 (consumer e-edition) Subjects: LCSH: College teachers--Tenure--United States. | Mid-career--United States. | Career development--United States. Classification: LCC LB2335.7 (ebook) | LCC LB2335.7 .S84 2018 (print) | DDC 378.1/2140973--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018012526 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-680-6 (cloth) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-681-3 (paperback) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-682-0 (library networkable e-edition) 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-62036-683-7 (consumer e-edition) Printed in the United States of America All first editions printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National Standards Institute Z39-48 Standard. Bulk Purchases Quantity discounts are available for use in workshops and for staff development. Call 1-800-232-0223 First Edition, 2019

Baker.indb 4

19-09-2019 15:20:27

We dedicate this book to mid-career faculty as they seek to reimagine the next phase of their careers, and to the individuals who support and inspire them.

Baker.indb 5

19-09-2019 15:20:27

Baker.indb 6

19-09-2019 15:20:27

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

ix

Mary Deane Sorcinelli ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xiii

INTRODUCTION

1

Vicki L. Baker, Aimee LaPointe Terosky, Laura Gail Lunsford, Gretchen Neisler, and Meghan J. Pifer 1 FACULTY DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES Past and Present

12

Vicki L. Baker and Christina M. Vo Phan PART ONE: LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT Laura Gail Lunsford 2 THE ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE FOR MID-CAREER FACULTY

29

35

Vicki L. Baker, Laura Gail Lunsford, and Meghan J. Pifer 3 DEVELOPING LEADERS FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF JESUIT HIGHER EDUCATION Ignatian Leadership Program for Faculty

55

Karin Botto and Carolyn Berenato 4 “STAYIN’ ALIVE” AND THRIVING AT MID-CAREER

75

Amy Strage PART TWO: TEACHING AND LEARNING Aimee LaPointe Terosky 5 EXAMINING MID-CAREER FACULTY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH A SOCIOCULTURAL, PROFESSIONAL LEARNING LENS

97

103

Annique Boelryk and Cheryl Amundsen 6 SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING AS A VEHICLE FOR THRIVING IN MID-CAREER

123

Mike Pinter vii

Baker.indb 7

19-09-2019 15:20:27

viii  

contents

7 ATTRACTING MID-CAREER FACULTY TO TEACH IN FIRST-YEAR STUDENT LEARNING COMMUNITIES

142

Hillary H. Steiner PART THREE: SCHOLARLY DEVELOPMENT Gretchen Neisler 8 GLOBAL RESEARCH INNOVATION A Case of Evolving the Mid-Career Faculty Research Portfolio

159 165

Gretchen Neisler 9 UNDER PRESSURE The Challenge for Mid-Career Researchers in the Innovation Age

182

George Carayannopoulos and Ruth Graham 10 GETTING OVER THE HUMP Continued Professional Development for Mid-Career Faculty

202

LeRhonda S. Manigault-Bryant, Denise Kimber Buell, Lee Y. Park, and John P. Gerry 11 FACULTY DEVELOPMENT FOR MID-CAREER WOMEN IN STEM Cementing Career Success, Building Future Leaders

221

Sandra L. Laursen and Ann E. Austin PART FOUR: SPECIAL TOPICS Meghan J. Pifer

243

12 “WHERE DID ALL THE MENTORING GO?” 249 Exploring Undefined Mid-Career Paths Through Informal Peer-Mentoring Networks

Jeannetta G. Williams and Kim Case 13 EVIDENCE-BASED FACULTY DEVELOPMENT The COACHE Research-Practice Partnership

263

Kiernan Mathews and R. Todd Benson 14 NAVIGATING A FOGGY CLIMATE 285 Women Associate Professors’ Sense of Agency and Work Environment Experiences

Courtney Lennartz and KerryAnn O’Meara 15 SUPPORTING MID-CAREER FACULTY MEMBERS A Research and Practice Agenda

311

Jaime Lester, Jennifer L. Lebrón, and Carrie Klein

EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

INDEX

Baker.indb 8

327 341

19-09-2019 15:20:27

FOREWORD

I

finished reading the final draft of Success After Tenure: Supporting MidCareer Faculty yesterday evening. I immediately knew that I had completed a book from which everyone—faculty and academic leaders at all levels—will profit, for it provides a powerful collection of research, ideas, and practical tools for navigating the middle years of an academic career. This is the first volume of work that both states the case for a greater emphasis on mid-career faculty and provides compelling examples of best practices and innovative programs that have positively impacted mid-career faculty at all types of institutions. Why am I so convinced of this book’s valuable contribution to the literature on academic career development? For nearly a decade, I have conducted focus groups and surveys targeting post-tenure faculty; participated in two diverse, interdisciplinary groups of post-tenure female faculty members who met in a year-long program of monthly seminars on mentoring, professional development, and career advancement (one group has continued to meet for five years now); launched a “Mutual Mentoring” initiative, which remains a cornerstone of our faculty development center; and conducted seminars on topics such as “Mutual Mentoring at Mid-Career,” “Understanding and Supporting the Needs of Post-Tenure Faculty,” and “Thriving in Mid-Career.” I also coauthored two large-scale studies of the field of faculty development in the United States and Canada. Pointedly, our research found that the one issue faculty developers at all institutional types agreed on as important to expand in terms of services was mid-career faculty development (Beach, Sorcinelli, Austin, & Rivard, 2016; Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006). My own research and practice have been confirmed and enriched by the scholarship and programmatic ideas gathered in the 15 chapters of this volume. The contributors, all leading experts in their fields, collectively make it clear that mid-career faculty members actively seek professional satisfaction and personal well-being in their careers and departments. They indicate, however, that everyday interactions, structures, and cultures are not always organized to support these goals, especially for associate professors. The reader comes to understand that mid-career satisfaction derives from a combination of career and relationship development programs and practices, such as making advancement processes more transparent, creating room for ix

Baker.indb 9

19-09-2019 15:20:27

x  

foreword

multiple post-tenure pathways, and supporting mentoring and peer networks that foster productivity and satisfaction. One could not have chosen a more credible group of coeditors to fashion this book. They form a team of women who are well-regarded academic scholars, teachers, administrators, and consultants with busy schedules packed with research, teaching, service—and lives outside of work as partners, parents, and members of their communities. Further, in the selection of chapter authors, the editors draw on the best minds shaping the field of academic career development, illuminate the most productive programs, and elicit the imagination required to reenvision faculty development as an essential agent of positive growth not only in early career but also in the middle years. One of many significant advantages of this volume is that it offers a distinctive perspective on faculty members at mid-career not only at large research universities, where much of the research on academic careers has been situated, but also at small liberal arts colleges, comprehensive universities, and community colleges. Another benefit is that although the book includes essential research on post-tenure faculty, it is particularly and richly replete with strategies and programming ideas for making mid-career faculty development integral to an institution’s mission. Given that only a fraction of all U.S. higher education institutions have programs for mid-career faculty, the book offers a wealth of ideas and models for those administrators who are considering the development of new programming on their campuses. Perhaps what has stayed with me most after reading this book is a realization of the deep, underlying power of mentoring and peer networking in the development of academic leadership potential, research and teaching acumen, and career advancement. In so many of the initiatives the reader will encounter, participants learn through sharing experiences and expertise, providing support and feedback regarding current work issues, and deepening social connections and relationships with other faculty. Through such interactions, mid-career faculty begin to see themselves as talented and accomplished, and encourage one another to recognize their successes—large and small. In so many instances, mid-career faculty gain self-knowledge and a new ability to work through their own professional decisions, and broaden their perspectives on their professional career paths. In some instances, the trust that allows them to share sensitive issues also helps to create a space where they can expect any concern—professional or personal—to be met with genuine interest and compassion. All of this has broader salutary effects regarding faculty engagement in our departments, colleges, and universities generally.

Baker.indb 10

19-09-2019 15:20:27

foreword  

xi

Whether you are a mid-career faculty member or an early career or senior colleague to one, I hope Success After Tenure serves as an invaluable tool for developing and promoting mid-career faculty talent. I trust the programs and practices described in this book will be of benefit to any group who share a research, teaching, career stage, or identity interest and can serve as exemplars for enhancing personal agency and institutional connections. I will share this book with others and hope that you will too. Mary Deane Sorcinelli Professor and Director Emeritus Center for Teaching & Faculty Development University of Massachusetts Amherst

Baker.indb 11

19-09-2019 15:20:27

Baker.indb 12

19-09-2019 15:20:27

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

W

e acknowledge the individuals without whom this volume would not be possible. Heartfelt thank-yous are due to our volume contributors who so willingly partnered with us on this project. David Brightman, our editor at Stylus, believed in our idea and for that we are incredibly grateful. We are most appreciative to Mary Deane Sorcinelli and Jaime Lester, who both provided friendly reviews of our prospectus and agreed to write the foreword and concluding chapter for the volume. A big thank-you to the amazingly talented Sarah Ashlock for her copyediting and support during the writing of this volume. Finally, we want to thank Steve Csipke for his excellent indexing support. Vicki personally thanks her coeditors for being an amazing team of bright, talented women with whom to work and whom she is also fortunate enough to call friends. And, as always, Vicki thanks her family—husband Bryan, two children, McKenna and Henley, and her mother Mary Ann for their amazing support. Laura is grateful to her coeditors and the fine critiques provided by readers, which made the book stronger and clearer. Gretchen is thankful for all the faculty she has had an opportunity to work with and learn from. She is also thankful for the support from her family, who enable her to pursue her work. Meghan thanks her colleagues and students. Aimee is thankful for the support of her husband (Jeffrey), daughters (Ava and Caitlin), and her parents (Linda and Peter)—and is continuously inspired by her doctoral students.

xiii

Baker.indb 13

19-09-2019 15:20:27

Baker.indb 14

19-09-2019 15:20:27

INTRODUCTION Vicki L. Baker, Aimee LaPointe Terosky, Laura Gail Lunsford, Gretchen Neisler, and Meghan J. Pifer

W

hat do the adjectives stuck, drained, exhausted, anxious, and depressed conjure in your mind? What sort of professional stage or experience might you expect from someone who made one of the following statements: “I am unsure of the next step,” “I am more confused now than when I started this career,” and “I see no way toward advancement”? More than likely, you might conclude that these are adjectives and phrases uttered by individuals who are in dead-end jobs or careers with little to no opportunity for advancement or development or excitement about the future. You might also assume that these same individuals do not have the work experience or the credentials to seek other employment options, and they have no choice but to remain in positions that offer little hope for the future. Regrettably, these are the ways in which mid-career faculty members have described themselves and their experiences in our collective research about the mid-career faculty experience (Baker, Lunsford, & Pifer, 2017). One of the factors contributing to these challenges is the lack of a clear definition of the mid-career stage. For example, Austin (2010) describes midcareer faculty members as those who have passed the probationary period (typically a seven-year period in institutions with a tenure system) and have been awarded tenure. She also notes, “While the end of mid-career is not well defined, those categorized as mid-career faculty anticipate a number of years of work still ahead of them” (p. 365). Mathews (2014), through the efforts at the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE), focuses on mid-career faculty members at the associate professor rank. Within this group, Mathews classified associate professors as early career associates (i.e., faculty members zero to five years post-tenure) and late-career associates (six or more years after tenure). Baldwin and Chang (2006) define midcareer as the “long, ill-defined phase after their probationary years and before retirement emerges on the professional horizon” (p. 28). Finally, Baldwin, Lunceford, and Vanderlinden (2005) explain that no “visible” hallmarks or boundaries define mid-career the way that the tenure decision and retirement 1

Baker.indb 1

19-09-2019 15:20:27

2  

success after tenure

define the two extreme poles of academic life: early career and late career. “If we do not really know what mid-career is or when it occurs, some may ask, ‘Is it worth studying?’” (p. 98). As evidenced by these definitions, researchers and faculty developers who study and support mid-career faculty members are no closer to providing a succinct way to define the mid-career stage. However, these definitions, as well as our own work and the work of the contributors to this volume, help to inform our working definition of the mid-career stage, which we characterize as the time after the awarding of tenure up through 10 years prior to retirement. For the purposes of this volume, we also focus specifically on faculty members and programming aimed at the associate professor rank. We do acknowledge, however, that some faculty members may achieve promotion to full professorship during this time period. We also note that contributors in this volume may use more specific definitions within our umbrella concept. Although scholars and practitioners engaged in the study and practice of academic work have contributed to the growing discourse of the mid-career faculty experience (Neumann & Terosky, 2007), the majority of this work is situated within research universities (Baldwin, DeZure, Shaw, & Moretto, 2008). Understanding of the faculty condition is predominantly influenced by the experiences of research university professors (Rhoades, 2007). In addition to the lack of research about the mid-career faculty experience, even less is known about actual mid-career faculty development programming and the ways in which colleges and universities support this important faculty population (Baldwin & Chang, 2006). We believe, taken together, this points to a need to better understand and define the experiences of post-tenured faculty members and midlife across a range of institution types and programming initiatives that support the need for the resources and insights featured in this volume.

Here I Am, Stuck in the Middle With You Although many fields invest in their mid-career professionals, scholars note that such supports are lacking in higher education (Baker, Lunsford, & Pifer, 2017). In industries such as accounting, law, K–12 education, and health care, organizational leaders realize the importance of investing in human capital by way of continuing education and professional development. Such investments encourage continued engagement in the field and help ensure that skills and knowledge are current, relevant, and valued. How can it be that in higher education, academic work at the mid-career stage does not reflect similar training and development? And what are the consequences of

Baker.indb 2

19-09-2019 15:20:28

introduction  

3

a continued failure to invest in mid-career faculty members? What are the implications of such approaches, not only for faculty members and their institutions but also for the students and society they aim to serve through the production and distribution of knowledge? To illustrate these ideas, we provide a few examples from our research about mid-career faculty. Jane is a mid-career faculty member in the natural sciences at a public research university. She feels compelled to engage in impression management to an even greater degree than she did as an early career academic. She has recently been appointed as chair of a department populated with several reputable names in the field. Jane is concerned about how to create a climate of respect, collegiality, and mentorship when these colleagues are not viewed, both in and outside of the department, as exhibiting any of these qualities. Jane fears she lacks the leadership skills, or administrative backing, to tackle this challenge. She also realizes the need to earn the support of her departmental peers as she looks ahead to earning the rank of full professor. Steven received promotion and tenure seven years ago. At the time, he was considered a rising star at his liberal arts college and within his field. Now his campus reputation is that of someone who, once he earned tenure, became less engaged on campus and has really slowed down in terms of producing disciplinary scholarship. If you ask James, he will tell you that the institutional expectations (e.g., criteria for advancement to full professorship) and amount of service that was assigned to him immediately following tenure have caused him to burn out, losing his passion and time for scholarship. His intellectual passion and the respect he felt from his colleagues have been replaced by feelings of resentment about his service being undervalued by his institution, not to mention the lack of financial resources available to support his reengagement in scholarship if and when he recovers from post-tenure burnout.

What has the potential to be a joyous stage of the faculty career through the earning of promotion and tenure and the stability that comes with achieving that accomplishment has emerged in our research as a stage that can leave faculty members feeling the opposite. Rather, these well-educated professionals who have proven to be accomplished scholars, effective educators, and significant contributors to their campus communities through earning tenure find themselves at a crossroads, trying to reenvision the next phase of their careers. In many cases they are without the support and development they need to continue on to the next phase. These once optimistic doctoral graduates who were happy to earn coveted tenure-track positions are now

Baker.indb 3

19-09-2019 15:20:28

4  

success after tenure

cast with doubt and uncertainty about their professional future, which is likely to span 20 years or more (Baldwin & Chang, 2006). As Austin (2010) noted, despite the perception that all faculty members engage in the traditional areas of teaching, scholarship, and service as influenced by institution type, “the experience of the faculty career varies considerably in relation to the individuals’ career stage.” She further explains, “Thus, those engaged in planning effective faculty development should have some knowledge of how faculty careers change over time and the kind of faculty development strategies that are most useful and effective for faculty members at particular career stages” (p. 363). In addition to stage-specific needs and challenges, the faculty development field is also influenced by broader trends in higher education, such as fiscal constraints and calls for increased accountability, growing diversified student and faculty bodies, technology innovation in teaching and learning, greater emphasis on interdisciplinarity, and a continued shift in appointment types (Austin & Sorcinelli, 2013). These realities create challenges for institutions and the administrators who manage them, the faculty members who deliver the educational experiences, and the students enrolled. Despite the acknowledgment of these challenges, “many institutions have not seriously considered how support for faculty must evolve to better enable them to accomplish their work” (Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2007, p. 4).

Career Stage: The Importance and Paucity of Mid-Career Research and Practice The professoriate consists of three stages: early career, mid-career, and late career. Mid-career faculty members have been described as the keystone of the academy (Baldwin & Chang, 2006), and their contribution to higher education comes by way of their role as institutional leaders and civically engaged citizens, in addition to the central roles they play in helping their institutions manage the inevitable forces that create opportunities and challenges to their respective institutions. We agree with Baldwin and Chang’s (2006) apt description of mid-career faculty members, referring to them as “a bridge between faculty generations by mentoring new colleagues and assuming leadership duties as their senior colleagues move toward retirement” (p. 28). At a time when skills and knowledge need to be refreshed, and personal considerations such as childcare responsibilities and work-life concerns become realities for some, mid-career faculty members assume critical responsibilities to support their institutions with little to no dedicated assistance to help them cope with these enhanced and expanded roles within and outside of the academy. According to Baldwin and Blackburn (1981),

Baker.indb 4

19-09-2019 15:20:28

introduction  

5

as one progresses through the professoriate, internal forces (e.g., changes in relationship or parental status) and external forces (e.g., economic conditions or growing student consumerism) influence the manner in which a faculty member moves through his or her career trajectory in the academy. To date, the majority of research that has examined the professoriate and the faculty experience has focused on the early career experience, given the need to provide newly hired faculty members with orientation, onboarding, related support, mentorship, and guidance as they settle into their new roles and responsibilities on their respective campuses (Brown, 2006; Sorcinelli, 2000). Much less, however, has been written about the experiences of midand late-career faculty members. The mid-career stage of the professoriate occurs within a contemporary reality of significant changes in higher education contexts. At the societal and organizational levels, there are rising demands for colleges and universities to demonstrate accountability and efficiency, resulting in decreased funding, reduced tenure-track lines, increased contingent faculty (Kezar & Sam, 2013; Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006), and rising competition for institutional rankings and prestige among all institution types. Moreover, mid-career faculty members are confronted with changing student demographics and new forms of instructional delivery, all of which call for subsequent pedagogical and instructional alignment and professional development (Boyer, Moser, Ream, & Braxton, 2015; Ehrenberg & Zhang, 2005). Mid-career faculty members face expanding roles and responsibilities, especially with the reward of tenure (Neumann & Terosky, 2007), resulting in increased working hours and administrative and service requirements. Similarly, in the context of increased competition for national rankings, there is a growing pressure to publish or obtain funding during competitive economic times (Henderson, 2011; Johnson, 2012; Kezar & Maxey, 2012). What do these contemporary realities for higher education mean for mid-career faculty? How do these realities connect with (or fail to connect with) the development and expectations set at mid-career?

Why Study the Mid-Career Stage? Baldwin and Blackburn (1981) examined the academic career as an evolutionary process across the three stages of the professoriate. Through an identification and examination of stable, evolving, and fluctuating characteristics, as well as critical events characterizing the academic career, Baldwin and Blackburn provided a holistic and comprehensive view of the faculty career while also offering insights to the administrators and faculty developers who support faculty members’ development on campus. Unsurprisingly, Baldwin

Baker.indb 5

19-09-2019 15:20:28

6  

success after tenure

and Blackburn identify workload and lack of time to commit to workload as the greatest source of stress for faculty members, regardless of career stage. Additionally, the expansion of work responsibilities such as new course preparations or increased administrative responsibilities creates challenges across faculty ranks. The authors also identify critical faculty development experiences (e.g., sabbaticals, workshops, and research projects) as serving a vital role in the development of post-tenure faculty members. Baldwin and Blackburn reveal, however, that a majority of faculty members at the associate professor rank considered a career change, and some perceived their careers to be at a “standstill” (p. 606). Thirty-five years ago, Baldwin and Blackburn concluded that colleges and universities, as well as faculty members themselves, need to pay greater attention to career stage–specific challenges and the evolving nature of an academic career. Additionally, faculty development supports must be fundamentally flexible to adapt to and acknowledge these career stage differences. Today, these same conclusions are relevant and perhaps even more apropos. We continue to see a lack of sustained investment beyond early career, despite the expectations placed on mid-career faculty members and the realization of the important role mid-career faculty members play across a variety of institution types. Despite a proliferation of national programs such as the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate and the PhD Completion Project to support doctoral students, as well as programs such as the American Educational Research Association’s Emerging Scholars Program aimed at supporting early career faculty members, we found few national initiatives aimed at addressing the needs of mid-career faculty members. The few notable programs we did find include the ADVANCE program supported by the National Science Foundation, which aims to foster better gender equity for women in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, particularly in the upper faculty ranks. We also found the Midcareer Grant Program supported by the Spencer Foundation, which aims to help mid-career faculty members build on their subject matter expertise through extension training to support the development of new methodological tools and/or perspectives within subject areas to which they have deeply committed their careers. Outside of these programs, few other visible U.S. programs directed to supporting and addressing the needs of mid-career faculty members were found.

Purpose of the Volume Although we acknowledge that the challenges facing the mid-career stage are numerous and varying and there is much to be critical about, the purpose of this edited volume is to offer a counter-narrative by looking at the

Baker.indb 6

19-09-2019 15:20:28

introduction  

7

ways that faculty members and/or institutions can assert themselves to find opportunities within challenging contexts. Each chapter is grounded in a theory-practice connection through the concept of agency and the related practice of strategic responses. We argue these concepts show great promise to further illustrate how individual faculty members and institutional leaders can best support mid-career faculty during this ill-defined career stage. Scholars note that agency consists of both intentional perspectives and applied actions (O’Meara, Campbell, & Terosky, 2011)—namely, what the faculty member herself believes is possible and what she does to move toward those goals. Strategic response is defined as “personal and self-directed meaning-making amidst an otherwise disordered, even chaotic informational setting” (Neumann, Terosky, & Schell, 2006, p. 92) and highlights ways in which faculty members (and institutions) can craft faculty careers in order to uphold their priorities and passions while also managing a rising—and varied—workload. Given our goal to offer a counter-narrative about the mid-career faculty stage, a focus on agency puts the power and influence to inform and support this stage of the faculty career back in the hands of the faculty members, faculty developers, and administrators charged with supporting the mid-career stage. The strategic responses are evidenced in the case studies, faculty development programs, and research initiatives featured throughout this volume. To that end, each chapter will address four critical points: 1. What problem does this program/initiative seek to remedy? 2. How are programs described (e.g., goals, structure, approach, activities, and associated outcomes)? 3. What best practices have been realized in instituting this program (e.g., institutional supports, collaboration with faculty to understand needs, etc.)? 4. What are the lessons learned and success stories realized (e.g., what worked well and what would need to be different next time)?

Overview of the Book We applaud the efforts of Baldwin and Chang (2006), who highlighted midcareer faculty development programming across a variety of institution types. Over the course of 15 chapters, we expand on their efforts by featuring midcareer faculty development programming as well as providing specific details about the goals, outcomes, and motivations associated with the featured programs and initiatives featured in this volume.

Baker.indb 7

19-09-2019 15:20:28

8  

success after tenure

Chapter 1 is a literature review of faculty development research and practice, starting with a historical overview. As part of that discussion, we note the key challenges the field of higher education faces and how such challenges influence faculty development in today’s domestic and international higher education institutions. Taking those challenges as a call to action, we discuss key trends in the field of faculty development as faculty members, faculty developers, and campus administrators seek to respond through a reinvestment in their faculty development supports. We conclude with a focus on the current state of mid-career faculty research and practice to set the stage for the remainder of the volume. Part One: Leadership Development includes chapters 2 through 4. Chapter 2 provides details about the Academic Leadership Institute, a program developed for mid-career faculty at the Great Lakes Colleges Association. This nine-month program involves two in-person institutes in which participants develop a personal leadership development program, participate in small group coaching and mentoring, and present progress and achievement of goals. Chapter 3 features the Ignatian Leadership Program for Faculty, which was launched in 2012 at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The chapter explains how this university established a midcareer faculty program rooted in the Jesuit mission to develop faculty leaders. Chapter 4 describes a suite of professional growth and renewal offerings developed for mid-career faculty, including (a) mid-career retreats with lead-in and follow-on activities, (b) stand-alone sessions designed for newly tenured and promoted faculty as well as for faculty considering promotion to full professor, and (c) career-stage-specific sessions on time and people management. Part Two: Teaching and Learning includes chapters 5 through 7. Chapter 5 relies on a sociocultural model of teacher professional learning as a lens to describe, examine, and critique a well-established course design process used at several institutions in Canada and elsewhere, with a particular focus on a course design program implemented for mid-career faculty at Georgian College in Ontario, Canada. Chapter 6 explores the scholarship of teaching and learning as an option for a rich and vibrant transition from the early stages of an academic career to the mid-career years. Associated activities and programs designed to incorporate the scholarship of teaching and learning are discussed in order to support faculty members’ effective transitions into mid-career and beyond. Chapter 7 provides an overview of Kennesaw State University’s nationally recognized targeted faculty development program for instructor teaching in learning communities, which includes one-onone consultations, seminars on topics of interest, and an online course that includes participants from other universities. Part Three: Scholarly Development includes chapters 8 through 11. Chapter 8 features the Academy for Global Engagement Fellowship Program

Baker.indb 8

19-09-2019 15:20:28

introduction  

9

at Michigan State University. This chapter explores the return on investment of the program along with unintended outcomes, as well as the organizational change that has occurred on campus as a result of program implementation. Chapter 9 discusses mid-career academic development in Australia, with particular focus on researcher development. Two mid-career development programs are featured in relation to program content, facilitation, and mid-career academic experiences, with the intention that the outcomes will prove useful in both practical and research terms for those intending to support mid-career academics. Chapter 10 describes mid-career faculty development programming at Williams College in Massachusetts and explores the heavy service expectations in the years immediately post-tenure at small institutions. A number of initiatives designed to support mid-career faculty in their efforts to sustain a productive and exciting scholarly life at all stages of their careers are featured in this chapter. Chapter 11 focuses on faculty development for mid-career women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, considering several models that have been developed by ADVANCE Institutional Transformation projects in the United States. Part Four: Special Topics includes chapters 12 through 14. Chapter 12 shares the journey of two tenured professors of psychology as they planned for and implemented the next stages of their academic careers. They explore details about the informal peer-mentoring networks they developed to support their own and others’ mid-career faculty development. Chapter 13 offers a multicampus perspective on the challenges of supporting and ­developing mid-career faculty. The contributors explore how the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education, a research-practice partnership, is effecting change by linking research data to practice. This chapter focuses on how faculty and academic leaders make sense of data and highlights cases where this work has produced creative solutions. Chapter 14 examines the differential progress in associate to full advancement among women and men faculty at a large, very high research activity, public institution in the Northeast. Using institutional data from an ADVANCE program to critically analyze career histories of midcareer faculty on campus, this chapter seeks to explain gender differences in advancement to full professor through a single case study design. The concluding chapter, chapter 15, provides a synthesis of the work featured in this volume, with attention to the diversity of mid-career faculty and the role of intersectionality in the mid-career faculty experience.

References Austin, A. E. (2010). Supporting faculty members across their careers. In K. J. Gillespie & D. L. Roberston (Eds.), A guide to faculty development (2nd ed., pp. 363–378). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Baker.indb 9

19-09-2019 15:20:28

10  

success after tenure

Austin, A. E., & Sorcinelli, M. D. (2013). The future of faculty development: Where are we going? New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 133, 85–97. Baker, V. L., Lunsford, L. G., & Pifer, M. J. (2017). Developing faculty in liberal arts colleges: Aligning individual needs and organizational goals. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Baldwin, R. G., & Blackburn, R. T. (1981). The academic career as a developmental process: Implications for higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 52(6), 598–614. Baldwin, R. G., & Chang, D. A. (2006). Reinforcing our strategies to support faculty in the middle years of academic life. Liberal Education, 92(4), 28–35. Baldwin, R., DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Moretto, K. (2008). Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university: Implications for faculty and academic leaders. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(5), 46–55. Baldwin, R. G., Lunceford, C. J., & Vanderlinden, K. E. (2005). Faculty in the middle years: Illuminating an overlooked phase of academic life. The Review of Higher Education, 29(1), 97–118. Boyer, E. L., Moser, D., Ream, T. C., & Braxton, J. M. (2015). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Brown, B. E. (2006). Supporting and retaining early career faculty. Effective Practices for Academic Leaders, 1(9), 1–16. Ehrenberg, R. G., & Zhang, L. (2005). The changing nature of faculty employment. In R. Clark & J. Ma (Eds.), Recruitment, retention and retirement in higher education: Building and managing the faculty of the future (pp. 32–52). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Gappa, J., Austin, A., & Trice, A. (2007). Rethinking faculty work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Henderson, B. B. (2011). Publishing patterns at state comprehensive universities: The changing nature of faculty work and the quest for status. Journal of the Professoriate, 5(2), 35–66. Johnson, D. R. (2012). Technological change and professional control in the professoriate. Science, Technology & Human Values, 38(1), 126–149. Kezar, A., & Maxey, D. (2012). The changing faculty and student success: National trends for faculty composition over time. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED532269.pdf Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2013). Institutionalizing equitable policies and practices for contingent faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(1), 56–87. Mathews, K. R. (2014). Perspectives on mid-career faculty and advice for supporting them [white paper]. Cambridge, MA: COACHE, Harvard Graduate School of Education. National Science Foundation. (2014). Survey of earned doctorates. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsf16300/digest/nsf16300.pdf Neumann, A., & Terosky, A. L. (2007, May/June). To give and to receive: Recently tenured professors’ experiences of service in major research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 282–310.

Baker.indb 10

19-09-2019 15:20:28

introduction  

11

Neumann, A., Terosky, A. L., & Schell, J. (2006). Agents of learning: Strategies for assuming agency, for learning, in tenured faculty careers. In S. J. Bracken, J. K. Allen, & D. R. Dean (Eds.), The balancing act: Gendered perspectives in faculty roles and work lives (pp. 91–120). Sterling, VA: Stylus. O’Meara, K. A., Campbell, C. M., & Terosky, A. (2011, November). Living agency in the academy: A conceptual framework for research and action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Charlotte, NC. Rhoades, G. (2007). The study of the academic profession. In P. J. Gumport (Ed.), Sociology of higher education: Contributions and their contexts (pp. 113–146). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Schuster, J., & Finkelstein, M. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Sorcinelli, M. D. (2000). Principles of good practice: Supporting early career faculty. Guidance for deans, department chairs, and other academic leaders. Washington DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Baker.indb 11

19-09-2019 15:20:28

1 F A C U LT Y D E V E L O P M E N T I N T H E U N I T E D S TA T E S Past and Present Vicki L. Baker and Christina M. Vo Phan

A

s noted in this book’s introduction, our focus is on supporting midcareer faculty members. We rely on a theory-practice connection that draws on the concept of agency and strategic responses. Agency is about intentional perspectives and applied actions, which acknowledge possible support as well as moving toward those goals. Strategic responses shed light on the ways in which individuals and institutions seek to support faculty members across the myriad roles in which they engage, most notably teaching and learning, scholarship, and service. More recently a focus on leadership development at mid-career has been on the rise (June, 2017). These areas align with the sections and featured programs in this volume. This chapter provides a historical grounding of the literature on faculty development and practice. Such a historical overview highlights challenges and opportunities facing higher education and the ways in which faculty development research and practice is subsequently influenced. To that end, we organize this chapter by offering a brief chronological overview of the faculty development field, with an emphasis on the work of Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, and Beach (2006); we then discuss the trends in higher education that have influenced the faculty development field, and we briefly highlight existing and emerging areas in faculty development research and practice. We conclude with an examination of mid-career faculty scholarship and the contribution of this volume to the broader conversation regarding the mid-career faculty stage and the field of faculty development. 12

Baker.indb 12

19-09-2019 15:20:28

faculty development in the united states  

13

Faculty Development: A Historical Overview The field of faculty development emerged in the 1950s and 1960s during a time of great social and economic turbulence in U.S. higher education (Ouellett, 2010). As Ouellett noted, a growing student voice contributed to this emergence, as students sought greater control over what they studied and how they evaluated their classroom and learning experiences. Within this context, the field of faculty development experienced a “reimagining” (p. 4) during the 1960s and 1970s as higher education moved beyond a dominant focus on research and publication success to an acknowledgment of all areas of faculty life, roles, and responsibilities. Ouellett noted, “Faculty members increasingly advocated that institutional and career rewards, particularly tenure and promotion standards, should reflect a broad understanding of the nature of their work” (p. 4). Questions abound about the definition of faculty development with other terms such as educational development, staff development, and professional development used interchangeably (Beach, Sorcinelli, Austin, & Rivard, 2016). For the purposes of this volume, we rely on the term faculty development and believe it encompasses activities aimed at improved professional performance as well as personal growth. Perhaps the most comprehensive and chronological examination of faculty development can be credited to the work of Sorcinelli and colleagues (2006), including Creating the Future of Faculty Development: Learning from the Past, Understanding the Present, and their recent work, Faculty Development in the Age of Evidence: Current Practices, Future Imperatives (Beach et al., 2016). In Creating the Future of Faculty Development, Sorcinelli and colleagues (2006) described the faculty development field as evolving across four ages: Age of the Scholar, Age of the Teacher, Age of the Developer, and Age of the Learner. We briefly describe those four ages as characterized by Sorcinelli and colleagues next. In the Age of the Scholar (1950s through early 1960s), faculty development as a term was primarily focused on efforts aimed at “improving and advancing scholarly competence” (Sorcinelli et al., 2006, p. 4). The goal was to help faculty members maintain relevance in their respective fields and enhance their expertise through supports such as sabbaticals or leaves of absence. We note, however, that there were limited supports for scholarship beyond sabbaticals during this period. As Sorcinelli and colleagues (2006) noted, “Few colleges and universities had formal programs, and there were few measures or outcomes” (p. 5). The Age of the Teacher (mid-1960s through 1970s) placed emphasis on faculty members’ responsibilities to teaching, regardless of institution type. The idea was that although faculty members needed to be content experts, they also needed the skills (and to be supported

Baker.indb 13

19-09-2019 15:20:28

14  

success after tenure

in further development of those skills) to teach that content and knowledge to their students. This age brought with it the emergence of centers for teaching and learning (CTL) through the support of private foundations. The University of Michigan founded the first center in the United States in 1962, called the Center for Research on Teaching and Learning (University of Michigan, n.d.). Also during this time, the field of faculty development was solidified as a professional field in the United States through the founding of the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD Network) in 1976, which is the largest professional association for faculty developers (POD Network, n.d.). With the rise of teaching centers and professional organizations for faculty developers, Sorcinelli and colleagues (2006) labeled the next stage the Age of the Developer (1980s). In response to national reports about the need to devote more resources to student learning, this stage not only maintained attention on the role of the instructor but also stressed the need to focus more deliberately on faculty needs across career stages (Baldwin & Blackburn, 1981; Menges, 1985) and faculty learning communities (Rice & Austin, 1988; Smith & Hunter, 1988). Formal faculty development programming and related efforts were increasingly common as noted in a 1986 study by Erickson, as cited in Sorcinelli and colleagues (2006), with “at least 50% of four-year institutions offer[ing] some formal faculty development or teaching improvement services” (p. 5). The Age of the Learner (1990s) shifted the focus away from the faculty member to the student; “the teacher was no longer the sage on the stage pouring knowledge into empty vessels but a guide on the side facilitating student learning” (Sorcinelli et al., 2006, p. 5). In turn, CTLs provided programming on student learning, learning theories, and more innovative pedagogies in classrooms. The work of Sorcinelli and colleagues (2006) offers a look into the new age that was evolving at the time—the Age of the Network—recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach to faculty development inadequately addressed the needs of faculty members, regardless of institution type. Further, such an approach failed to account for critical factors such as institution type, career stage, the connection between scholarship and teaching, and a redefinition of faculty diversity given the changing face of the professoriate. In their recent publication, Faculty Development in the Age of Evidence, Beach and colleagues (2016) identified an emerging age called the Age of Evidence, influenced by heightened stakeholder interest in the outcomes of undergraduate education and characterized by a focus on assessing the impact of instruction on student learning, of academic programs on student success, and of faculty development within institutional mission priorities. (p. 12)

Baker.indb 14

19-09-2019 15:20:28

faculty development in the united states  

15

We return to the work of Beach and colleagues (2016) later in this chapter. In the following section, we briefly highlight challenges and opportunities in higher education, which influence faculty development across all institutional types both domestically and internationally.

Challenges and Opportunities in Higher Education: Implications for Faculty Development Since the publication of groundbreaking faculty development research by Sorcinelli and colleagues (2006), higher education has continued to experience rapid changes affecting the field of faculty development in both positive and negative ways. Some of the changes already noted by Sorcinelli and colleagues (2006) include the rise of contingent faculty appointments, increased calls for accountability, and the emergence of nontraditional and online learning providers. These changes have resulted in threats to academic freedom, to the institution of tenure, and to faculty governance. In contrast, most consider the fact that the academy continues to diversify at both the faculty and student levels to be a positive change. All these changes create challenges and opportunities, which require administrators, faculty members, faculty developers, and staff to rethink their approach to faculty development programming regardless of institution type. As such, scholars and practitioners have challenged and continue to challenge colleges and universities to account for institutional mission and priorities (e.g., institutional characteristics) as well as career stage, discipline, and personal characteristics (e.g., faculty characteristics) when developing, delivering, and assessing faculty development programming (Austin, 2010; Baker, Lunsford, & Pifer, 2017; Beach et al., 2016; Schroeder, 2012). In the following section, we briefly discuss emerging, and in some instances reemerging, areas of faculty development.

Supporting Contingent Faculty Members Over the past decade, scholars and practitioners have highlighted the rising numbers of contingent faculty employed by American colleges and universities (Baldwin & Wawrzynski, 2011; Kezar, 2012; Kezar & Sam, 2013; Umbach, 2007). Such work includes Kezar’s (2012) edited volume Embracing Non-Tenure Track Faculty: Changing Campuses for the New Faculty Majority, in which she noted that two-thirds of all faculty, regardless of institution type, are off the tenure track either as full-time or part-time faculty members, and three out of four faculty hires are off the tenure track. This phenomenon of changing faculty composition requires new faculty models, which was the focus of the edited volume by Kezar and Maxey (2016), Envisioning

Baker.indb 15

19-09-2019 15:20:28

16  

success after tenure

the Faculty for the 21st Century: Moving to a Mission-Oriented and LearnerCentered Model. Volume contributors focused on the changing face of the professoriate (e.g., demographics, appointment type) and suggested the need for colleges and universities to not only recognize but also act reenvision and support the new faculty model. Another important line of research on contingent faculty focuses on their role in student learning. The work of Ehrenberg and Zhang (2005), Umbach (2007), and Baldwin and Wawrzynski (2011) are a few notable examples in which the connection between contingent faculty and student outcomes were assessed. For example, Ehrenberg and Zhang (2005) used institutionallevel data to determine what, if any, effects contingent faculty have on undergraduate student learning, time to degree, and pursuit of graduate training. Their results revealed contingent faculty adversely affected graduation rates at four-year colleges, with the greatest impact realized at public master’s-level institutions. Umbach (2007) explored the influence of appointment type on undergraduate education and found that part-time contingent faculty members were underperforming in their delivery of undergraduate education in comparison to their tenured, tenure-track, and full-time contingent peers. Further, his research revealed that part-time contingent faculty interacted less frequently with students and they applied less collaborative teaching pedagogies in the classroom. Lastly, Baldwin and Wawrzynski (2011) compared the teaching practices and impact of contingent faculty on the educational environment of colleges and universities to that of tenured and tenure-track peers. Findings revealed “that, in most cases, full-time contingent faculty (usually on fixed-term contracts) approach their teaching more like their tenured and tenure-eligible colleagues than like their part-time contingent counterparts” (p. 1504). They also found that the teaching practices of contingent and more permanent faculty varied somewhat within specific academic areas. In sum, the work of Baldwin and Wawrzynski revealed that appointment type and academic field have a strong influence on instructional practices employed by faculty members. Study findings provide much-needed insights into those charged with supporting contingent faculty members on their respective campuses.

Calls for Increased Accountability We return to the work of Beach and colleagues (2016) in their book Faculty Development in the Age of Evidence, which highlighted the evolving roles and heightened expectations placed on faculty developers. The role of the faculty developer includes such responsibilities as supporting faculty members across all their roles and responsibilities, documenting student learning to support

Baker.indb 16

19-09-2019 15:20:28

faculty development in the united states  

17

institutional assessment efforts, and supporting “a wider range of institutional priorities and metrics of success in areas such as blended and online teaching, diversity, and the scale-up of evidence-based practices” (p. 12). Long gone are the days when faculty developers support only tenured or tenure-track faculty members—today, they are tasked with supporting all faculty appointment types, including graduate and teaching assistants, depending on the institution. The increased calls for accountability also strike a personal chord with faculty developers as they are called on to justify the investment of their own programming to campus leaders and administrators (Baker, Lunsford, & Pifer, 2017; Beach et al., 2016). An important metric that determines the return on investment for faculty development is the connection between faculty development programming and student learning. Researchers and practitioners have begun to look more explicitly at this connection, moving beyond anecdotal evidence. One of the few institutional efforts includes the work of Rutz, Condon, Iverson, Manduca, and Willett (2012). Another example involves the research of Condon, Iverson, Manduca, Rutz, and Willett (2016), who, in Faculty Development and Student Learning: Assessing the Connections, share the results of the Tracer Project, which aimed to determine if and in what ways “well designed faculty development programs actually change participants’ approaches to teaching, improve the quality of student work produced in those classrooms, and contribute to a more generative and productive culture of teaching and learning on campus” (Huber, 2016, p. vii). In the book’s foreword, Huber (2016) notes the vulnerability of faculty development programming given the constrained resources at colleges and universities and argues that more efforts and data are needed to justify further investment in faculty development programming. Condon and colleagues (2016) found that well-designed faculty development does produce measurable changes in the ways faculty members teach, and this finding was consistent across two institution types—liberal arts colleges and public research universities. And although more challenging to measure, student learning gains were demonstrated as a result of the faculty development programming.

Supporting Faculty Members in Online Spaces The growing number of nontraditional education providers and online learning programs has changed the higher education landscape and demands new means of faculty development and course delivery among instructional technologists and faculty members. Questions of how to engage students in online environments, how to create a sense of community through distance education, and how to assess student learning are just a few of the critical

Baker.indb 17

19-09-2019 15:20:28

18  

success after tenure

questions associated with online program and course delivery (Terosky & Heasley, 2014). However, more efforts are being invested in the faculty members who deliver such programming to support their further development given the challenges and opportunities associated with online learning spaces (see, e.g., Bonk & Kim, 2006; McQuiggan, 2007). Bonk and Kim (2006) explored the future of online learning over a decade ago and wrote: Given the demand for online learning, the plethora of online technologies to incorporate into teaching, the budgetary problems, and the opportunities for innovation, we argue that online learning environments are facing a “perfect e-storm,” linking pedagogy, technology, and learner needs. (p. 22)

Their study findings revealed an increasing presence of blended learning, with respondents predicting an even greater presence in the years to come. Questions of quality were (and continue to be) on the forefront, calling on key considerations related to pedagogy, course management systems, collaboration, and case learning. At the conclusion of their study, Bonk and Kim (2006) predicted, “Perhaps we are entering a world where learning objects will be at our fingertips” (p. 29). Other important contributions to this line of research and practice include the work of McQuiggan (2012) and Baran, Correia, and Thompson (2011). McQuiggan (2012) explored faculty members’ perceptions about teaching in online environments. She specifically created opportunities for faculty members to reflect on their online experiences as a means for supporting consideration and assessment of their current teaching practices. Study findings revealed the faculty development supports aimed at online learning also influenced and challenged faculty members’ beliefs about face-to-face teaching practices. Through a critical synthesis and analysis of literature on roles and competencies for online teachers, Baran and colleagues (2011) provide guidance to researchers and practitioners in their work as they develop programs and support mechanisms for online instructors in higher education. Their review of the literature led to an important observation related to supporting instructors in online learning environments: “Programs preparing faculty to teach online need to encourage them to critically reflect upon their past experiences, assumptions, and beliefs towards learning and teaching, question them, and transform their perspectives by engaging in critical reflection, pedagogical inquiry and problem-solving” (p. 435). In sum, trends such as changing appointment types, increasing calls for accountability and return on investment, and emerging models of higher education create challenges and opportunities for faculty developers as they reimagine faculty development supports. We do not envision these trends

Baker.indb 18

19-09-2019 15:20:28

faculty development in the united states  

19

going away any time soon, and therefore suggest these trends create opportunities for faculty developers to reenvision programming that fosters faculty members’ professional growth and agency in ways that benefit student learning.

Faculty Development Initiatives by Level Moving beyond broader higher education trends, we drill down into other faculty development initiatives and directions. In the following sections, we briefly review literature and practice focused at the institution, discipline, role, and career-stage levels, with a particular focus on the mid-career stage.

Institution-Specific Faculty Development Sorcinelli and colleagues (2006) aptly recognized that “one model or framework for faculty development will not be appropriate for all institutions” (p. 163). This recognition has resulted in an increase in institution-specific faculty development research over the past decade. Such efforts rightly take into account key characteristics such as mission, strategic priorities, and culture, given the influence of these attributes on faculty development and faculty learning. A monograph by Baker, Terosky, and Martinez (2017) focused on four institutional types—community college, liberal arts college, comprehensive college and university, and research university—in the context of faculty scholarly learning, defined as a faculty member’s deep engagement in and commitment to a subject matter (Neumann, 2009). Baker and colleagues’ monograph, titled Faculty Members’ Scholarly Learning Across Institutional Types, includes a review of over 400 books, book chapters, peer-reviewed articles, and empirical research studies written about faculty scholarly learning or related content published between 2000 and 2016. Their goal in pursuing such a project was to be attentive to the nuances associated with faculty learning across institutional settings. They organized their review of the literature according to the work of Boyer’s (1990) four forms of scholarship— discovery, teaching, engagement, and integration—and in turn, the authors offered a counter-narrative about where and in what ways scholarly learning occurs at different institutional types. The work of Baker and colleagues is particularly important given their recommendations for future research and practice on the ways in which institutional leaders and faculty developers can support and evaluate faculty scholarly learning and passions within the realities of institutional types. Other notable institution-specific faculty development research includes the work of Kitchen, Ciuffetelli Parker, and Gallagher (2008) and their

Baker.indb 19

19-09-2019 15:20:28

20  

success after tenure

exploration of a self-study of teacher education practices as well as the work of Kosoko-Lasaki, Sonnino, and Voytko (2006) and their examination of mentoring practices in supporting underrepresented faculty and students, both of which were situated in a comprehensive university setting. Recent research focused on liberal arts colleges and their faculties includes the work of Baker, Pifer, and Lunsford (2017) and their study of the faculty experience and faculty development programming in the Great Lakes College Association (GLCA), a consortium of 13 liberal arts colleges (the focus of chapter 2 in this edited volume), in addition to the work of Terosky and Gonzales (2016), in which they explored the scholarly learning of faculty members employed at institutional types not typically recognized for faculty work beyond teaching. Findings revealed faculty members’ scholarly learning involved the expansion and construction of disciplinary knowledge beyond teaching in comprehensive universities and liberal arts colleges. The work of Eddy (2005, 2007); Perez, McShannon, and Hynes (2012); and Twombly and Townsend (2008) explores faculty development in community colleges. Collectively, their work has investigated the ways in which community college faculty can be better supported to facilitate the learning and development of the diverse student populations with whom community college faculty members work.

Discipline-Specific Faculty Development A great deal of research has examined faculty development within divisional or disciplinary domains. Such work takes into account the unique pedagogical and methodological approaches that characterize academic work. The majority of this work is situated in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) as well as medical education fields. The work of Steinert and colleagues (2006), for example, sought to understand the effects of faculty development interventions on the skills, abilities, and knowledge of the teachers tasked with delivering medical education and on the institutions in which they worked. Findings revealed welldesigned, focused faculty development efforts led to increased knowledge and other related teaching skills. O’Sullivan and Irby (2011) took a broad view of faculty development in medical education. They sought to determine if developmental efforts could be enriched by taking an interdisciplinary approach and implementing lessons from other fields such as teacher education, quality improvement, and workplace learning. Their review of the literature supported the development of a new faculty development model focused on two critical communities of practice: the community created by faculty development participants and communities of teaching practice (see also Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012; Elrod, 2010; Felder & Brent, 2010).

Baker.indb 20

19-09-2019 15:20:28

faculty development in the united states  

21

Moving beyond STEM and medical education, Baker, Pifer, and Lunsford (in press) engaged in a longitudinal study of the faculty experience and faculty development in the GLCA. As part of their research, they examined faculty development trends, preferences, and sources of support by division, suggesting that such consideration was an important factor in the move away from a one-size-fits-all approach to faculty development programming. Findings revealed the ways in which faculty development formats, professional development activities, and sources of support were characterized as differing by division. Such information, they argued, should be accounted for as part of developing, delivering, and assessing a diversified portfolio of faculty development programming.

Role-Specific Faculty Development The landmark Carnegie report Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (Boyer, 1990) sought to examine how academic work in the academy has changed over the years, with an initial focus on teaching, followed by a shift to service and eventually to research. Boyer (1990) posed the important question “What activities of the professoriate are most highly prized?” (p. xi). In seeking to answer, Boyer proposed reframing the ways in which faculty work could be defined, particularly through an expanded definition of scholarship as a means of evaluating and rewarding faculty work. Specifically, he proposed four forms of scholarship: discovery, teaching, integration, and engagement. Since the publication of this report, scholars, practitioners, and administrators have sought to rethink faculty roles and better understand the myriad ways in which faculty members enact their roles and responsibilities as a means of providing more thoughtful (and deliberate) faculty development supports. Two large-scale efforts to employ Boyer’s conceptualization include the work by Baker and colleagues (2017), as previously discussed, as well as the work of O’Meara and Rice (2005). In an effort to examine the impact of Scholarship Reconsidered on a national level, O’Meara and Rice (2005) organized an edited volume titled Faculty Priorities Reconsidered: Rewarding Multiple Forms of Scholarship, in which they, along with volume contributors, provided a historical and conceptual review by featuring nine campus case studies as well as a review of the American Association for Higher Education’s study of chief academic officers (the Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards). This study examined the impact of policy changes influenced by Scholarship Reconsidered across all four-year institution types. Study findings reported by O’Meara and Rice (2005) revealed that “reward systems in academic communities are about ‘what counts.’” They go on to say, “Our findings suggest that research expectations

Baker.indb 21

19-09-2019 15:20:28

22  

success after tenure

have continued to increase, even as more and more campuses formally recognize multiple forms of scholarship” (p. 266). The work of O’Meara and Rice (2005) and Baker and colleagues (2017) shines a light on the various ways in which faculty members engage in academic work. Furthermore, their work debunks myths about faculty work as determined by institution type—rather, faculty members across all institution types engage in all forms of scholarship as defined by Boyer (1990). This reality requires new ways of supporting faculty learning through faculty development, especially as colleges and universities seek to recruit and retain a talented and diverse faculty body.

Career-Stage-Specific Faculty Development As we noted in the introduction, the overwhelming majority of research that focuses on the faculty experience is situated at the early career stage (Sorcinelli, 2000). Such faculty development efforts seek to orient and onboard early career faculty (Sorcinelli & Yun, 2007) as they are socialized into life in the academy (Ponjuan, Conley, & Trower, 2011). Although such efforts are vital to attracting and supporting a talented and diverse early career faculty population as they work toward promotion and tenure, we agree with calls from Baldwin (1990); Baldwin, DeZure, Shaw, and Moretto (2008); and Austin (2010) that more research and practice that supports faculty members across all stages of their careers is needed. Interest in the mid-career stage has seen a resurgence as evidenced by recent research, practice, and essays featured in prominent higher education news outlets. One such example includes “Key Research on Mid-Career Issues” (2017), which featured research and practice spanning national efforts by the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education at Harvard University, the American Association of University Professors, the Modern Language Association, and institutional efforts at Michigan State University and the Georgia Institute of Technology. As outlined in the essay, these initiatives focused specifically on the mid-career stage and revealed issues around job satisfaction, gender differences related to advancement to full professor, and unbalanced service expectations for female associate professors. Within the study of mid-career faculty, an area of growing interest is centered on leadership development, as these individuals are considered the next generation of institutional leaders. June’s (2017) essay focuses on the importance of leadership development, particularly at the mid-career stage. She writes about the need for colleges and universities to change the negative perceptions related to academic administration. In addition to changing

Baker.indb 22

19-09-2019 15:20:28

faculty development in the united states  

23

negative perceptions, faculty need more support earlier in their experiences to help groom and prepare them for leadership positions on their respective campuses. The current “learn on the job” model ill-equips faculty members for the roles and responsibilities associated with important positions such as department chair, which in turn serves as a conduit to upper leadership positions if viewed and supported in effective ways. Beauboeuf, Thomas, and Erickson (2017) share insights on their research on mid-career faculty in their essay titled “Our Fixation on Midcareer Malaise.” They note, “We’ve found that the characterizations of midcareer malaise do not square with our own experiences as faculty members or with the many stories we’ve heard of peers who have successfully written new chapters in their post-tenure lives” (para. 2). We appreciate their characterization of mid-career, one that specifically does not neglect the challenges of the mid-career stage but rather focuses on those faculty members (and institutions) who, through their own agency, use this stage as an opportunity to reinvest in the development and support of this important faculty population. Such a counter-narrative greatly informed the focus of this edited volume and the programs and faculty experiences featured throughout the subsequent chapters.

The Literature-Practice Connection: The Motivation for This Volume This book is grounded in this chapter’s review of the historical and evolving stages of the field of faculty development. As previously noted, we agree with and build on the literature that calls for increased attention to the mid-career stage, as well as a need to better facilitate faculty agency, defined as strategic perspectives or actions toward goals that matter to the professor (O’Meara, Campbell, & Terosky, 2011). This book’s premise, as well as the premises of the individual chapters that comprise it, showcase the different institutions’ faculty development programs that build the capacity of mid-career faculty as they go about fulfilling their full range of professional responsibilities and striving to facilitate their sense of agency. We argue that applying the lens of mid-career and agency is fundamental to the current and future success of faculty development efforts because past research highlights that faculty-driven models of professional development resonate with academics’ desires for autonomy, collegiality, sense of mastery, and pursuit of scholarly learning and passions (Neumann, 2009; O’Meara, Terosky, & Neumann, 2008; Terosky & Gonzales, 2016; Terosky, O’Meara, & Campbell, 2014). As such, we focus on the ways in which faculty development programs can facilitate mid-career faculty agency across the myriad of their professional and scholarly roles.

Baker.indb 23

19-09-2019 15:20:28

24  

success after tenure

Throughout this volume, chapter contributors offer insight into faculty development programming geared toward supporting mid-career faculty, highlighting their sense of agency in a variety of career responsibilities. Scholars of faculty work and faculty developers may reinvigorate their faculty development efforts by drawing on the examples presented in this volume. Current and prospective faculty members will learn about trends in mid-career faculty development resources, see examples of how to create such supports when they are lacking on their campuses, and gain insights on how to strategically advance their own careers based on the realities of the professoriate. The stories, examples, data, and resources shared in this book will provide eye-opening inspiration to the administrators, faculty developers, and department chairs charged with better supporting their faculty as they engage in academic work. Additionally, the information shared will provide a pathway to mid-career faculty members as they envision their own careers, given the “mid-career move” is unlike any other in the academy (Hall, 2004, n.p.). Throughout the remaining chapters, readers will be exposed to faculty development for formal and informal leadership roles; strategies to support professional growth, renewal, and time and people management; teaching and learning as a form of scholarship; the role of learning communities and networks as a source of support and professional revitalization; global engagement to support scholarship and teaching; strategies to recruit, retain, and promote underrepresented faculty populations; the policy-practice connection; and gender differences related to key mid-career outcomes.

References Austin, A. E. (2010). Supporting faculty members across their careers. In K. J. Gillespie & D. L. Robertson (Eds.), A guide to faculty development (pp. 363–378). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Baker, V. L., Lunsford, L. G., & Pifer, M. J. (2017). Developing faculty in liberal arts colleges: Aligning individual needs and organizational goals. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Baker, V. L., Pifer, M. J., & Lunsford, L. G. (in press). “Faculty development in liberal arts colleges: A look at divisional trends, preferences, and needs.” Higher Education Research & Development Baker, V. L., Terosky, A. L., & Martinez, E. (2017). Faculty members’ scholarly learning across institutional types. ASHE Higher Education Report, 43(2), 9–138. Baldwin, R. G. (1990). Faculty career stages and implications for professional development. In J. H. Schuster & D. H. Wheeler, (Eds.), Enhancing faculty careers: Strategies for development and renewal, (pp. 20–40). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Baker.indb 24

19-09-2019 15:20:28

faculty development in the united states  

25

Baldwin, R. G., & Blackburn, R. T. (1981). The academic career as a developmental process: Implications for higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 52(6), 598–614. Baldwin, R., DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Moretto, K. (2008). Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university: Implications for faculty and academic leaders. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(5), 46–55. Baldwin, R. G., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2011). Contingent faculty as teachers: What we know; what we need to know. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(11), 1485–1509. Baran, E., Correia, A. P., & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 32(3), 421–439. Beach, A. L., Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., & Rivard, J. K. (2016). Faculty development in the age of evidence: Current practices, future imperatives. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Beauboeuf, T., Thomas, J. E., & Erickson, K. A. (2017, March 15). Our fixation on midcareer malaise. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http:// www.chronicle.com/article/Our-Fixation-on-Midcareer/239476 Bonk, C. J., & Kim, K. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education: The survey says. EDUCAUSE Quarterly Magazine, 29(4), 22–30. Bouwma-Gearhart, J. (2012). Research university STEM faculty members’ motivation to engage in teaching professional development: Building the choir through an appeal to extrinsic motivation and ego. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(5), 558–570. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press. Condon, W., Iverson, E. R., Manduca, C. A., Rutz, C., & Willett, G. (2016). Faculty development and student learning: Assessing the connections. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Eddy, P. (2005). Faculty development in community colleges: Surveying the present, preparing for the future. The Journal of Faculty Development, 20(3), 143–152. Eddy, P. L. (2007). Faculty development in rural community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 137, 65–76. Ehrenberg, R. G., & Zhang, L. (2005). The Changing Nature of Faculty Employment. Cornell Higher Education Research Institute Working Paper No. 44. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Higher Education Research Institute. Retrieved from www .ilr.cornell.edu/cheri Elrod, S. (2010). Project Kaleidoscope 2.0: Leadership for twenty-first century STEM education. Liberal Education, 96(4), 24–33. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2010). The national effective teaching institute: Assessment of impact and implications for faculty development. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 121–134. Hall, D. E. (2004, May 27). The mid-career job search. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Mid-CareerJob-Search/44635

Baker.indb 25

19-09-2019 15:20:28

26  

success after tenure

Huber, M. T. (2016). Foreword: Pathways from faculty learning to student learning and beyond. In Condon, W., Iverson, E. R., Manduca, C. A., Rutz, C., & Willett, G. (2016). Faculty development and student learning: Assessing the connections. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. June, A. W. (2017, Jan. 15). How to cultivate faculty leaders. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://odl.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ how-to-cultivate-faculty-leaders-chronicle-article.pdf Key research on mid-career issues. (2017, May 7). The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Key-Research-on-Midcareer/240011 Kezar, A. J. (2012). Embracing non-tenure track faculty: Changing campuses for the new faculty majority. New York, NY: Routledge. Kezar, A. J., & Maxey, D. (2016). Envisioning the faculty for the twenty-first century: Moving to a mission-oriented and learner-centered model. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2013). Institutionalizing equitable policies and practices for contingent faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(1), 56–87. Kitchen, J., Ciuffetelli Parker, D., & Gallagher, T. (2008). Authentic conversation as faculty development: Establishing a self-study group in a faculty of education. Studying Teacher Education, 4(2), 157–171. Kosoko-Lasaki, O., Sonnino, R. E., & Voytko, M. L. (2006). Mentoring for women and underrepresented minority faculty and students: Experience at two institutions of higher education. Journal of the National Medical Association, 98(9), 1449. McQuiggan, C. A. (2007). The role of faculty development in online teaching’s potential to question teaching beliefs and assumptions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 10(3). Retrieved from http://www.westga .edu/~distance/ojdla/fall103/mcquiggan103.htm McQuiggan, C. A. (2012). Faculty development for online teaching as a catalyst for change. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 27–61. Menges, R. J. (1985). Career-span faculty development. College Teaching, 33(4), 181–184. Neumann, A. (2009). Professing to learn: Creating tenured lives and careers in the American research university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. O’Meara, K. A., Campbell, C. M., & Terosky, A. (2011, November). Living agency in the academy: A conceptual framework for research and action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Charlotte, NC. O’Meara, K., & Rice, R. E. (2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered: Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. O’Meara, K., Terosky, A. L., & Neumann, A. (2008). Faculty careers and work lives: A professional growth perspective. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(3), 1–221. O’Sullivan, P. S., & Irby, D. M. (2011). Reframing research on faculty development. Academic Medicine, 86(4), 421–428.

Baker.indb 26

19-09-2019 15:20:29

faculty development in the united states  

27

Ouellett, M. (2010). Overview of faculty development: History and choices. In K. J. Gillespie & D. L. Robertson (Eds.), A guide to faculty development (2nd ed., pp. 3–20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Perez, A. M., McShannon, J., & Hynes, P. (2012). Community college faculty development program and student achievement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(5), 379–385. Ponjuan, L., Conley, V. M., & Trower, C. (2011). Career stage differences in pretenure track faculty perceptions of professional and personal relationships with colleagues. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(3), 319–346. Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education. (n.d.). POD Network. Retrieved from http://podnetwork.org Rice, R. E., & Austin, A. E. (1988). High faculty morale: What exemplary colleges do right. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 20(2), 50–58. Rutz, C., Condon, W., Iverson, E. R., Manduca, C. A., & Willett, G. (2012). Faculty professional development and student learning: What is the relationship? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(3), 40–47. Schroeder, C. (2012). Coming in from the margins: Faculty development’s emerging organizational development role in institutional change. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Smith, B. L., & Hunter, M. R. (1988). Learning communities: A paradigm for educational revitalization. Community College Review, 15(4), 45–51. Sorcinelli, M. D. (2000). Principles of good practice: Supporting early-career faculty. Guidance for deans, department chairs, and other academic leaders. Washington DC: American Association for Higher Education. Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker. Sorcinelli, M. D., & Yun, J. (2007). From mentor to mentoring networks: Mentoring in the new academy. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(6), 58–61. Steinert, Y., Mann, K., Centeno, A., Dolmans, D., Spencer, J., Gelula, M., & Prideaux, D. (2006). A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education (BEME Guide no. 8). Medical Teacher, 28(6), 497–526. Terosky, A. L., & Gonzales, L. (2016). Scholarly learning as vocation: A study of community and broad access liberal arts college faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 41(2), 105–120. Terosky, A., & Heasley, C. (2014). Supporting online faculty through a sense of community and collegiality. Online Learning: Official Journal of the Online Learning Consortium, 19(3). Retrieved from http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/ index.php/olj/article/view/670/217 Terosky, A. L., O’Meara, K., & Campbell, C. M. (2014). Enabling possibility: Women associate professors’ sense of agency in career advancement. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(1), 58–76. Twombly, S., & Townsend, B. K. (2008). Community college faculty: What we know and need to know. Community College Review, 36(1), 5–24.

Baker.indb 27

19-09-2019 15:20:29

28  

success after tenure

Umbach, P. D. (2007). How effective are they? Exploring the impact of contingent faculty on undergraduate education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 91–123. University of Michigan. (n.d.). Center for Research on Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.crlt.umich.edu/

Baker.indb 28

19-09-2019 15:20:29

PA RT O N E LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT Laura Gail Lunsford

W

e need good leaders. Organizations prosper with them and decline without them. The University of North Carolina system is an excellent example of the former. President William (Bill) Friday oversaw the desegregation of the university system, increased accessibility to North Carolinians, and expanded the system to 16 campuses. Under his leadership, colleges and universities complemented rather than competed with one another (Padilla, 2005). In contrast, the disruption created by poor leadership stalls progress as the institution must eject one leader and search for another while key decisions are on hold in the interim period (Bidwell, 2013). The worst case occurs when such poor leadership leads to the closure of institutions. Yet many respected university leaders such as Bill Friday, Ted Hesberg (University of Notre Dame), and Hannah Gray (University of Chicago) did not go through a leadership development program (Padilla, 2005). If such excellent leaders could “figure it out,” why do we need to devote time and resources to leadership development programs? First, presidential tenure is decreasing as the pressures on these leaders (and perhaps outsized expectations that match their outsized salaries) increase (Seltzer, 2017). Board and president relationships are fraught due to growing financial pressures and expectations. University boards are turning to business and governmental leaders outside academe to lead at the top 29

Baker.indb 29

19-09-2019 15:20:29

30  

leadership development

(Jaschik, 2016; Seltzer, 2016). Does this change reflect a failure of institutions to cultivate their own leaders or a belief by board members that colleges are now businesses, better run by political or business leaders? Second, universities and colleges are more complicated places with increased budget pressures, media attention, and increased calls for accountability. There are greater demands on faculty members’ time, as they are asked to do more teaching and researching, as well as more service, especially the latter as they move to tenured ranks of associate and full professor (Austin, 2011). A lot has been written about leadership development and succession planning, yet colleges and universities appear slow to adopt such practices. We know that companies who promote from within do well (Rothwell, 2010). Cultivating internal talent reduces the time it takes for leaders to learn the institutional culture and norms. Thus, an investment in leadership development may save time and money, increase retention of talented individuals, and help colleges achieve goals more quickly. Sometimes good leaders may simply appear, but it behooves institutions to cultivate their internal resources to take on leadership roles so that the best performers, who may be ill-prepared leaders, are not the only choices available. In sports bench depth refers to having more than one player for each position. Leadership development programs develop the bench depth of the institution by supporting talented faculty members to increase their preparation (and hopefully their success) in taking on leadership roles. The chapters in part one highlight how faculty development can provide leadership development for mid-career faculty members. These chapters emphasize the importance of leadership as a process and agency. They also offer lessons about how to sustain such important programs. The authors in this section have embraced the idea of agency and a process theory of leadership. These chapters illustrate three themes in leadership development programs for faculty members. First, context matters. Second, agency is highlighted by ensuring that faculty members are active cocreators in their leadership trajectory. Third, concerns about creating a sustainable program given limited resources is an important consideration for such a time- and resource-intensive investment.

Contexts of Leadership When we think about leadership in an academic environment, we usually think of deans, provosts, and presidents or chancellors. In other words, we think of the people who are presumably doing the leading (well or not) while we neglect thinking about the followers or the environments that might

Baker.indb 30

19-09-2019 15:20:29

leadership development  

31

shape the leader–follower interaction. Scholars call for us to think of leadership as a process rather than as a person (Thoroughgood, Sawyer, Padilla, & Lunsford, 2016). The process includes leaders and followers and considers the influence of their organizational contexts. For those who doubt the influence of organizational factors, consider examples from higher education. Is leadership different in a liberal arts college versus a large, public research university? What about leadership at different career stages or as a department head versus a provost? The following three chapters feature leadership development programs for faculty members that reflect the importance of context in leadership situations. Chapter 2 describes a nine-month leadership development program for faculty members in liberal arts colleges called the Academic Leadership Institute (ALI). As a result of the unique characteristics of these institutions, including their smaller size, the program was offered to a consortium of schools. The authors describe the challenges in developing a curriculum and set of speakers that addressed the needs of new and aspiring faculty leaders at liberal arts colleges. Chapter 3 describes the pressures on a Jesuit University. Context is explicit in the program described in this chapter. The number of potential faculty leaders was reduced, and this in part contributed to the development of the Ignatian Leadership Program (ILP), as a way to reflect and promote core Jesuit values. Chapter 4 highlights views on leadership as part of the third pillar of service. Yet service had been relatively neglected compared to the emphases on teaching or research as faculty members sought tenure. Thus, a constraining organizational factor was the need for faculty members to have a singular focus on research and teaching to achieve tenure. The chapter shares observations about the crucial role faculty leaders fill in their service activities to ensure their campuses function. The program provided a portfolio of options to promote service for faculty members at a larger university.

Agency The notion of agency or faculty members as active cocreators and participants in their leadership development is a key theme of these chapters and throughout this volume. Agency is a key element of faculty professional growth (O’Meara & Terosky, 2010). According to O’Meara and Terosky (2010), agency is a key element of faculty growth and “agency, while fundamentally internal, is constructed in the social and political context” (p. 46). The implication is that faculty development programs provide environments that empower faculty members to action, which will magnify their

Baker.indb 31

19-09-2019 15:20:29

32  

leadership development

contributions. Further, scholars define agency as access to available resources, the individual’s ability to make a choice, the behavior that reflects the intention of choice-making, and the environmental supports that enable or inhibit the behaviors of choice-making. Indeed, the leadership programs in these chapters connected participants to available resources and created space for faculty members to reflect on and improve how they interact, motivate, and persuade others (followers). For example, the ALI promoted agency through a leadership project each participant selected to work on during the nine-month-long program. Virtual check-ins with a smaller group of participants provided the opportunity for participants to reflect upon and author their own progress, while using one another as sounding boards and resources. The ILP was developed to engage mid-career faculty by energizing them as future leaders and to ensure they embraced the Jesuit philosophy undergirding the institution. The program administrators discovered that their key role as organizers was to create a reflective space that led to action. Agency guided program development and was emphasized further as the administrators saw that the leadership program flourished when faculty members were engaged around their scholarly expertise and passions. ILP goals were to foster an environment that would support leadership development, encouraging faculty to assume agency in developing their career trajectories, making them aware of available institutional support and expertise, and creating a collegial network among the participants. The leadership development program described in chapter 4 encourages agency by asking participants to engage in prework before they attend a half-day retreat. At the same institution, “lunch-and-learn” sessions focus on topics generated from faculty interests.

Sustainability Sustaining effective leadership development programs is of interest to administrators. The chapters in this first part offer us some lessons. One program, the ALI, relied on grant funding for the initial offering. The plan for sustainability will be to work through consortiums of schools to identify core funding that is supplemented by registration fees from individual member colleges. The ILP described in chapter 3 is sustained by developing income from a summer conference organized by the Office of Organization Development and Leadership. The faculty leadership development program described in chapter 4 draws on faculty members at the same institution to make the program sustainable.

Baker.indb 32

19-09-2019 15:20:29

leadership development  

33

References Austin, A. (2011). The socialization of future faculty in a changing context. In J. C. Hermanowicz (Ed.), The American academic profession: Transformation in contemporary higher education (pp. 145–167). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Bidwell, A. (2013, October 13). Campus life: Presidents in peril. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/10/13/ campus-life-presidents-in-peril Jaschik, S. (2016, March 2). Last nonacademic president? Not a chance. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/02/expertsdoubt-debacle-mount-st-marys-will-diminish-board-interest-nontraditional O’Meara, K., & Terosky, A. L. (2010). Engendering faculty professional growth. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(6), 44–51. Padilla, A. (2005). Portraits in leadership: Six extraordinary university presidents (ACE/Praeger Series on Higher Education). Washington DC: Littlefield. Rothwell, W. J. (2010). Effective succession planning: Ensuring leadership continuity and building talent from within. New York, NY: AMACOM Division of the American Management Association. Seltzer, R. (2016, October 7). Picking political presidents. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/10/07/interestrises-politicians-university-presidents Seltzer, R. (2017, June 7). Swift and silent exits. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/06/07/spate-presidents-fired-earlytenures-few-reasons-why Thoroughgood, C. N., Sawyer, K. B., Padilla, A., & Lunsford, L. (2016, July 6). Destructive leadership: A critique of leader-centric perspectives and toward a more holistic definition. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–23.

Baker.indb 33

19-09-2019 15:20:29

Baker.indb 34

19-09-2019 15:20:29

2 THE ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE FOR M I D - C A R E E R F A C U LT Y Vicki L. Baker, Laura Gail Lunsford, and Meghan J. Pifer “I learned that I have a lot to learn.” “The session surrounding positive psychology and the session on the SWOT [strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats] analysis were particularly helpful.” “I appreciate how the sessions provided increasingly detailed scaffolding so that I was easily able to create my leadership plan.”

T

hese quotes highlight the importance of providing leadership development opportunities for mid-career faculty members. They are from three such faculty members who participated in the inaugural Academic Leadership Institute (ALI) for mid-career faculty in the Great Lakes Colleges Association (GLCA), a consortium of 13 liberal arts colleges (LACs). The institute was developed in direct response to a paucity of support for mid-career faculty members across the GLCA, as revealed through a longitudinal mixed methods research study called the Initiative for Faculty Development in Liberal Arts Colleges (IFDLAC) (Baker, Lunsford, & Pifer, 2017). When analyzing the data from this study, we identified a need for more intentional support for mid-career faculty across a variety of areas, such as leadership and mentorship. By intentional support, we mean a purposeful and strategic approach to faculty development programming that is informed by institutional mission, priorities, and strategic imperatives, as well as faculty members’ individual needs. Faculty needs might be based on, for example, career stage, appointment type, or disciplinary considerations. This intersection of institutional and individual considerations is often neglected, yet 35

Baker.indb 35

19-09-2019 15:20:29

36  

leadership development

should be where all faculty development programming is situated (Baker et al., 2017). Changing faculty roles and insufficient models for faculty development are likely to affect all institution types; however, there is a demand to better understand the experiences and needs of faculty members in LACs given the lack of research about that component of the professoriate (Baker, Pifer, & Lunsford, 2016) and the evolution underway in this sector of higher education (Baker & Baldwin, 2015; Baker, Baldwin, & Makker, 2012). In this chapter, we make the case that it is advantageous for administrative leaders and faculty members to employ a broader perspective in ­decision-making about mid-career faculty work within LACs. To acknowledge the varied needs of newer and senior associate professors, we use Mathews’s (2014) definition of mid-career as the rank of associate professor, including two categories: early associate (zero to five years post-tenure) and associate plus (six or more years post-tenure). The chapter focuses on describing the ALI as one possible model of supporting mid-career faculty work. We describe its conceptual underpinnings, origins, goals, design, outcomes, and lessons.

Conceptual Underpinnings A key principle undergirding the ALI is a holistic approach to academic career and leader development, which supports active learning from and among participants (Åkerlind, 2005). Faculty members at the mid-career stage experience personal and professional demands that may derail or detain them. The worry is that future campus leaders will be lost to the organization, after a substantial investment of time and other resources. Thus, the ALI focuses on the development of the whole person, recognizing that academic work is a calling for many faculty members, providing purpose and meaning in their personal and professional lives (Hagedorn, 2012). Our work was informed by complementary literatures from the areas of higher education, human resource management, leadership development, and positive organizational psychology.

Alignment Framework for Faculty Development in LACs Faculty development activities should address three critical areas of development: personal, instructional, and organizational (Lewis, 1996). Situating these three tenets in an LAC environment, Reder, Mooney, Holmgren, and Kuerbis (2009) argued that “it is impossible to overstate the importance of connecting small college faculty development to the needs and interests of the faculty and the institution as a whole” (p. 271).

Baker.indb 36

19-09-2019 15:20:29

the academic leadership institute for mid-career faculty  

37

We built on these ideas by expanding on the three-dimensional people strategy proposed by Gratton and Truss (2003), which focuses on aligning goals, policies, and actions. The authors described their approach as having three essential components: vertical alignment (the connection between an organization’s people strategy and its goals), horizontal alignment (personnel policies that relate to individual performance), and implementation (action taken to support vertical and horizontal alignment, such as policy enactment). Thus, we see alignment as a conceptual tool to support the reenvisioning of faculty development informed by individual and institutional priorities, needs, and challenges. Scholars including Lewis (1996) and Schroeder (2012) have highlighted the importance of interconnectedness among these key considerations. Scholars have offered models of faculty development to support future research and practice in this area (see, e.g., Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2007), yet Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, and Beach (2006) noted that “one model or framework for faculty development will not be appropriate for all institutions” (p. 163). Indeed, through our efforts with the IFDLAC, we found that the faculty experience in LACs was neither fully represented in models of faculty development, nor did such models fully explain the role of career stage, mentoring relationships, and departmental experiences in supporting and developing faculty work in LACs. Yet we found that, with adaptation, Gratton and Truss’s (2003) informative approach (developed for businesses) could address faculty work in higher education. Gratton and Truss’s model acknowledged the human resources role in staff development, which is not the case for faculty members. Therefore, we relied on the main aspects of alignment, while incorporating the realities of who and what are responsible for faculty development in institutions of higher education as the primary drivers. As a result of those needs and our analysis, we developed a preliminary framework called the Alignment Framework for Faculty Development in Liberal Arts Colleges (AFFD-LAC). As identified in our book (Baker et al., 2017), the framework “acknowledges that faculty members are essential partners in faculty development; it is not something that is done to them, but rather is developed in concert with them” (p. 187). The AFFD-LAC model accounts for (a) institutional and individual considerations, (b) departmental influence, (c) career stages, and (d) mentoring culture. We argue that to provide the right combination of tailored faculty development supports, how institutional goals align with faculty work must be considered (vertical alignment—dashed arrow in Figure 2.1) and how policies and procedures are enacted and assessed (horizontal alignment—solid horizontal arrows in Figure 2.1). Finally, plans and procedures

Baker.indb 37

19-09-2019 15:20:29

38  

leadership development

Figure 2.1  Alignment framework for faculty development in liberal arts colleges. Institutional strategies and goals

Institutional context and mentoring culture Departments (policies and procedures; informal interactions and colleagueship)

Faculty development and support

Institution-level faculty affairs (policies and procedures)

Faculty characteristics (demographics, appointment type, career stage, motivations and strategies) Source: Baker, Lunsford, & Pifer, 2017.

must be implemented to promote the creation of a mentoring culture at the institution, thus supporting the achievement of individual and organizational outcomes (for more details, please refer to Baker et al., 2017, chap. 7).

Leadership and Positive Organizational Psychology An important aspect to understanding the faculty experience in twenty-firstcentury higher education is how faculty members’ professional and personal lives intersect to inform their development as teachers, scholars, and contributors to their colleges and surrounding communities. To support this holistic approach to faculty life, we relied on a critical leadership framework (Collinson & Tourish, 2015; Padilla, 2012), in which leadership is viewed as a process rather than a person or position. Thus, the dynamics of leadership involve leaders, followers, and their environments. This process view was particularly appropriate to support our goal to prepare academic leaders who may motivate followers and recognize and respond to changing educational contexts. We also drew from positive organizational scholarship, which is defined as the organizational “processes, dynamics, perspectives, and outcomes considered to be positive” in a given setting (Cameron & Spreitzer, 2011, p. 1). The focus on the positive is particularly apt, given our desire to uplift and empower the faculty members and LACs in our research. We agree with Cameron and Spreitzer (2011) “that the desire to improve the human condition is universal and that the capacity to do so is latent in almost all human systems” (p. 4). This line of scholarship and some of our own research suggest

Baker.indb 38

19-09-2019 15:20:29

the academic leadership institute for mid-career faculty  

39

that individuals who thrive in their professional and personal contexts may be best equipped to provide organizational leadership (Dutton & Spreitzer, 2014). The aims of the ALI are to better prepare faculty leaders to contribute to their institutions while supporting their advancement as scholars and educators. As Palmer (1997) noted, “We teach who we are” (p. 14). Similarly, leaders at work cannot be separated from who they are as people because leadership involves values, character, and skill development (Padilla, 2012; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In sum, our approach to developing and delivering the ALI was informed by interdisciplinary modes of thinking and practice as we sought to create a leadership development effort that would incorporate personal and professional development, instructional development, and organizational development by focusing our efforts at the intersection of institutional goals, priorities, and mission with faculty (e.g., individual) needs and outcomes as informed by critical factors such as career stage (Baker et al., 2017). In the following section, we provide an overview of the IFDLAC study that was informed by these underpinnings, leading to the generation of the AFFDLAC faculty development model and the inaugural ALI.

Initiative for Faculty Development in Liberal Arts Colleges The purpose of the IFDLAC study was to understand faculty socialization and faculty development (including career-stage challenges and leadership and mentoring needs). The study included quantitative and qualitative data sources: 2 survey administrations, nearly 100 faculty member interviews, interviews with all 13 deans/provosts in the GLCA, and interviews with 5 presidents. Additionally, we conducted 2 rounds of focus groups. The firstround focus group concentrated on the general faculty experience in LACs and involved 5 GLCA member institutions. A total of 32 faculty members participated across 15 focus groups, each organized by rank: assistant, associate, and full professors. The second set of focus group participants included mid-career professors at 3 of the GLCA institutions. A total of 31 faculty members participated, with 19 at the early career associate stage (0 to 5 years after earning tenure). Two survey administrations were organized similarly to the focus groups. First, we examined the professoriate across the GLCA. We invited all 2,500 faculty members in the GLCA to participate in an online survey, including tenured, tenure-track, and contingent faculty. There was a 20% response rate among tenured and tenure-track professors. Survey topics addressed faculty development structure and needs, participation in faculty development activities, mentoring support, satisfaction, and demographic characteristics.

Baker.indb 39

19-09-2019 15:20:29

40  

leadership development

Upon review of the data, we identified a paucity of programming and related supports geared toward mid-career faculty members, despite faculty members noting the importance of such supports, as well as administrators expressing their interest in expanding existing faculty development programming to address this critical need (Baker et al., 2016). Initial findings were presented at the GLCA Deans’ Council meeting in November 2015. That leadership group supported a second survey administration focusing specifically on mid-career faculty across the GLCA. The second online survey was administered during the spring of 2016 to all 599 mid-career faculty in the GLCA schools. We verified each faculty member’s rank as associate professor and then asked the participants to complete questions in the following five sections: academic leadership, mentoring and coaching, promotion and tenure, personal needs (related to work-life balance), and demographics. There were 285 respondents; 82 completed part of the survey and 203 completed the entire survey. The response rate was 54% for all responses and 39% for completed surveys. Findings from the mid-career faculty survey revealed two important themes. First, there was an aspirational gap for leadership roles greater than department chair. For many, the department chair position was the first formal leadership role in which to begin developing and practicing leadership skills, yet formal institutional supports were lacking. Second, this lack of development and corresponding supports at the department chair position resulted in a leadership pipeline leak for mid-career faculty members, thus negatively affecting their desire and interest to pursue further leadership positions on their respective campuses or elsewhere (Baker, Lunsford, & Pifer, in press). These findings further motivated our desire and need for academic leadership skill development and served as the basis on which the ALI was developed. Once we identified the need to better understand and support midcareer faculty in LACs and collect additional data, we cultivated support for the ALI as a pilot project to create and implement programming targeted for that population of the professoriate. The two primary steps in that process included obtaining the endorsement of all academic deans/provosts within the GLCA consortium and securing the generous support of the Henry Luce Foundation through a higher education grant. The Henry Luce Foundation is focused on broadening knowledge and encouraging the highest standards of service and leadership as their foundational mission. Our targeted examination of the mid-career faculty stage aligned with the Henry Luce Foundation’s higher education grants program, which aims “to prepare the next generation of diverse scholars and academic leaders” (Henry Luce Foundation, n.d.).

Baker.indb 40

19-09-2019 15:20:29

the academic leadership institute for mid-career faculty  

41

The Academic Leadership Institute: Goals, Design, and Outcomes The goal behind developing the ALI was to help mid-career faculty members extend their influence as academic leaders and equip them with strategies for advancing their careers across their roles and responsibilities. The institute was a direct response to calls made by scholars such as O’Meara and Rice (2005) and Gappa and colleagues (2007). For example, in their book Faculty Priorities Reconsidered, O’Meara and Rice (2005) highlighted a concern about the continued misalignment of the priorities of faculty and the central missions of the institutions with which they worked. Gappa and colleagues (2007) recognized this disconnect by noting, “Many institutions have not seriously considered how support for faculty must evolve to better enable them to accomplish their work” (p. 4). Faculty members play a vital role in helping institutions manage these challenges, but supporting institutions to overcome these challenges places additional expectations on these faculty members. Findings from our research highlight a need for leader development and for greater scholarly support in preparation for promotion to full professor. The key areas for leader skill development were self-management (time, productivity) and managing others (persuasion, negotiation, and conflict management). Greater familiarity with their internal promotion processes and in some cases a better plan to increase scholarly productivity were the needs related to promotion. It was in the interest of the institution to develop a more robust leadership pipeline, requiring support for associate professors to move to full professorship. Thus, we consider faculty development activities to be situated at the intersection of institutional and individual outcomes, priorities, and goals specifically for LACs.

Goals The overarching goals of the ALI were for participants to (a) extend their influence as academic leaders across their roles and responsibilities within their institutions and (b) develop strategies for advancing their careers as they navigate through and beyond the mid-career stage. Additionally, we sought to create a faculty leadership development program customized to the needs of mid-career faculty in the GLCA to support the development of skills and strategies in the areas of 1. influence, persuasion, negotiation, and conflict management; 2. informal and formal academic leadership roles;

Baker.indb 41

19-09-2019 15:20:29

42  

leadership development

3. engagement in diverse components of faculty career advancement, including teaching, research and scholarly productivity, and work-life concerns and responsibilities; and 4. personal and professional resiliency in facing leadership challenges.

ALI Design and Description We reviewed other faculty leadership development programs as benchmarks and observed a trend across those programs noted by Gmelch (2002) 15 years ago: “If it takes seven to fourteen years to achieve expertise in our academic disciplines, why do we assume we can ‘build a chair’ in a weekend seminar?” (pp. 2–3). However, our focus in the ALI was not exclusively on department chairs or formal leadership development, our overall approach to faculty leadership development avoided this “weekend workshop stigma” and instead created a program that encouraged long-term engagement, mentoring, and peer support. The ALI was conceived and implemented as a ninemonth-long program with four core elements: an introductory two-day fall workshop, a series of monthly group coaching calls, a leadership project and leadership development plan, and a concluding two-day early summer workshop. Our overarching aspiration was to pilot the institute and to improve it in order to disseminate the ALI model to liberal arts and other small colleges across the country. The experience could be sustained in future years through registration fees.

Selection The ALI was open to all mid-career faculty members across the GLCA. We advertised the institute through the GLCA’s communications with member institutions and via e-mail to eligible faculty members by way of the academic deans and provosts. We asked deans to nominate mid-career faculty (early career associates and associate plus) on their respective campuses who either displayed leadership abilities or had strong leadership potential. That call generated 53 mid-career faculty nominees. Nominees were asked to complete an ALI interest survey that verified their rank as mid-career; explained the commitment required; and asked them to describe their goals, leadership development needs, desired content areas for the ALI, and a leadership project they planned to complete in the coming academic year. Out of 33 faculty members who completed the interest survey we selected 26 to participate based on their interest and leadership goals. From that group, 18 mid-career faculty members participated in the inaugural ALI from across 9 GLCA institutions. Those nominees who chose not to participate cited both personal (e.g., young children at home) and professional (e.g., travel

Baker.indb 42

19-09-2019 15:20:29

the academic leadership institute for mid-career faculty  

43

during the year making commitment to the program challenging) reasons. All the respondents were at the associate level, although one professor had recently been promoted to the rank of full professor. Based on the associate rank when nominated, we did not exclude this individual. Table 2.1 provides a breakdown of the numbers of mid-career faculty members by institution.

ALI Elements In this section, we describe the four elements of the ALI: two in-person institutes, monthly check-ins, and the leadership development plans. It is important to note that the lead chapter author managed the administrative responsibilities related to ALI planning (e.g., arranging meetings, communicating with vendors, securing speakers, and preparing meeting materials).

Kick-Off Institute The ALI started on a Wednesday evening and concluded on a Friday morning in October 2016. The institute consisted of a series of speakers and a work session aimed at developing a leadership presence on campus, becoming an TABLE 2.1

Number of Mid-Career Faculty Members and ALI Participants From GLCA Institutions GLCA Institution

ALI Participants

Albion College

35

2

Allegheny College

51

4

4

0

College of Wooster

51

2

Denison University

91

3

DePauw University

79

0

Earlham College

26

2

Hope College

72

1

Kalamazoo College

29

2

Kenyon College

56

0

Oberlin College

84

0

Ohio Wesleyan University

28

1

Wabash College

37

2

Antioch College

Baker.indb 43

Mid-Career Faculty

19-09-2019 15:20:30

44  

leadership development

effective department chair, branding oneself and one’s work, and supporting one’s personal and professional plans. Participants were asked to spend one hour of preparation on self-assessments and preparatory reading prior to attending. The speakers and work sessions were selected based on participant needs, findings from the IFDLAC study, and relevant scholarship about mid-career faculty and faculty leader development. We were guided by the holistic approach to academic career development, which supports active learning from and among participants. As such, the program content provided the scaffolding to support participants as they developed their individual leadership development plans, which would be their focus during the nine-month-long experience. The fall institute began with a keynote address called “Creating a Culture of Leadership and Mentorship.” The first full day of work began with an opening morning keynote address, titled “Aligning Institutional Priorities With Individual Outcomes: Liberal Arts Colleges in the Higher Education Landscape.” The remainder of the day was a mix of presentations such as the session titled “Trends and Themes of Mid-Career Faculty Roles in the GLCA and Understanding Self to Understand Others” (a preassessments overview). There were also working sessions such as “A SWOT Analysis—Promotion and Professional Assessment.” The second full day began with a keynote address titled “Sustainable Performance: Achieving Individual and Organizational Thriving,” followed by a panel session titled “Meeting Challenges and Institutional Needs: How to Leverage Resources” and work sessions, such as “Creating Great Departments.” Participants accessed the agenda and other materials through the ALI website (Lead Mentor Develop, 2016).

Leadership Projects Participants identified their own leadership projects. The projects fell into one of four broad categories that emerged based on the participants’ projects: (a) leading a department, (b) changing at the institutional level (curricular), (c) renewing scholarship, or (d) focusing directly on promotion to full professor. We asked participants to share their projects with their deans; although most did so, some did not. In some cases, their deans were moving to new positions outside the institution and in other cases they had trouble getting on the dean’s calendar. Progress reports related to participants’ leadership projects were a focus of the monthly check-ins described in the next section.

Monthly Check-Ins Participants were assigned to one of three smaller working groups, which became the three coaching teams. Each coaching team was assigned to one of

Baker.indb 44

19-09-2019 15:20:30

the academic leadership institute for mid-career faculty  

45

the three facilitators of the ALI. These smaller groups were secondarily based on goals and interests as noted in participant leadership plans. Although the small group facilitator served as a coach and was responsible for coordinating the check-ins, one important aspect to the smaller groups was peer mentoring and information-sharing, a feature built in deliberately so participants could learn from each other and broaden their developmental networks of support. The categories were department leadership, curriculum, and promotion. One team was mixed with participant projects from each category. We planned for each group to have six virtual check-ins using options preferred by the group such as video conferences, online discussions, and live chats, convened by the group facilitator. Participants shared updates and provided feedback during their virtual check-ins and also used them as opportunities to ask questions of each other related to best practices on their respective campuses. During the spring institute, we sought feedback from participants on the effectiveness of these check-ins. We learned that the regular check-ins served as an important source of accountability, an outlet to vent frustration or share positive news on professional or personal progress, and provided some much-needed small group or individual coaching. Areas to improve upon included making them more reflective in nature as opposed to strictly reporting out progress. To do so, participants suggested that we, as facilitators, share a theme or discussion point(s) prior to the call for participants to think about and be prepared to comment on during the call. Participants also asked to have a photo directory available for those calls that were not conducted via video conferencing (one coaching team managed all checkins via video conferencing). Participants felt that such an effort would help to put a face with a name and that seeing who was talking would facilitate a deeper engagement in the calls. Lastly, these small coaching groups were assembled at the end of the fall institute. Participants asked for the small groups to be assembled earlier during the fall institute, which, they believed, would help facilitate richer relationships prior to leaving, thus making the calls more meaningful.

Concluding Institute The ALI concluded with a two-day institute in June. The sessions were selected based on a survey of the participants in December and from feedback in their virtual check-ins. Based on participants’ identified needs, the closing institute included a series of workshops and speakers focused on topics related to leader communication and persuasion (e.g., “Persuasive Communication Workshop”), time management (e.g., “Group Session

Baker.indb 45

19-09-2019 15:20:30

46  

leadership development

‘Quick Picks’: Strategies and Tools for Managing Your [and Others’] Time”), and conflict management (e.g., “Conflict Management & Negotiation Workshop”). In addition, there was a panel focused on challenges related to promotion to full (e.g., “Panel—Moving Toward Promotion”). The ninemonth-long ALI concluded with a discussion of next steps for participants in the ongoing development (e.g., “Leadership Plan 2.0”) and implementation of their leadership plans.

Program Assessment and Evaluation The ALI was implemented in the spring of 2016 with the call for nominations and concluded in June 2017 with a second in-person meeting. We relied on online surveys and in-person focus groups to obtain formative assessment of the program, which enabled us to redesign the coaching and final meeting. There were five online surveys. The first survey was the initial interest survey completed by nominees for the institute. In addition, ALI participants were surveyed anonymously at four points: after the ALI October institute, in December following the first two check-ins, prior to the ALI June institute, and after the June institute. The first three surveys informed changes and improvements for the June institute. This section presents the findings from the evaluations throughout the ALI.

Fall ALI Session Evaluation The 18 participants were asked to provide anonymous feedback on the ALI October institute through an e-mailed online survey immediately after the concluding session. There was an 89% response rate, with 16 of the participants responding. They provided feedback about the overall experience and about the 12 sessions and workshops. A response scale was provided from 0 to 100. The average score ranged from 72 to 88 on the 6 questions about the overall content, which included “I learned (0 = nothing to 100 = a great deal)”; “This institute was (0 = a waste of time to 100 = extremely valuable)”; and 4 scaled content questions (content was “not relevant” to “relevant,” content was “not clearly explained” to “clearly explained,” content was “boring” to “interesting,” and content was “confusing” to “so clear I could explain it to others”). Most of the 12 sessions had means between 73 and 88. The single exception was a poorly received panel session with an average rating of 38; comments indicated the panel involved too much talking “at” participants rather than talking “with” participants or engaging them. Feedback indicated a need for more hands-on opportunities for participants to break up listening and,

Baker.indb 46

19-09-2019 15:20:30

the academic leadership institute for mid-career faculty  

47

as one person said, “fewer people talking at us!” or, as another participant noted, “too much ‘lecture’ and not enough ‘activity.’” In general, qualitative comments indicated that the participants valued the opportunities to hear about the experiences of others, learn skills they could employ immediately, and find out about trends in leadership in LACs. Participants reported about what they learned from the ALI related to leadership. About one-third of the participants learned they needed to place more importance on goal-setting (their own and asking others). One respondent noted that the ALI was a “huge reality check for me . . . lots to chew on in making some critical choices in the next few years.” Another indicated, “I learned that I have a lot to learn.” Another third of participants reported they learned more related to self-awareness, a need for greater delegation skills, and greater appreciation of personal strengths. For example, one person noted that the modified 360-degree feedback was “surprisingly insightful.” A minority of the participants felt not much was learned (n = 1), and some indicated that learning about their leadership came only through the self-assessment conversations. The participants reported what they hoped to learn when the ALI reconvened in June. They wished to receive more practical skill development on resolving conflict and dealing with difficult colleagues in addition to reporting about their progress and hearing how their group members developed over the year focused on their leadership projects. Some feedback suggested that the participants felt there was confusion between becoming a campus leader and being promoted to full professor. This feedback suggested that not all the faculty members saw the connection with the leadership opportunities open to faculty members when they achieve the rank of full professor. Anecdotal feedback during the June institute suggested that there was a lack of engagement and interest from some deans. In some cases, faculty members noted their deans seemed unclear about the leadership development part of the ALI, despite facilitators’ efforts and numerous e-mails to the deans about the program and progress. Thus, the lack of awareness at the administrative level was reflected in participants’ comments.

Pre- and Post-Workshop Survey A meeting date for the concluding summer meeting was selected by the group at the October meeting. However, as it turned out, June was not the ideal time for the final meeting; half of the 17 remaining participants could not attend. Thus, we decided to survey everyone before the workshop to collect information about their leadership plans in addition to gathering

Baker.indb 47

19-09-2019 15:20:30

48  

leadership development

information from the June workshop participants about their goals and needs for the workshop sessions. Fourteen people completed the online survey, which asked them to explain their leadership projects in detail and to share any productivity and time management hacks to be disseminated to the group; the survey also asked questions about the virtual check-ins. Most participants were on track or ahead of their planned schedules for their leadership projects. However, about a quarter of them were behind schedule (see Figure 2.2). The detailed project descriptions aligned with their original plans; however, we now grouped them into four categories of projects that required implementation at the department or institutional level. It was also clear that faculty members focused on promotion were either concentrated on understanding the “rules” and preparing their dossiers or reinvigorating their scholarship (see Table 2.2). The challenges varied by the type of project. Departmental projects involved challenges related to managing others and managing resources (e.g., budget and time). Institutional projects faced challenges related to insufficient resources and changes in institutional rules (calendars) or leadership. Faculty members focused on promotion and renewing their scholarship faced challenges related to unclear “rules” and dealing with delays or coordinating with collaborators (including training new undergraduate researchers). It should be noted that the need for personal renewal was a reported challenge across working groups. Individuals were the resources for people working on department and ­institutional projects. People and funding were the resources accessed by faculty

Figure 2.2.  Faculty members’ self-report of progress for leadership projects. Ahead

On Track

Behind 0

Baker.indb 48

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

19-09-2019 15:20:30

Baker.indb 49

TABLE 2.2 

Summary of Goals, Challenges, Resources Needed, and Outcomes of Leadership Projects Goal

Challenges

Resources

Outcomes

Department Leadership: Preparing for chair role, enhancing departmental culture, managing conflict well, mentoring, program review, staffing/ hiring, strategic planning

• • • •

• Assistant dean • Colleagues

• Improved mentoring and consensus-building practices • New mentoring in place for incoming faculty • Increased faculty engagement in department • Funded grant proposal • Implemented gallery plan

Institutional Leadership: Developing mid-career programming, curricular reform

• Changes in leadership (dean, provost, president) • Lack of resources • Costs of national assessments • Changes to campus schedule/ calendar disruptive

• Dean and other leadership • Faculty and staff colleagues • Faculty in other departments • External consultants • Spouses and partners

• Improved assessment strategies • Achieved curricular goals • Secured funding and established next steps in mentoring initiative

Advancement in Rank: Preparing dossier, evaluating next steps, accepting/seeking leadership roles

• Lack of clarity of process and requirements

• Dean • Colleagues • Funding

• Discerned goals • Determined and evaluated next steps

Scholarly Renewal: Developing new lines of research, identifying the right collaborators, submitting manuscripts, protecting time for research

• Training new undergraduate researchers • Coordinating well with others • Handling delays

• Coauthors outside of institution • Funding

• Met some or all publication goals • Made progress in projects and manuscripts

Gender leadership stereotypes Budget constraints Time management Lack of awareness of amount of work

19-09-2019 15:20:30

50  

leadership development

members focused on promotion and scholarship projects. The outcomes varied by project but included achievement of a goal, such as creation of a mentoring program, the development of a new curricular option, or revitalization of faculty in a department to achieve departmental goals. Scholarly productivity was the outcome for faculty members interested in promotion and renewing their scholarship. One attendee in particular used the ALI as an opportunity to reinvest in his scholarship. During the nine-month-long program, he prepared five manuscripts and at the time of the June institute, three were accepted for publication, one was under review, and the remaining manuscript was near submission stage. He planned to submit his dossier for consideration for full professorship during the 2017–2018 academic year as a result. Participants reported on how their participation in the ALI influenced their success. With the exception of one participant who dropped out for personal reasons, all participants shared how the ALI helped them. The main themes included increased self-awareness about their leader preferences and skills, increased ability to develop a team, and accountability. For example, one participant noted, “It gave me a new perspective on what it means to be an effective leader.” Others observed an increase in both confidence and their ability to advocate for their unit. It was clear that the faculty members took on more of a leader perspective by seeing faculty colleagues as team members who needed support to achieve departmental or unit goals. For example, one person pointed out a focus broadened from the project itself to an increased awareness of the team. Another person identified a greater awareness of “various constituencies to help all of us achieve our goals.” The participants also learned more about their leadership style and skills. Some were still adjusting to be seen as a leader, whereas others noted they learned more about team development and being more visible leaders. For example, one person wrote, “I didn’t see myself before as an advocate for mid-career faculty, but I really do now.” The participants stated that their involvement provided accountability, even it if was “mainly in one’s own head” through the participation in the virtual check-ins. Another person also reported, “It incentivized me to formalize my goals and develop a plan to achieve them.” All participants reported attending most or all of the virtual check-ins. The faculty members indicated they “really liked the supportive feedback” and that the virtual check-ins were “quite valuable to me.” Some of the participants were self-critical in their observations that they could have “given them more of a priority.” One person explained a greater appreciation for the check-ins when they were one-on-one with the facilitator in order to more easily have a conversation.

Baker.indb 50

19-09-2019 15:20:30

the academic leadership institute for mid-career faculty  

51

Contributions to the Field: Lessons Learned and Next Steps This chapter highlights one example of practical and evidence-based programming created and implemented to support mid-career faculty development. Mid-career faculty members are the next generation of institutional leaders and are in a singular position to leverage the evolution underway in LACs to innovate and create the LACs of the future. The ALI model also reflects the strength of the AFFD-LAC framework as it anticipated the gap in participants’ (and their deans’) understanding of the interaction between promotion to full professor and leadership development. If deans were unclear about the leadership program, then it is likely the ALI was not aligned with the institutional goals or there was a failure of implementation. Because both the driving framework and the institute are preliminary in nature, additional research is needed to test and refine the theoretical and practical components of the work described in this chapter. The ALI points to the need for further research about the success of similar interventions and for longitudinal studies of mid-career faculty experiences in LACs to learn more about the factors influencing successful promotion to full professor, the challenges this population experience over time, and effective individual and administrative responses to those challenges. In terms of practice, we learned several lessons about supporting midcareer faculty members, particularly what we learned about institutional support for the mid-career stage in LACs and what we learned about offering initiatives such as the ALI. Interestingly, participants’ leadership projects centered around the themes of developing curriculum or otherwise improving their institutions, chairing and leading departments, being promoted to the rank of full professor, and engaging in scholarly productivity and renewal. The evaluation and assessment of the pilot program for the ALI was important in its implementation and, now, subsequent improvement. Our assessment of participants’ experiences over the year suggests four lessons. First, conducting the ALI over the course of an academic year seemed to be a productive model for facilitating individual agency and change. That amount of time allowed for preparation in the preliminary assessments and goal-setting in addition to the in-person October institute; action and progress throughout the year; and reflection, adjustment, and additional goalsetting through the check-ins and the closing institute in June. We initially selected the June institute date to avoid conflicts during the academic year and based on participants’ stated availability. We learned, however, that summer calendars were in full effect by that time. Participants may have experienced a decline in motivation to attend the institute after the close of the semester.

Baker.indb 51

19-09-2019 15:20:30

52  

leadership development

Second, we were reminded of the importance of having interactive sessions during the virtual check-ins and the face-to-face meetings. At times, the group check-ins were useful collaborative feedback sessions. At other times, it was too much listening and too challenging to identify speakers or to find the right time to chime in. Possible solutions might include smaller groups for the check-ins, prior preparation with prompts via e-mail or written reflection, and the use of videoconferencing technology to allow speakers to identify each other and follow nonverbal cues easily. Similarly, feedback indicated participants were less interested in the data analysis from which the ALI was developed and more interested in trying it on themselves. Although it was critical to ground the institute in our own and others’ research about mid-career faculty, what seemed most important to participants was the provision of time to develop, explore, refine, and discuss their own goals and needs in the collaborative space provided by the ALI. It seems that participants grew in their leadership skills and goals; it may have been productive to invite them to consider their goals during longer time spans. Third, although we attempted to foster support and accountability for participants within their institutions by securing the buy-in and sponsorship of their academic deans or vice provosts, we were not completely successful in that effort. It could be that we communicated that the sponsorship for participation in the institute was sufficient. Future iterations should include more information-sharing and conversations with sponsoring campus leaders to better equip participants with a well-developed network of supporters. Fourth, it seems that the model described in this chapter was fruitful in facilitating agency among participants, including agency in the face of the hard work to create change for themselves, their peers, their students, their departments, and their institutions. Participants shared the following reflections about maintaining the positive momentum gained as a result of participation and advancing personal agency: My next step will be to continue the momentum we started last year. Making specific dates by which specific (curricular) milestones should be met will help keep us [project team] on track and pre-allocating meeting time for ongoing projects so we don’t get swamped with issues-of-the-day. My next steps are to churn out some great research on my fall sabbatical (it’s all in the works, with amazing collaborators) and to think about my timeline for other possible administrator roles within my institution. Continued association with my ALI group is hopefully in the works—that has been quite valuable. I will definitely pursue any additional leadership training I come across (on things like mentoring, for one).

Baker.indb 52

19-09-2019 15:20:30

the academic leadership institute for mid-career faculty  

53

As we close this chapter, we confirm our agreement with O’Meara (2015) when she stated that “neither individual career advancement nor organizational change will be successful unless agentic perspectives lead to agentic actions” (p. 351). In order for faculty development to be truly strategic it must be focused at the intersection of institutional mission, goals, and priorities and individual faculty members’ needs (Baker et al., 2017). We argue that investing in mid-career faculty members, as the next generation of institutional leaders, is strategic and a must if institutions, particularly LACs, seek to maintain their position in the higher education landscape.

References Åkerlind, G. S. (2005). Academic growth and development: How do university academics experience it? Higher Education, 50(1), 1–32. Baker, V. L., & Baldwin, R. G. (2015). A case study of liberal arts colleges in the 21st century: Understanding organizational change and evolution in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 40(3), 247. Baker, V. L., Baldwin, R. G., & Makker, S. (2012). Where are they now? Revisiting Breneman’s study of liberal arts colleges. Liberal Education, 98(3), 48–53. Baker, V. L., Lunsford, L. G., & Pifer, M. J. (2017). Developing faculty in liberal arts colleges: Aligning individual needs and organizational goals. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Baker, V. L., Lunsford, L. G., & Pifer, M. J. (in press). Where to patch up the leaking leadership pipeline? Fostering mid-career faculty succession management. Manuscript under review. Baker, V. L., Pifer, M. J., & Lunsford, L. G. (2016). Faculty challenges across rank in liberal arts colleges: A human resources perspective. The Journal of Faculty Development, 30(1), 23–30. Cameron, K. S., and Spreitzer, G. M. (2011). What is positive about positive organizational scholarship? In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 1–16). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Collinson, D., & Tourish, D. (2015). Teaching leadership critically: New directions for leadership pedagogy. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(4), 576–594. Dutton, J. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2014). How to be a positive leader: Small actions, big impact. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education’s strategic imperative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gmelch, W. H. (2002, February). The call for department leaders. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New York, NY. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED460098.pdf

Baker.indb 53

19-09-2019 15:20:30

54  

leadership development

Gratton, L., & Truss, C. (2003). The three-dimensional people strategy: Putting human resources policies into action. The Academy of Management Executive, 17(3), 74–86. Hagedorn, L. S. (2012). The meaning of academic life. The Review of Higher Education, 35(3), 485–512. Henry Luce Foundation. (n.d.). Higher education. Retrieved from http://www.hluce.org/highedu.aspx Lead Mentor Develop. (2016). Advancing Careers & Organizations. Retrieved from www.leadmentordevelop.com Lewis, K. G. (1996). Faculty development in the United States: A brief history. The International Journal for Academic Development, 1(2), 26–33. Mathews, K. R. (2014). Perspectives on mid-career faculty and advice for supporting them [white paper]. Cambridge, MA: COACHE, Harvard Graduate School of Education. O’Meara, K. (2015). A career with a view: Agentic perspectives of women faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(3), 331–359. O’Meara, K., & Rice, R. E. (2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered: Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Padilla, A. (2012). Leadership: Leaders, followers, and environments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Palmer, P. (1997). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Reder, M., Mooney, K., Holmgren, R. A., & Kuerbis, P. J. (2009). Starting and sustaining successful faculty development programs at small colleges. To Improve the Academy, 27, 267–286. Schroeder, C. (2012). Coming in from the margins: Faculty development’s emerging organizational development role in institutional change. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–11. Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker.

Baker.indb 54

19-09-2019 15:20:30

3 DEVELOPING LEADERS FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF JESUIT H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N Ignatian Leadership Program for Faculty Karin Botto and Carolyn Berenato

I

n a time of resource scarcity, how might a university address multiple needs by building the leadership capacity of faculty? Specifically, how does a Jesuit university address the decreasing population of Jesuit priests who have their leadership grounded in the distinctive foundation and mission of Ignatian spirituality? How does a Jesuit university engage and develop mid-career faculty in increasingly assuming leadership around its Jesuit mission? This chapter describes how Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, reframed these challenges as an opportunity for leader development through the Ignatian Leadership Program (ILP). The ILP develops mid-career, lay faculty leaders in the tradition of the Jesuit mission and provides an opportunity to counteract the lack of career satisfaction and agency that often characterizes the associate professor rank (Austin, 2010; COACHE, 2014; Mathews, 2014; Trower, 2011). First, we begin this chapter by highlighting the context of the Jesuits and Saint Joseph’s University. Second, we explore the two challenges facing Saint Joseph’s University (as well as other faith-based schools) and discuss the literature that guided our development of the ILP. Third, we describe the ILP’s goals, structure, activities, and outcomes. Fourth, we share lessons learned about the role of university faculty development programs in supporting faculty agency in assuming leadership roles.

55

Baker.indb 55

19-09-2019 15:20:30

56  

leadership development

Context: Jesuit Higher Education More than 450 years ago, the first Jesuit school opened in Messina, Italy, under the Society of Jesus, a religious order of the Catholic Church. Since then, schools at the primary, secondary, and higher education levels have been established in what is now one of the world’s largest educational networks (O’Malley, 2000). Jesuit universities are staffed by thousands of laypeople, not members of the Jesuit order, but people whose professional expertise and commitment to the Jesuit project draws them to participate as colleagues and partners in the mission of their schools. Until the 1960s, members of the Society of Jesus were the primary leadership at Jesuit colleges and universities. Jesuits made up much of the faculty and nearly all of the schools’ senior leadership. The order maintained ownership of the institutions and, to a great extent, their mission. According to Russell (2014), a dramatic shift occurred in the last 50 years in the way Jesuit schools convey their mission. Before and soon after World War II, much of the Jesuit charism in higher education flowed from the members of the Society of Jesus. Russell explains: Lay faculty and students were immersed in the Catholic, Jesuit culture of the organization by the sheer number of priests present in the community. Disruptive factors such as the Land O’Lakes Statement, Second Vatican Council, and Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, however, shook the familiar mission assumptions of Catholic higher education. These factors, coupled with a declining number of Jesuits in and entering the Society of Jesus, led to serious and intentional discussions about promoting mission awareness in the schools. (S. Russell, personal communication, June 12, 2017)

Data from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University in 2013 showed a 50% decrease in the number of Jesuit priests in the United States over the last 25 years, from 4,823 to 2,395. The number of men entering the order as novices has also decreased. From 1989 to 1993, 332 men entered the order, whereas from 2009 to 2013, 177 men entered (Gray, 2015). Recognizing this reality, the Society of Jesus has been intentional over the last 50 years in using occasions such as their international convocations, called General Congregations, to discuss and document partnership and collaboration with laity, including women and men who are not themselves members of a religious community, or people of faith, working in the various Jesuit apostolates throughout the world. The following five principles serve as a foundation of Ignatian spirituality and the mission of Jesuit higher education institutions; therefore, these also became the core principles of the ILP.

Baker.indb 56

19-09-2019 15:20:30

developing leaders for jesuit higher education  

57

1. Contemplative in Action: The Society of Jesus was the first order of priests who were not cloistered at a monastery but rather were out and active with the world. Martin (2010) describes this notion as being “active people who adopted a contemplative, or meditative, stance toward the world” (p. 8). 2. Cura personalis: This is Latin for “care for the whole person.” 3. Discernment: A term used in Ignatian spirituality to describe methods of decision-making. It is most often defined on an individual level but can also be facilitated at a group level. 4. Examination of Conscience: This principle is a reflective practice found and popularized by Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises and is often referred to as the Examen. 5. Magis: This is Latin for the “more,” a term used to describe being open to allowing God to do more in us and with us, and is often used in relation to discernment.

Context: Saint Joseph’s University Saint Joseph’s University opened September 15, 1851, on Willings Alley in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The university later moved to its current location, 5600 City Line Avenue, situated on 23 acres in a residential area at the western edge of Philadelphia. It began as an all-male college until the fall of 1970 when it became coeducational, and 8 years later, the secretary of education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania recognized it as a university. From 1978 through 1982, the university experienced a period of growth and development, with the addition of the College of Business and Administration. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Saint Joseph’s shifted from a commuter school with a Philadelphia base to a residential institution drawing most of its students from outside Pennsylvania. In 2008, the university acquired the adjacent 38-acre Episcopal Academy in Merion, Pennsylvania, more than doubling its footprint in the community and providing new academic buildings, offices, and athletic fields. The College of Arts and Sciences has a Phi Beta Kappa chapter and the Haub School of Business is accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (Saint Joseph’s University, n.d.b, para. 8). Saint Joseph’s University educates 8,625 undergraduates, graduates, and doctoral students in their two colleges (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). The College of Arts and Sciences and the Haub School of Business offer more than 60 undergraduate majors, 53 graduate programs,

Baker.indb 57

19-09-2019 15:20:31

58  

leadership development

28 study abroad programs, 12 special-study options, a cooperative education program, a joint degree program with Thomas Jefferson University, and a doctorate in education in educational leadership. There are 301 fulltime faculty, and 100% of the tenure-track faculty hold terminal degrees. Saint Joseph’s is a comprehensive, internationally recognized university with students from across the country and around the world (Saint Joseph’s University, n.d.a).

Leadership Concerns Facing Saint Joseph’s University Saint Joseph’s University’s leadership challenges were captured best by the 26th president, Timothy R. Lannon, S.J., who, at a September 2008 convocation, asked the campus community to reflect on the following question: “How will we be a Catholic, Jesuit University in 10 to 20 years with few or no Jesuits or Catholics?” (Lannon, 2008). This question served as a guidepost to develop two distinct leadership programs grounded in Jesuit philosophy, one for faculty that is described in this chapter and another complementary program geared toward administrators. Alongside concerns about declining Jesuit religious leaders described previously, the university hoped to address the mid-career slump or post-­ tenure blues (Austin, 2010; Mathews, 2014; Trower, 2011) associated with lower levels of career satisfaction for associate-level professors (COACHE, 2014). Harvard’s Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) survey conducted in 2013–2014 has shown that mid-career faculty experience lower levels of satisfaction across the areas evaluated (e.g., retention, engagement, professional development). Scholars of faculty careers note that mid-career faculty dissatisfaction is related to several factors, including the challenges facing professionals in the midst of substantial, professional transition (Hall, 2002); the increased service and administrative workload that pulls faculty away from their scholarly learning and subject matter expertise following the award of tenure (Neumann & Terosky, 2007; see also Baldwin, DeZure, Shaw, & Moretto, 2008); and the need for more professional development geared to supporting faculty members as they transition from assistant to associate levels (Austin, 2010; Buch, Huet, Rorrer, & Roberson, 2011; Mathews, 2014). Thus, given the dual problems of fewer Jesuit priests and the post-tenure slump, the university sought a leadership development opportunity. In 2009, the administrative ILP launched successfully, suggesting that approach might work with faculty members. Therefore, the university leadership encouraged the development of the ILP for faculty, described next.

Baker.indb 58

19-09-2019 15:20:31

developing leaders for jesuit higher education  

59

The Ignatian Leadership Program at Saint Joseph’s University In the following paragraphs, we describe the administrative ILP, the conceptual foundation and the goals of the ILP, the roles of the sponsors and coordinators, the recruitment and selection of cohort members, the structure and curriculum, and the associated outcomes of the faculty program. The faculty ILP was based on a similar program for administrators that will first be described briefly. In 2009, Saint Joseph’s University launched a leadership program for high potential leaders, those seen to have the capability for successfully undertaking more responsibility, of the various administrative functions. The goal of the program was to fill the leadership pipeline with future leaders who understood the Jesuit philosophy, mission, and practices. The cohort-based program of 10 to 12 participants went through a 9-month-long experience. Topics included modern leadership theory; Ignatian spirituality; 360-degree feedback from supervisors, peers, and direct reports; and leadership coaching. The cohorts met for a monthly seminar for a 6-hour session. Just after the completion of the second administrative program (2011–2012), the university president requested a similar program be developed for faculty, with an emphasis on teaching, research, and service. Given this new focus, the program coordinator worked with the vice president of mission and identity, an administrator who formerly was a tenured faculty member in theology at another Jesuit university, to understand this new project of faculty development.

Conceptual Foundations of the Ignatian Leadership Program The guiding principles of both the faculty and administrative ILP meetings were grounded in the five Ignatian concepts discussed earlier in this chapter and in organization development practices. The theoretical foundation of the ILP was the Ignatian leadership model developed by Dufresne, Botto, and Steele (2015). The model (see Figure 3.1) merges the academic disciplines of leadership theory and Ignatian spirituality and combines two concepts: being contemplative in action and pursuing humbled excellence. The notion of being contemplative in action describes the goal of attempting to be both deeply reflective and oriented toward proactive and responsive action in the world regarding one’s leadership. Pursuing humbled excellence describes the concept of humility and ambition balancing our effort and concern for both service of self and other. The four quadrants of the Ignatian leadership model are self-knowledge, personal striving, communal discernment, and enacted love (Dufresne et al., 2015). Self-knowledge (Dufresne et al., 2015) describes the understanding that leaders in the Ignatian tradition need to develop a process for evaluating core areas in one’s life and subjectivity in order to cultivate a deep sense of personal

Baker.indb 59

19-09-2019 15:20:31

60  

leadership development

Figure 3.1.  Ignatian leadership model.

Action

Reflection

Contemplatives in action Self

Others

Self-knowledge Developing self-knowledge and personal discernment

Communal discernment Developing communal awareness and discernment

Personal striving Pursuing the magis and one’s calling

Enacted love Enacted honest love of others in pursuing the magis

Humbled excellence

awareness. In the ILP experience, concepts such as the Examen and other contemplative methods are explored and practiced to deepen knowledge of oneself. Personal striving describes the concept of how a leader might decide to use his or her gifts and talents in the world. Concepts such as vocation or calling and Ignatian discernment are examined and put into practice during the ILP experience. Communal discernment explores methods of becoming aware of other people’s opinions, ideas, hopes, concerns, and desires, while coupling that understanding with group decision-making. The ILP experience puts into practice these concepts and explores key insights about how to use these methods for teams, departments, divisions, and the organization. Enacted love describes how leaders work with and for others. In the ILP experience, participants are encouraged to reflect on being agents of change within the system. Each monthly meeting of both the administrative and faculty programs focused on the leadership capacities or knowledge in one or more of the four quadrants and began with a reflective exercise to ground the concept. The reflective exercise could take the form of a prayer, meditation, poem, or another contemplative practice. Another guiding principle of each meeting was the focus on the quality of the learning environment and stage of group development, which was based on Tuckman’s model of group development (Napier & Gershenfeld, 1999). Tuckman describes five stages of development, which he argues all groups experience: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. The program coordinators understood the importance of navigating each stage of development successfully, so participants could grow throughout the experience.

Baker.indb 60

19-09-2019 15:20:32

developing leaders for jesuit higher education  

61

Special attention was given to the physical, emotional, and cognitive space where the ILP meetings would take place. Regarding the physical space, meetings were held in a newly created learning commons attached to the library. The room was set up in a U-shape, allowing all participants to see one another. Lunch was served not only as a transition from the previous place and time but also to show participants they were being cared for in this experience. Regarding the emotional space, the facilitators led the group through an exercise to develop a list of ground rules or group norms. Examples of items on this list included confidentiality, active listening, being present, and withholding judgments on what others are sharing. Setting these group norms allowed for a different kind of faculty experience and conversation to emerge. Later in the storming phase of the group’s development, the facilitators managed behaviors that could develop unhealthy group habits, such as interrupting other participants’ dialogue, passing judgment, or failing to listen actively. Regarding the cognitive environment, facilitators gave participants readings, videos, and reflection questions to prepare for each session. An additional guiding principle for each meeting was a type of dialogue characterized by a “deep sense of presence and mutual attentiveness” (Palmer & Zajonc, 2010, p. 12). Palmer and Zajonc posit that in order for institutions of higher learning to renew and transform themselves, community members need to enter into a new type of dialogue characterized by a deep sense of connection, thus using conversation as a tool for institutional renewal. The intention in this program was to establish a group of organizational leaders who would enter into this collective dialogue about the future of the university. Setting healthy group norms such as active listening and withholding judgment as well as practicing reflective techniques were ways to encourage this type of environment.

Goals of the Ignatian Leadership Program for Faculty There were seven goals for the program. Three goals were related to the Jesuit mission: 1. Promote the knowledge of Jesuit principles, terminology, and practices among mid-career faculty 2. Develop the leadership skills of mid-career faculty in ways that facilitate the Jesuit mission 3. Cultivate a network of current and aspiring leaders who are versed in and committed to the Jesuit mission and approach to leadership and higher education

Baker.indb 61

19-09-2019 15:20:32

62  

leadership development

The remaining four goals related to concerns about mid-career faculty’s level of professional dissatisfaction, as well as their stagnating sense of agency: 4. Create an environment where mid-career faculty can develop an understanding of potential leadership opportunities at the university 5. Encourage participating faculty to assume agency in their own career trajectories as leaders at a Jesuit institution 6. Provide institutional-level support and expertise on how to bring participating faculty members’ leadership goals, specifically leadership goals connected to the Jesuit mission, to fruition 7. Develop a collegial network and supportive space for participating faculty members as they embark on assuming greater leadership roles at the university

Although the Jesuit charism is rooted in a religious order of the Catholic Church, the intention of the ILP was to ensure support for people of all faith traditions, as well as those who have no faith tradition, to explore a connection to their spirituality.

Coordination and Sponsorship There were two ILP coordinators—the executive director of organization development and leadership (first chapter author) and the vice president of mission and identity. The ILP coordinators’ responsibilities were to publicize the ILP with upper- and middle-level administrators and faculty, recruit and select the cohort members, develop the yearly schedule of meetings (one 2-hour meeting per month), establish each meeting’s agenda and objectives, identify subject matter experts on a particular meeting’s topic, maintain communication with the cohort members (including providing relevant learning materials and additional resources), and facilitate each monthly meeting. The faculty ILP was sponsored by the university’s president, provost, the dean of the Colleges of Arts and Sciences, and the dean of the Haub School of Business. Their roles included encouraging and supporting participation, acknowledging the importance of the program to the future of the university, and aligning future leadership opportunities as participants completed the program. In 2012, the faculty ILP was initially funded by internal college funds but in subsequent years the ILP received additional financial support through income generated by a summer conference organized by the executive director of organization development and leadership. New cohorts started annually in 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015.

Baker.indb 62

19-09-2019 15:20:32

developing leaders for jesuit higher education  

63

Recruitment and Selection of the Ignatian Leadership Program Faculty Cohorts The ILP was developed for newly tenured faculty members who were invited to participate by the deans of the university’s two colleges—the College of Arts and Sciences and the Haub School of Business. In its inaugural year, and in the years following, the executive director of the ILP pursued proportional representation of faculty from both colleges. However, in the first cohort, the Haub School of Business was disproportionately represented (see Figure 3.2). The executive director argued that perspectives of faculty members from both colleges were essential if the ILP goals of developing a sense of leadership opportunities across the university and of fostering a sense of community among current and emerging leaders were to be realized. The executive director decided that a group of fewer than 14 was best to reach the program goals. The decision was supported by the work of Taylor, Van Zandt, and Menjares (2013), who noted that “the value of going deep with a few key faculty” (p. 111) proved beneficial. The group size was also supported by the work of Mullen, Chapman, and Salas (1989), who found that individuals demonstrate more self-awareness in small groups. Participating faculty members were not compensated financially. This decision emerged due to the agreement that the intention was to attract faculty who demonstrated an interest in the topic, a commitment to the university, the capacity to move into future leadership roles, and a desire to be participants in a learning community. However, participants did receive books, learning journals, and meals. Upon completion of the program,

Figure 3.2.  Cohort population who started and completed the ILP by academic year. 14 12 Number of A&S faculty who began program

10 8

6 2

2

6

6

6

6

7

6

6

Number of A&S faculty who completed program

6 4 2

5

5

5

Number of business faculty who began program

6

6

Number of business faculty who completed program

4

0 2012–2013

Baker.indb 63

2013–2014 2014–2015 Academic year

2015–2016

19-09-2019 15:20:33

64  

leadership development

participants convened at a luncheon with the president, provost, deans, and other key university leaders and received a certificate and pin. Recruiting and selecting participants was a process that evolved with feedback and reflection on the previous year’s process. In the first year of cohort I (2012–2013), the deans of both colleges nominated faculty members. Six faculty members from the Haub School of Business and two faculty members from the College of Arts and Sciences agreed to participate. All but one of the participating members of cohort I were associate-level professors who recently received tenure; one was an assistant professor. The inclusion of this individual served as a pilot case to help determine if the program was suitable for assistant professors. Although the individual was a valuable member of the cohort and benefited from the experience, the sense was that the program was most appropriate for tenured faculty at the associate level. From the first-year recruiting process, the executive director noted the importance of sponsorship of the upper administration in promoting the ILP and nominating and encouraging cohort members. In the second year of the ILP—cohort II (2013–2014)—the same dean nomination process was followed, and a peer nomination process was added, which allowed members of cohort I to recommend others. This was very effective and as a result 11 recently tenured and/or associate-level faculty members were invited to participate with 55% coming from the business school. The executive director learned of the value of faculty buy-in and word of mouth, vis à vis the members of cohort I. By the third year—cohort III (2014–2015)—the reputation of the program was established, and the executive director noticed an increase in the number of faculty members inquiring about how to participate in the ILP. After receiving information about the program, the faculty members were encouraged to requests nominations from their deans or ILP alumni to participate the following year. For the 2014–2015 year, 12 faculty members were nominated, with 58% from the College of Arts and Sciences. Two individuals did not complete the program as their teaching schedule for the second semester conflicted with the spring sessions. In the fourth year—cohort IV (2015–2016)—the recruitment and selection of the cohort was revamped by adding a more formal application process, given the increasing faculty interest as well as concerns regarding the intention of one or two cohort members in cohort III, resulting in group conflict. The application asked three questions regarding the faculty member’s interest in the program, goals for participating, and contributions the individual might make to the cohort and the university. A five-member committee consisting of the vice president, the executive director, and three ILP

Baker.indb 64

19-09-2019 15:20:33

developing leaders for jesuit higher education  

65

alumni reviewed all applications and selected the participants. For cohort IV, 12 faculty members applied and were accepted to the program, with an equal number from the College of Arts and Sciences and School of Business.

Structural Foundations of the Ignatian Leadership Program Service and administrative commitments significantly increase for newly tenured faculty members (Neumann & Terosky, 2007). Thus, we intentionally structured a year-long program to be feasible given these increasing demands. The ILP program coordinators provided a time for deep connection and capacity-building rather than another item on faculty members’ to-do lists. As mentioned previously, the structure of the faculty program consisted of a two-hour monthly meeting. At the start of each year, the executive director collected available meeting times for participants and developed a calendar of the monthly sessions. Individuals with conflicts of more than one date per academic year were encouraged to participate in a subsequent year. Given the careful planning, this only occurred with one or two individuals each year. All participants were required to attend the first meeting, as the initial stage of group formation was essential. In the forming stage of group development, individuals begin to establish connection and trust with others, gain context of the situation or experience, and gather important information about how the experience might unfold. A typical structure to the monthly meeting included serving a meal upon participants’ arrival with some initial casual, one-on-one conversation lasting 15 minutes. This was followed by an overview of the agenda and a 5-minute opening reflection facilitated by the two coordinators. The next portion of the meeting, approximately 30 minutes, consisted of a sharing exercise in dyads, triads, or the full group based on a prior learning topic to reconnect the group to each other and the previous area of focus. Finally, the topic for the month was introduced, often by a subject matter expert who was a Jesuit, a seasoned administrator, or faculty practitioner of the topic. This portion of the session lasted approximately 1 hour. Subject matter experts were carefully selected to have extensive knowledge of their topic and an ability to practically apply the concepts to leadership, as well as their leadership credibility at Saint Joseph’s University. The last 10 minutes of the meeting were used to wrap up the experience with closing thoughts and to provide an overview of the next anticipated session. Throughout the academic year, the ILP held nine meetings. In Table 3.1, we provide a brief overview of topics and activities and link these to the previously stated goals:

Baker.indb 65

19-09-2019 15:20:33

Baker.indb 66

TABLE 3.1 

ILP Curriculum

19-09-2019 15:20:33

Session

Topic

Activities

ILP Program Goals

1

Basic Jesuit history, principles, terminology, practices

View film on life of Ignatius of Loyola Reflect on Ignatius’s leadership Discuss in dyads

Goal 1 Develop connection, establish foundation for group trust, begin to set group norms

2

The Examen

Learn about the prayer Hear from practitioner Ask clarifying questions Practice the method Group debrief or discussion

Goal 1, 2 Deepen relationships and trust among group Allow space for discussion on how this practice fits or complements other faith traditions

3

Personal Discernment

Learn about various techniques Hear from practitioner Ask clarifying questions Practice the method Group debrief or discussion Begin to connect to concept of vocation or calling

Goal 1, 2, 5 Establish deep connection fully aware that conflict with material is good, could arise, and can be worked through productively

4

Ignatian Leadership Model

Explain the model Provide space to connect previous topics to their personal, departmental, and organizational leadership

Goal 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

5

Communal Discernment

Describe method and examples Experience interactive case study using active listening without judgment Debrief in large group on both outcome and process

Goal 1, 2, 3 Build community with administrative cohort Experience new method of group decisionmaking Open new organizational lens through listening deeply to colleagues across the campus

Baker.indb 67

6

Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm

Introduce the model Learn from panel of practitioners about using the model

Goal 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 Focus on teaching Moving into action side of IL model Connect to summer session on IPP

7

Community-Engaged Scholarship

Provide context on why CES is linked to Ignatian values Hear from panel of practitioners sharing how research is conducted in various academic disciplines

Goal 1, 3, 4, 6

8

Catholic Social Thought

Cohorts I–III experienced this as a classroom exercise Cohort IV joined with administrative group for an immersion experience, reflected on CST, personal leadership and university’s role in community

Goal 1, 5 For Cohort IV, this experience moved them out of daily life to become aware of community needs

9

Service and Leadership

Hear from faculty about discerning service commitments, vocation and calling

Goal 1, 2 Deep reflection on full ILP experience with specific focus on service and leadership inside and outside the organization Revisit concepts of discernment and vocation

Formal luncheon with program sponsors, program facilitators and administrative cohorts Personal reflection shared by two members of each cohort about the experience

Goal 7

Certificate Luncheon

19-09-2019 15:20:33

68  

leadership development

1. Promote the knowledge of Jesuit principles, terminology, and practices among mid-career faculty 2. Develop the leadership skills of mid-career faculty in ways that facilitate the Jesuit mission 3. Develop a network of current and aspiring leaders who are versed in and committed to the Jesuit mission and approach to leadership and higher education 4. Create an environment where mid-career faculty would develop an understanding of potential leadership opportunities at the university 5. Encourage participating faculty to assume agency in their own career trajectories as leaders at a Jesuit institution 6. Provide institutional-level supports and expertise on how to bring participating faculty members’ leadership goals, specifically leadership goals connected to the Jesuit mission, to fruition 7. Develop a collegial network and supportive space for participating faculty members as they embark on assuming greater leadership roles at the university

Assessment To evaluate the outcomes of the ILP we collected and analyzed the following data: (a) monthly evaluations completed by cohort members and (b) a survey distributed to all the ILP faculty alumni in spring 2017. Coordinators distributed evaluations via e-mail linking participants to an online survey within a few days of each monthly meeting. The same three questions were used each month: evaluating what worked well, which areas needed improvement, and what additional topics participants would like incorporated in the program. Each month, the program coordinators reviewed the data to adjust the following month’s program if needed. In spring 2017, the ILP alumni survey was launched in an online format. Participants were asked to evaluate their experience using a seven-question survey about (a) personal leadership; (b) outcomes; (c) understanding of the mission; (d) continued growth in individual learning topics; (e) connection to other ILP faculty; (f ) outcomes related to teaching, service, or scholarship; and (g) overall experience with the ILP. The assessment was distributed to all four cohorts of ILP faculty participants (n = 41) via e-mail. The response rate was 17 of 41 people (41%).

Findings An analysis of the monthly post-meeting evaluation surveys and the one-time faculty alumni survey in 2017 revealed four themes regarding participants’

Baker.indb 68

19-09-2019 15:20:33

developing leaders for jesuit higher education  

69

experiences with the ILP. We will describe the themes through reflections on participants’ connection to the Jesuit mission and participants’ agency in assuming mission-based approaches to their professorial tasks and leadership roles. First, participants noted that their involvement in the ILP encouraged them to seek opportunities to learn about Ignatian principles. For example, of the 17 people who responded to the alumni survey about what they continued to learn, 67% learned more about Ignatian pedagogy, 50% learned more about Ignatian spirituality, 41% learned more about service-learning, and 35% learned more about community-engaged scholarship. Participants shared that the ILP experience increased their involvement in leadership roles on campus, especially roles involving mission-related committees and tasks. One member of cohort III began serving as president of the Faculty Senate in the fall of 2017. Another cohort III member stated that the “ILP helped me to better understand issues related to communityengaged research when the Faculty Senate debated incorporating this type of scholarship in the tenure and promotion decision.” This statement illustrates how the ILP served the goal of broadening lay colleagues’ understanding of Ignatian principles, in addition to increasing their willingness to assume mission-related leadership roles—an important movement in light of the declining Jesuit population. Second, the ILP participants developed an “Ignatian mind-set.” They infused Ignatian principles, such as discernment and being contemplative in action, into their professional work (i.e., teaching, research, service, advising) and leadership approaches. One cohort II member stated, “This program and other programs at Saint Joseph’s University have deepened my understanding of the Jesuit mission which I then try to incorporate in my teaching and research.” Many participants found that the “tools” of Ignatian principles allowed them to be “more reflective” and “more patient” leaders or advisers in their roles. This finding suggests that the goal of the ILP to develop leaders in the mold of Jesuit principles, in part, was realized. Third, the ILP enhanced faculty members’ vitality and satisfaction. In evaluation and survey data, all participants described the ILP as a positive experience, which served as a “reflective space” to “regenerate enthusiasm and zest for their careers.” One cohort member shared: There are two major faculty development activities that helped me pull myself out of what I thought was a long-term slump—a long-standing personal and professional rut that I was beginning to think that I’d never escape. (It was a kind of low-grade but endless morass of personal and professional “blues” that was obvious to no one but me, since I was a

Baker.indb 69

19-09-2019 15:20:33

70  

leadership development

high-performing member of the community.) One of the things that broke that dark spell and helped me climb out of my depression was the ILP, which gave me new perspective on myself and on my role in the mission of the university. . . . Most of all, it helped me develop some significant friendships and relationships at a difficult time for both me and for the institution. . . . [The program] helped me better align my teaching and research with mission values.

Participants noted that the “time set aside” to read, think, reflect, and collaborate with their colleagues during the ILP meetings was valuable to their overall “feelings” about the university and their career trajectories. As such, the ILP reached one of its goals of serving as a program that improved midcareer faculty’s sense of agency and satisfaction. Fourth, the ILP increased the value placed on building both relationships and trust with colleagues, especially those from different departments or those who hold alternative worldviews or life experiences. Participants consistently noted that it was “the people” that made the ILP work for them, specifically around reflecting on complex Jesuit principles and on how to integrate the theory/principles into their daily practices. A cohort I member explained that “perhaps one of the best parts about ILP for me, the experience has offered me the chance to get to know people across the university. This deepening of relationships is because we shared interest in the value of ILP.” The ILP, as a collaborative and safe space, assisted midcareer faculty members to explore new collaborations and seek new experiences, likely contributing to their sense of agency and connections to the Jesuit mission.

Lessons Learned The ILP was created and implemented to address two concerns facing Saint Joseph’s University: the declining number of Jesuit religious leaders who could lead the mission of the university and mid-career (i.e., associate rank) professors’ likelihood of being dissatisfied and disengaged. Based on the previous findings and our observations and reflections, we learned the following lessons about how a university-level program might promote agency and leadership for its mid-career faculty: (a) the power of peer influence; (b) the importance of sense of community and group development for supporting faculty members’ capacity for agency; (c) the significance of grounding mission-related leadership in the three pillars of faculty work (i.e., teaching, research, and service) and in the subject matter expertise and passions of participants; and (d) the need to address the intentions and perceptions of the participants.

Baker.indb 70

19-09-2019 15:20:33

developing leaders for jesuit higher education  

71

The first lesson learned was that the history of the program’s development and the evaluation/survey findings highlighted the power of peer influence. In four years, the program coordinators moved from heavily recruiting eight initial participants to implementing an application process due to growing interest in joining the ILP. The coordinators credit the rising reputation and interest in the ILP to the faculty alumni who helped shape the program and then shared their experiences and outcomes with colleagues. Repeatedly, interested faculty members referred to their colleagues’ “word of mouth” and “positive outcomes” as the key reasons that they too wanted to participate. Another reason for increasing participation is faculty members’ interest in growing both their understanding of the Jesuit mission and their leadership opportunities as mid-career faculty members. Research on faculty scholarly learning and growth conducted by Terosky and Gonzales (2015) “calls for flexibility in allowing for and supporting faculty agency and informal leadership” (p. 116). In their study, Terosky and Gonzales (2015) found that their faculty participants “were driven by their own passions and learning needs in creating these opportunities for growth” (p. 116); administrative involvement was limited or nonexistent. The ILP program coordinators aligned with Terosky and Gonzales’s work as they viewed their role as facilitators of the space. The coordinators were responsible for handling the logistical aspects of arranging meetings and discussion prompts; however, the direction of participants’ learning was determined by their own interests, passions, and decisions. The coordinators increasingly became more comfortable in the role of logistical facilitators over time and came to realize that faculty-driven programming would yield greater faculty buy-in, agency, and long-term commitments. Watching the faculty participants increasingly take the lead on their monthly meetings and, more importantly, shape their future collaborations and future leadership opportunities after their ILP year ended made the coordinators rethink the traditional approach to top-down professional development programs. The second lesson learned related to the importance of sense of community and group development for supporting faculty members’ capacity for agency in mission-related leadership roles. As noted by Neumann and Terosky (2007), recently tenured faculty members are regularly asked to assume service and administrative roles, yet often without support to develop the capacity and skills in leading others and managing administrative work. In developing the ILP, the coordinators provided a learning environment that would be conducive to faculty skill development and growth, as well as a space that would create a community of learners. They did this through applying the literature on organizational development and leadership, group development, and sense of community. Throughout the ILP cohorts, the

Baker.indb 71

19-09-2019 15:20:33

72  

leadership development

sense of community was commonly cited as one way the program encouraged them to pursue mission-related leadership opportunities (e.g., serving on committees to rewrite the university’s mission statement or update shared governance structures). Participants found that they could rely on their ILP colleagues to serve as “sources of advice and support” in what is otherwise described as “lonely work.” This network of support from like-minded people dedicated to Jesuit principles, albeit with differing worldviews and enactments, helped the majority of participants assume agency and “take on” leadership roles at the university. The third lesson learned was the importance of grounding faculty development programming in the scholarly expertise and passions of faculty members, and in the work responsibilities of faculty (i.e., teaching, research, and service). As a former faculty member, one of the ILP program coordinators guided the early structure of the ILP thusly, realizing that connecting Jesuit principles to the work and subject matter passions of faculty was crucial. In sharing the goals of the ILP, as well as in developing discussion prompts and readings, the program coordinators remained mindful of the importance of applying Jesuit principles to faculty practices and subject matters. For example, the program coordinators connected a discussion on social justice to a reflection on how one’s classroom supports or disrupts power structures in society. In time, the program coordinators had faculty members, including current ILP participants and alumni and non-ILP faculty members with related areas of expertise, determine the readings, the discussion prompts, the activities, and the university-wide initiatives. Through faculty leadership, the ILP became a relevant space for participating faculty to reflect on their current practices in teaching, research, and service; to grow in their understanding of the role of the Jesuit mission in their own scholarly learning and productivity; and to assume mission-related leadership roles on campus and beyond. The fourth lesson learned was the importance of intentionality in the program. As the reputation of and interest in the ILP grew, the program coordinators noticed that a small number of participating faculty members perceived the value of the program differently than their colleagues or the program coordinators. In essence, these participants were informed that completing the ILP “looked good on their tenure and promotion dossiers” and therefore joined the program out of that concern rather than an authentic interest in developing their capacity for mission-related leadership. This phenomenon, albeit rare, led to an issue for one cohort in which the program coordinators felt the need to call in an expert on group dynamics and intentionality. This resulted in the application process being utilized in later cohorts to help address this issue of intention.

Baker.indb 72

19-09-2019 15:20:34

developing leaders for jesuit higher education  

73

Conclusion In this chapter, we presented a case for how the next phase for leadership for faculty at a Jesuit institution might proceed. The ILP provided participants with a facilitated learning opportunity through dialogue, reflection, and action, and, in turn, the faculty groups examined their teaching, research, and scholarship from the Ignatian perspective. We argue that the ILP met its goals and has created mid-career faculty who are not only more satisfied and engaged but also “acting more authentically and contributing more meaningfully to the greater good” (Dufresne et al., 2015, p. 18).

References Austin, A. E. (2010). Supporting faculty members across their careers. In K. J. Gillespie & D. L. Robertson (Eds.), A guide to faculty development (pp. 363–378). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Baldwin, R., DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Moretto, K. (2008). Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university: Implications for faculty and academic leaders. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(5), 46–55. Buch, K., Huet, Y., Rorrer, A., & Roberson, L. (2011). Removing the barriers to full professor: A mentoring program for associate professors. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(6), 38–45. Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE). (2014). COACHE faculty job satisfaction survey—PROVOST’S REPORT—Auburn University. Cambridge, MA: The President and Fellows of Harvard College. Dufresne, R. L., Botto, K., & Steele, E. S. (2015). Contributing to an Ignatian perspective on leadership. Journal of Jesuit Business Education, 6, 1–19. Gray, M. M. (2015, January 9). By the numbers: Jesuit demography [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com/2015/01/by-numbersjesuit-demography.html Hall, D. T. (2002). Careers in and out of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lannon, T. R. (2008, September). Presidents report. Presentation at the Fall Convocation at Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, PA. Martin, J. (2010). The Jesuit guide to (almost) everything. New York, NY: Harper­ Collins. Mathews, K. R. (2014). Perspectives on midcareer faculty and advice for supporting them. Cambridge, MA: The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education. Mullen, B., Chapman, J., & Salas, E. (1989). Effects of group composition: “Lost in the crowd,” or “center of attention.” Revista Latinoamericana de Psycologia, 21(1), 43–55. Napier, R. W., & Gershenfeld, M. K. (1999). Groups: Theory and experience. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Baker.indb 73

19-09-2019 15:20:34

74  

leadership development

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Saint Joseph’s University institution profile. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Institution Profile.aspx?unitId=adacb0b2b2ab Neumann, A., & Terosky, A. L. (2007, May/June). To give and to receive: Recently tenured professors’ experiences of service in major research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 282–310. O’Malley, J. W. (2000). How the first Jesuits became involved in education. In V. J. Duinuco (Ed.), The Jesuit ratio studiorum: 400th anniversary perspectives (pp. 56–74). New York, NY: Fordham University Press. Palmer, P. J., & Zajonc, A. (2010). The heart of higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Russell, S. (2014). Next steps in Jesuit higher education. Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education, 46, 6–8. Saint Joseph’s University. (n.d.a). Facts and figures. Retrieved from https://www.sju.edu/about-sju/facts-figures Saint Joseph’s University. (n.d.b). History of Saint Joseph’s University. Retrieved from https://www.sju.edu/about-sju/history-sju Taylor, D. L., Van Zandt, C., & Menjares, P. C. (2013). Developing culturally competent faculty: A cognitive, affective and spiritual model. Christian Higher Education, 12(1/2), 110–121. Terosky, A. L., & Gonzales, L. (2015). Scholarly learning as vocation: A study of community and broad access liberal arts college faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 41(2), 105–120. Trower, C. A. (2011). Senior faculty satisfaction: Perceptions of associate and full professors at seven public research universities. TIAA-CREF Institute Research Dialogue, 101, 1–15.

Baker.indb 74

19-09-2019 15:20:34

4 “ S TA Y I N ’ A L I V E ” A N D T H R I V I N G AT M I D - C A R E E R Amy Strage

H

alf a century ago, John Gardner (1963/1981) wrote eloquently and passionately about the need to nurture humans’ ability for selfrenewal. In considering university faculty in particular, he stressed the need to strive for the motivation to try; the courage to fail; and, most importantly, the desire to continually evolve. In this chapter, I analyze a fortuitous opportunity at San José State University that addresses the needs of individual faculty and those of their academic institutions. Institutions’ need for faculty members to “step up” into leadership positions may be precisely the next step in a career trajectory that enables mid-career faculty to thrive. This chapter focuses on ways institutions might enable faculty to strive for— and assume—leadership roles as they navigate the second half of their academic careers. These roles may take many forms and may reflect significant contributions spanning the realms of teaching and mentoring; engaging in academic or public scholarship; and providing service to their university, professional, and disciplinary communities in addition to a broader community beyond the academy. In a piece written for academic department chairs entitled “Making MidCareer Meaningful,” Baldwin (2005) captures the manifold experience of his mid-career interviewees. Some faculty members felt inertia, as they coasted along, unable or uninterested in taking a more decisive role in guiding their careers; others described feeling in transition, unmoored from the goals and pressures that had guided their journeys thus far but not yet anchored to the priorities and inspirations that would serve as the rudder for the next patch of their careers; and another group still imagined their next professional chapter filled with possibility and potential, even if the details were unclear. Elsewhere in the present volume, authors describe ways to nurture the sense 75

Baker.indb 75

19-09-2019 15:20:34

76  

leadership development

of agency that empowers faculty to take the reins and make the most of the opportunities that abound. In what follows, I frame the challenge in the context of the twenty-first-century higher education landscape. I then describe the efforts we have undertaken on our campus to move toward that mutually beneficial outcome.

Broadening the Lens on Faculty Career Trajectories Faculty members’ professional responsibilities are typically described as falling into three broad categories: teaching, research/scholarship/creative activity, and service. Contents of professional journals and conference programs for the meetings of professional organizations focused on issues of faculty development suggest that greatest attention is paid to assisting faculty in strengthening their teaching. Some attention is devoted to helping faculty strike a satisfying and sustainable work-life balance as they launch and maintain productive research agendas, but relatively little time or space appears to be devoted to the third “leg of the stool”—professional service and academic leadership. Austin and Trice (2016) have called for a more comprehensive approach, urging campuses to commit to a vision of faculty professional trajectories that recognizes and promotes many kinds of excellence and leadership. These scholars encourage faculty members to explore niches for which they are particularly well suited, including teaching, research and scholarship, and a multiplicity of kinds of service. Echoing this sentiment while reflecting on the future of faculty development, Beach, Sorcinelli, Austin, and Rivard (2016) have advanced an ambitious faculty professional development agenda, which recognizes career-stage-specific needs. This agenda aligns with campus institutional missions and is broad enough in scope to support all aspects of the faculty role. Simply put, campuses cannot function without faculty members who are willing to take on leadership roles. For example, departments and programs must have chairs and directors who tend to the needs of their faculty and students while also ensuring that their units function smoothly. On any campus, faculty members will find an array of committees, task forces, and working groups that are needed to make the university run well. Distributed across the campus are deans, associate deans, and others in administrative positions with opaque titles and work scopes. Serving the campus in any of these capacities may seem decidedly unappealing to some faculty, whereas the challenges and rewards inherent in these kinds of campus service may be attractive to others. Campus administrators hope that faculty members well suited to these tasks will be drawn to such “in-reach service” (Fear & Sandmann, 1995) opportunities to participate in university governance.

Baker.indb 76

19-09-2019 15:20:34

“stayin’ alive” and thriving at mid-career   77

Thus, it is incumbent upon campuses to create ways to introduce faculty members to these aspects of university life and to help faculty members think through how and when they might take on these leadership responsibilities. Additionally, university leaders are called upon to be more accountable and responsive to community and societal needs. There is an expectation that faculty members will provide expertise to help craft solutions to complex, vexing, and multifaceted problems both large and small in scope. Indeed, opportunities for what Fear and Sandmann (1995) termed out-reach service are proliferating. Reflecting on the higher education landscape for the twentyfirst century, Kezar and colleagues (Kezar, Holcombe, & Maxey, 2016; Kezar & Maxey, 2016) note the increase in such opportunities for faculty members to assume leadership roles in their university’s collaboration and engagement with community partners. For examples, the Journal of Public Scholarship in Higher Education disseminates examples of community-engaged scholarship, and the New England Resource Center for Higher Education sponsors or features a number of resources in support of engaged scholarship (e.g., Saltmarsh, Wooding, & McLellan, 2014). It appears that campuses may be enjoying a resurgence of enthusiasm for Boyer’s (1990) “reconsidered” forms of scholarship. Gmelch and Buller (2015) explain that as faculty members move from their teaching and research roles into administrative positions, they do so with little to no formal training, relevant prior experience, or understanding of the particular exigencies of administrative roles. The faculty members typically lack an understanding of how these new responsibilities will influence their scholarly careers, their daily routines, and indeed, their personal and professional relationships with faculty colleagues. However, campuses rarely prioritize providing professional development opportunities for faculty members to enable them to make more informed decisions about administrative service and to better prepare them to assume such responsibilities. In describing results of a recent survey given to faculty development directors, Beach and colleagues (2016) reported that, across institution type, when asked what sorts of services they might like to expand, only 12% cited leadership development for faculty. Authors of other recent studies have explored mid-career faculty attitudes about assuming leadership roles. Not surprisingly, the patterns they have described are complex. For example, Laursen and Rocque (2009) interviewed faculty members who reported their eagerness to develop “executive and organizational skills” (p. 22), which the faculty members viewed as necessary for leading committees and creating opportunities for professional collaborations. Faculty members were interested in testing their “aptitude for leadership roles” (p. 22) and in “short-term opportunities to try on academic

Baker.indb 77

19-09-2019 15:20:34

78  

leadership development

administration” (p. 22). They were also were interested in exploring longterm career planning and entertaining the possibility of changing career directions. But they were wary of the consequences to their personal and professional lives if they set their research aside even for a while. Similarly, DeZure, Shaw, and Rojewski (2014) as well as Baldwin, DeZure, Shaw, and Moretto (2008) at Michigan State University report that many mid-career faculty are intrigued but ambivalent, as they weigh the benefits of finding new ways to contribute to the university against challenges to work-life balance, to autonomy, and to maintaining personal and professional relationships with colleagues. One challenge of attracting faculty members to these leadership roles may lie in what they perceive as the lack of congruence between their professional priorities and those associated with the assumption of more significant service responsibilities. Scholars in the organization and management sciences have long recognized the importance of the “fit” between the values, expectations, and priorities of employees and those that pervade their work environments (Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Such congruence has been associated with increased job satisfaction (Chatman, 1991), improved organizational commitment (O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991), enhanced career success (Bretz & Judge, 1994), and reduced turnover intentions (Vancouver & Schmitt, 1991). In a study of early career faculty on our own campus, we found that alignment of faculty members’ ranking of the relative importance of teaching and research with their chairs’ ranking predicted an enhanced sense of agency, a stronger perception of their job-presenting opportunities for fulfillment and growth, a greater perception of career success, increased job satisfaction, and a reinforced intent to remain at the institution (Virick & Strage, 2016). In the present context, I suggest that considering options for professional leadership and service in alignment with one’s values, interests, and perceived skills and abilities will prove most fruitful. Indeed, data from our own campus suggest that it is critical to identify the opportunities and challenges that will allow midcareer faculty to find purpose, to feel that their efforts and talents are being put to good use, and that they are still connected in important ways to their peers and to their institution (Strage, Nelson, & Meyers, 2008). Therefore, the pressing need is to identify contexts where faculty can identify such matches. Another challenge to attracting more faculty members to leadership roles may stem from the fact that, in contrast to the teaching and research roles faculty assume, the term service is generally not well defined, and its value is not easily quantified (Berberet, 1999; Fear & Sandmann, 1995;

Baker.indb 78

19-09-2019 15:20:34

“stayin’ alive” and thriving at mid-career   79

Holland, 1997, 1999; Ward, 2003). Early career faculty members are often discouraged from exploring “this third leg of the academic stool” lest they squander time deemed better spent developing the other parts of their portfolios. When such activities are “counted” for promotion and tenure, faculty members are more inclined to seek out opportunities to engage in service to their campus communities and beyond. Similarly, when campus leaders explicitly articulate that engagement is fundamental to the mission and values of the institution, faculty members engage more (Kezar, Chambers, & Burkhart, 2005). When such activities are unrecognized, investing time and energy in these arenas is more difficult and risky (see, e.g., Bloomgarden & O’Meara, 2016; Colbeck & Wharton-Michael, 2006; O’Meara, 2002; Peters, Jordan, Adamek, & Alter, 2005).

Context: San José State University The following sections will provide context about faculty development at San José State University. As of 23 campuses that comprise the California State University system, San José State University is one of the larger campuses, serving approximately 30,000 students. Located in the heart of Silicon Valley and one of California’s largest and most culturally and economically diverse cities, it affords innumerable opportunities for formal and informal community-campus partnerships and collaborations. The student population is diverse in many ways, from ethnic, racial, and cultural backgrounds to economic circumstances as well as academic preparation and educational and career aspirations. By many accounts, our institution is considered “striving”—where teaching responsibilities remain significant as expectations for research and scholarly productivity continue to increase. The nominal teaching load is 12 hours per semester, typically translating into four 3-unit classes. Some departments have revised their curricula, such that faculty teach three 4-unit classes per semester. Additionally, numerous types of opportunities for course release exist throughout the campus, including “buyout” for internal and external research grants and reassignment for a variety of university service appointments. The faculty number approximately 1,600, a little less than half of whom hold tenured or tenure-track appointments. Of those, approximately 400 fall into the mid-career category as seasoned, tenured associate or full professors who will likely continue teaching for another 10 to15 years. Teaching loads for mid-career faculty are decidedly bimodal, with some faculty teaching a full load and others consistently buying out classes with a variety of types of research- and service-related opportunities.

Baker.indb 79

19-09-2019 15:20:34

80  

leadership development

Faculty Development Opportunities to Explore Service The charge of San José State University’s Center for Faculty Development is to support faculty throughout the arc of their careers and in all aspects of their professional responsibilities and aspirations. For several years, we have been collaborating with units across the campus to offer sessions and services of various kinds and formats to fulfill this mandate. As we created our strand of mid-career professional growth and renewal programming, we sought to include ways for faculty to consider enhanced opportunities for service—both inreach and outreach. Each session was structured to include (a) time to reflect on one’s career journey, (b) occasions to listen to and share with others in a safe space, (c) opportunities for faculty to articulate specific goals as well as the resources they would need to pursue them, and (d) a supportive context in which participants might begin to implement their plans. In the following sections, I describe in detail the mid-career faculty events sponsored by the center.

Retreats At the heart of our offerings is a half-day retreat, which provides participants with the opportunity to articulate and frame their career trajectory goals and to identity ways to achieve those goals. Format 1. Location: This cornerstone session is held off campus (but within walking distance) to minimize intrusions of daily life. Venues change from one occasion to another, but all venues provide space for faculty to work both together and independently or to just walk and talk—or sit and chat—as necessary. 2. Timing: Retreats are offered twice each academic year, once during late fall and once during late spring. Although these are generally busy times of the year, this schedule has two advantages. It allows participants to reflect on their professional development goals shortly before a period of time when their teaching responsibilities will ebb (January intersession and the summer months), when they will have time to more deliberately begin to address the goals they set for themselves. It also provides faculty with a brief reprieve before the end-of-semester crunch. One participant went so far as to describe her retreat as “a spa day—something to help fortify me for the chaos to come.” 3. Application and selection process: The retreat is described in the center’s promotional materials posted and circulated at the beginning of

Baker.indb 80

19-09-2019 15:20:34

“stayin’ alive” and thriving at mid-career   81 the academic year. Timely reminders about application deadlines are sent out as part of regular e-mail missives from the center. All tenured faculty are invited to apply. The application process itself entails writing a brief (200–250 words) statement describing what draws the applicant to the retreat and what the faculty member hopes to achieve through participation. Our goal for each cohort is to assemble a group of faculty from a wide range of disciplines, with a variety of goals and self-reported needs. Attendance is capped at 20, but thus far, because of the frequency with which the retreat is offered, we have only had to turn away applicants on one occasion. (Two of the three individuals who could not be accommodated at that time applied and participated in a subsequent retreat; the third took a professional leave for the next two years and then moved to another institution.) Names are circulated among participants ahead of time (with permission). Faculty have reported that they enjoy knowing which colleagues will be “in their group” (e.g., “Oh, I haven’t seen [name] since my new faculty orientation eons ago! I wonder what they have been up to!”; “I’m looking forward to working with [name]—our offices are just down the hall from each other, but we never get to talk!”). 4. Pre-retreat “homework”: Faculty are asked to complete a reading assignment prior to the session itself. Selections vary from one retreat to another. They have included Carol Dweck’s (2006) Mindset, Howard Gardner’s (2009) Five Minds for the Future, and Tom Roth’s (2007) StrengthsFinder 2.0. Additionally, one week before the retreat participants are provided with a set of prompts to “prime the pump” (see Appendix 4A). 5. Retreat agenda: The specifics of the retreat agenda are adapted to the needs and concerns expressed by participants in their applications, but the general structure of the day is as follows. The day begins with informal self-introductions and responses to the pre-retreat prompts, thus surfacing common themes as well as individual differences. As the day progresses, the group considers a handout entitled “Considering the View From Different Vantage Points” (see Appendix 4B). Discussing this handout enables participants to consider their work from a variety of perspectives, ranging from “ground level” (as it contributes to the day-today operations of their departments) to “30,000 feet” (as it aligns with their institution’s mission as well as with their own values). This, in turn, enables them to focus more intentionally on priorities and avenues to explore. Participants then consider in a more detailed fashion the ways they would like to amend their teaching, research, and service activities, and the tools and resources that would facilitate the changes they

Baker.indb 81

19-09-2019 15:20:34

82  

leadership development

would like to make (see Appendix 4C). At lunch, the group is joined by a panel of three or four senior faculty, department chairs, and administrators, who share their narratives and perspectives on the opportunities inherent in the mid-career stage. The composition of the panel is determined by the retreat facilitator. Several considerations guide the selection of panelists, including their disciplinary backgrounds, reputation as being knowledgeable about how the university works, interest in faculty development, and appreciation of mid-career faculty members’ strengths and challenges in particular. During the final segment of the retreat day, participants sketch out a plan of action (see Appendix 4D), which is then used as a starting point for check-in conversations with the retreat facilitator in the months following the retreat.

Elsewhere, we have shared that participating in this retreat helps faculty assess their own strengths and challenges, appreciate community with their peers, broaden their perspectives about possible professional trajectories, and hone goals for the coming years (Strage & Merdinger, 2014).1 One theme running through many participants’ experience has been a commitment to serve the institution and its constituents by giving back (i.e., mentoring, supporting early career colleagues, spending more quality time with students). Another theme has been the need to find the significance of their work by explicitly identifying beneficiaries of it—professional and disciplinary entities enriched and supported by their work, communities made better by its application to their need, and so on. Attending to these two themes prompted us to develop a slate of professional development offerings, which we describe next.

Lunch and Learn In addition to the biannual retreats, our center offers mid-career faculty members lunch-and-learn sessions billed as particularly relevant to midcareer faculty. Format 1. Location: These sessions are held in one of the Center for Faculty Development meeting spaces or in one of the university library classrooms. Thus, they are conveniently located and a short distance from most attendees’ offices and classrooms. Joining via digital platform is an a­ vailable option, though faculty rarely utilize it. Faculty are encouraged to attend in person if possible, as feedback from individuals who have participated online is mixed. Online participants have appreciated

Baker.indb 82

19-09-2019 15:20:34

“stayin’ alive” and thriving at mid-career   83 being able to listen to the session and thus glean information but had difficulty engaging in group conversation. We have limited resources to manage chat features, which would otherwise permit richer participation by those not physically present. Hosts of other such hybrid sessions report a similar experience, that it was easier to create more balanced and inclusive conversation when either no one or everyone was physically present. 2. Timing: These sessions are held throughout the semester, scheduled so as to not conflict with other Center for Faculty Development offerings. Sessions are typically offered twice a week, once on a Monday or Wednesday and once on a Tuesday or Thursday, to accommodate campus teaching patterns. As the name implies, they are held at noontime, with food suitable for a wide variety of dietary needs and preferences provided. 3. Application process: Announcements about the sessions are included in promotional materials distributed by the center, and reminder invitations are sent to all tenure-track and tenured faculty. Individuals interested in participating are asked to sign up, so event planners can ensure sufficient materials and food. Anyone interested in the topic may attend. 4. Session topics: Topics rotate from semester to semester. The topics are selected based on themes emerging during retreat conversations, informal suggestions from faculty, and input from directors of faculty development centers at other campuses. These sessions are led by the author (the Center for Faculty Development director), occasionally accompanied by one or more faculty members with a particular expertise in the topic.

One well-attended lunch-and-learn panel presentation is entitled “Congratulations, You Got Tenure . . . Now What?” It features a facilitated conversation with senior faculty members and administrators from a variety of disciplines, followed by time for general discussion and audience questions. Presenters introduce themselves, briefly describing the various roles they have held, and share their own thought processes and actions. Presenters describe how they came to make the choices that steered their careers and also talk about role models and resources they drew upon. They are invited to share how they got “unstuck” if and when they found themselves floundering or paralyzed. They also comment on what they have observed among other recently tenured faculty. And finally they share advice for attendees. Faculty members who have attended this session in the past have remarked on the variety of trajectories, on the importance of being open to unexpected opportunities, on the benefit of taking risks, and on the value of being on the lookout for new ways to contribute meaningfully.

Baker.indb 83

19-09-2019 15:20:34

84  

leadership development

They also commented on the progressive nature of presenters’ work, as they assumed increasing responsibility and leadership through their teaching, their research and contributions to their disciplines, and through avenues of service they discover. Another well-attended session is entitled “Preparing for the Jump to Full.” The focus here is to provide participants with a sense of the variety of ways faculty members at the rank of professor spend their time and energy. Discussions focus on expectations for productivity and on the processes by which senior faculty have lit on their particular combination of professional responsibilities. Many former participants described “flirting” with administrative assignments, sharing candidly the passions that drive them to advance their careers and the university mission. Many recount stumbling into roles they never imagined would suit them. During this lunch-and-learn session, attendees are invariably curious about the many twists and turns and forays into nonteaching and nonresearch assignments. As panelist presentations come to a close, considerable conversation is devoted to discussing how to present one’s narrative in such a way that activity other than strong teaching and productive scholarly agendas will meet the university’s criteria for promotion. The mid-career faculty participants often linger long after the session is formally over, exchanging contact information so that they can follow up with presenters over coffee. An additional popular session is entitled “Welcome Back From Sabbatical . . . Now What?” Faculty have described the return to campus from sabbatical leave as “reentry from outer space”—disorienting and requiring time for adjustment. The impetus for this session is the observation that many faculty felt energized and transformed by what had occupied their time while they were away and that within weeks—if not days—of their return, they felt discouraged as they felt themselves unable to avoid slipping back into “old roles.” Presenters share strategies for sustaining new interests, new directions, and new connections forged while they were on leave. Attendees leave inspired to think “outside of the box” as they contemplate taking this opportunity to explore new types of professional engagement.

Topical Workshops Topical workshops are designed to be highly interactive and hands-on, providing participants with the opportunity to create personalized plans or projects as they share and collaborate with peers. Format 1. Location: Sessions are held in the Center for Faculty Development meeting spaces.

Baker.indb 84

19-09-2019 15:20:34

“stayin’ alive” and thriving at mid-career   85 2. Timing: Workshops are two hours in duration. They are scheduled in the morning or mid-afternoon, crossing as few teaching blocks as possible. Similarly to the lunch-and-learn sessions, each workshop is typically held twice, once on a Monday or Wednesday and once on a Tuesday or Thursday, to accommodate campus teaching patterns. Options to join via digital platform are available, although given the format, faculty are strongly encouraged to attend in person if possible. 3. Application process: Announcements about the workshops are included in promotional materials distributed by the center, and reminder invitations are sent to all tenure-track and tenured faculty. Individuals interested in participating are asked to state what draws them to the workshop and what they hope to accomplish in it, so that workshop leaders can tailor activities to participants’ needs. 4. Session topics: As with the hour-long informational sessions described previously, topics are determined based on a variety of considerations. Topics rotate from one semester to the next.

One of the most well attended workshops is a session entitled “Revisiting Your Priorities—Aligning Your Time.” Here faculty are invited to create a “strategic plan” and to toggle systematically between it and implications for short- and long-term goals and how they will allocate their time, week by week. The approach borrows heavily from the National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity’s Faculty Success Program. Although some time is spent sharing time management techniques, the bulk of the workshop is devoted to helping faculty align their time with the more nebulous and hardto-wrangle tasks typical of mid-career.

Consultation Faculty members can also arrange for confidential individual consultations with the Center for Faculty Development staff, during which they can request suggestions for individuals with whom they can meet, invite for coffee, or shadow. These center activities are complemented by the campus’s Dean’s Leadership Academy, a learning community comprising 20 tenure-track and tenured faculty who meet monthly to explore topics and readings pertaining to the universe of higher education. This program is open to faculty of all ranks.

Assessing Program Outcomes In addition to imparting useful information and helping faculty build community with their peers, an important goal for each of these mid-career

Baker.indb 85

19-09-2019 15:20:34

86  

leadership development

faculty sessions is to help participants build a sense of agency and to proactively advance their careers. A quote from Seneca, the first-century Roman philosopher, best captures our philosophy: “If a man does not know which port he is sailing to, no wind is favorable.”

Survey Templates To assess the outcomes of our events, we have developed a post-session feedback form that both seeks information about what participants gleaned from the session and invites them to consider how they might take a more active role in steering their own professional growth. Evaluation forms are sent electronically to all session attendees. They are anonymous, and care is taken to not ask for information that would reveal respondents’ identities. Participants are invited to follow up in person if they would like. The form includes the following questions, which are tailored to events as needed: 1. What drew you to [session name]? What are one or two things you hoped to get out of it? 2. Please briefly describe one or two insights/tools/skills you gained from the session. 3. What might WE have done in order to enable you to get more out of this session? 4. What might YOU have done in order to enable you to get more out of this session? 5. Please rate the usefulness of the session on a scale from 1 to 5, and provide any open-ended comments you would like to share.

Findings In general, feedback about the retreats, workshops, and lunch-and-learn sessions has been very positive. Participants consistently report that they feel their time was well spent, and they appreciate the focus on issues of particular relevance to mid-career faculty. They offer suggestions for future topics as well as constructive criticism about how sessions might have been structured more effectively. For the 2017–2018 academic year, we plan to offer sessions that will provide opportunities to explore two roles faculty members have suggested they would like to know more about. First, we will develop sessions on the role of department chair, to enable participants to understand the nature of the job as well as the skills and dispositions that make one best suited for the position. And second, we will partner with staff in our advancement units to develop sessions focused on being a public scholar, as an increasing number of faculty members are invited to engage with issues of social and political significance. Although some faculty have expressed

Baker.indb 86

19-09-2019 15:20:34

“stayin’ alive” and thriving at mid-career   87

the wish that more time during the retreats and the workshops be devoted to working on one’s own plans, others have expressed the desire to spend more time hearing from others about their own experiences. As a result, we now make a point of checking with participants as sessions progress about balancing these two considerations. A theme emerging from their feedback highlights the importance of agency. Their responses to the question about what they might have done to get more out of the sessions illustrates this point. They frequently commented on the question itself, noting that it made them think about their responsibility to take a more active role in preparing for the professional growth opportunities they opted to pursue. They frequently specified things they would do “next time,” before attending a similar session. Another theme that emerged from their feedback is the importance of community, and the value they find in the acknowledgment and support of their peers (and of the institution, for allocating resources to this purpose) as they grapple with ways to make the most of this chapter of their professional lives.

A Word About Resources One of the obstacles faced by offices or units tasked with providing support for faculty is limited resources. We share five solutions we have found around this constraint. Talent We seek to select presenters and panelists from our campus. We are fortunate to have many experts readily on hand who are eager to contribute and who appreciate the opportunity to come to know session participants. Many of the connections initiated at our sessions evolve into more extensive professional collaborations and associations. Our presenters appreciate the recognition they receive as valued members of the campus community. They have also appreciated simple notes of gratitude that refer to specific contributions they have made or to the particular expertise or perspective they have brought to the session, as these can be used as artifacts for their own performance reviews, to document the range of ways in which they contribute to enhancing the vitality of the campus. Session Materials Most resources shared at our sessions are free. They can be accessed electronically, downloaded at users’ convenience. University library staff are also readily available to assist in locating additional materials.

Baker.indb 87

19-09-2019 15:20:34

88  

leadership development

Venues In selecting venues for our sessions, we consider three criteria: functionality, convenience, and cost. The rooms we use have been designed with movable furniture, plenty of whiteboard surfaces, and appropriate technology, making them suitable for formal presentations as well as more collaborative sessions. These spaces are also centrally located, never more than a few minutes’ walk from faculty offices and classrooms. With the exception of the retreats, we hold our sessions at spaces available to us free of charge. For the retreats, we have been able to partner with other units on campus to secure campus discounts offered by neighboring facilities to use off-campus spaces. Hospitality Food and beverages are important in creating a welcoming and sustaining environment for our events. We have worked with our campus catering services to design affordable options and menus suitable for all participants’ dietary needs and preferences. Participants are asked to confirm their attendance to help us order the right amount of food. We have invested in a dozen black tablecloths and a small assortment of serving plates and utensils. It is amazing how effectively such little touches help transform university-issued tables and plastic containers into an elegant spread. Participant Incentives On occasion, we have been fortunate to be able to offer participants in various Center for Faculty Development programs modest stipends or access to small amounts of professional development funds to be used at their discretion. But we have been reluctant to build such monetary compensation into any of our career-planning sessions, as it is not possible to guarantee repeated access to such resources. We have found, however, that good food, the opportunity to build community with peers, and the value faculty place on what they feel they gain by attending the sessions is typically incentive enough to ensure their enthusiastic and repeated participation.

Closing Thoughts We return to John Gardner’s call to action, urging universities to provide permission and venues for faculty to strive for the motivation to try, the courage to fail, and most importantly, the desire to evolve. The professional development opportunities described in this chapter, like those likely found at other institutions, are inexpensive. They require some imagination, some planning, some careful listening, some coordination, and some food and

Baker.indb 88

19-09-2019 15:20:34

“stayin’ alive” and thriving at mid-career   89

beverages. The content and the energy are generated nearly entirely by session participants. This really is a realm where the needs of the institution and the needs of mid-career faculty can be met to everyone’s satisfaction.

Note 1. For a more complete description of the retreat and its impact, please see Strage and Merdinger (2014).

References Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. (2016). Core principles for faculty models and the importance of community. In A. Kezar & D. Maxey (Eds.), Envisioning the faculty for the 21st century: Moving to a mission-oriented and learner-centered model (pp. 57–80). Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Baldwin, R. (2005). Making mid-career meaningful. The Department Chair, 16(2), 14–16. Baldwin, R., DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Moretto, K. (2008). Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university: Implications for faculty and academic leaders. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(5), 46–55. Beach, A. L., Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., & Rivard, J. K. (2016). Faculty development in the age of evidence: Current practices, future imperatives. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Berberet, J. (1999). The professoriate and institutional citizenship. Liberal Education, 85(4), 32–40. Bloomgarden, A., & O’Meara, K. (1997). Faculty role integration and community engagement: Harmony or cacophony? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13(2), 5–18. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person-organization fit and theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 32–54. Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459–484. Colbeck, C. L., & Wharton-Michael, P. (2006). Individual and organizational influences on faculty members’ engagement in public scholarship. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 105, 17–26. DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Rojewski, J. (2014, January/February). Cultivating the next generation of academic leaders: Implications for administrators and faculty. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46, 6–12.

Baker.indb 89

19-09-2019 15:20:34

90  

leadership development

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Fear, F. A., & Sandmann, L. R. (1995). Unpacking the service category: Reconceptualizing university outreach for the 21st century. Continuing Higher Education Review, 59(3), 110–122. Gardner, H. (2009). Five minds for the future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Preview Press. Gardner, J. (1963/1981). Self-renewal—The individual and the innovative society. New York, NY: Norton. Gmelch, W., & Buller, J. (2015). Building academic leadership capacity: A guide to best practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Holland, B. (1997). Analyzing institutional commitment to service: A model of key organizational factors. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 30–41. Holland, B. (1999). Factors and strategies that influence involvement in public service. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 4, 37–43. Huntington, S. (2016). Learning communities & our culture of inquiry. Learning Communities Research and Practice, 4(1), article 1. Kezar, A., Chambers, T., & Burkhardt, J. (2005). Higher education for the public good: Emerging voices from a national movement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kezar, A., Holcombe, E., & Maxey, D. (2016). An emerging consensus about new faculty roles: Results of a national study of higher education stakeholders. In A. Kezar & D. Maxey (Eds.), Envisioning the faculty for the 21st century: Moving to a mission-oriented and learner-centered model (pp. 45–57). Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Kezar, A., & Maxey, D. (2016). Envisioning the faculty for the 21st century: Moving to a mission-oriented and learner-centered model. Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342. Laursen, S. L., & Rocque, B. (2009). Faculty development for institutional change: Lessons from an ADVANCE project. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 41(2), 18–26. O’Meara, K. (2002). Scholarship unbound: Assessing service as scholarship for promotion and tenure. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. O’Reilly, C. A. III, & Chatman, J. A. (1986). Organization commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499. O’Reilly, C. A. III, Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487–516.

Baker.indb 90

19-09-2019 15:20:34

“stayin’ alive” and thriving at mid-career   91 Peters, S., Jordan, N., Adamek, M., & Alter, T. (2005). Engaging campus and community: The practice of public scholarship in the state and land-grant university system. Dayton, OH: The Kettering Foundation Press. Rath, T. (2007). StrengthsFinder 2.0. Washington DC: Gallup Press. Saltmarsh, J., Wooding, J., & McLellan, K. (2014). The challenges of rewarding new forms of scholarship: Creating academic cultures that support community engaged scholarship (NERCHE Working Paper, 2014 series, no. 2). Boston, MA: New England Resource Center for Higher Education. Strage, A., & Merdinger, J. (2014). Professional growth and renewal for mid-career faculty. The Journal of Faculty Development, 28(3), 77–86. Strage, A., Nelson, C., & Meyers, S. (2008). “Stayin’ alive”: Meeting faculty midcareer professional renewal needs. Metropolitan Universities, 19, 71–83. Vancouver, J. B., & Schmitt, N. W. (1991). An exploratory examination of person–organization fit: Organizational goal congruence. Personnel Psychology, 44, 333–352. Virick, M., & Strage, A. (2016). Perceptions of value-congruence with one’s department chair: Does match matter? The Journal of Faculty Development, 30, 47–56. Ward, K. (2003). Faculty service roles and the scholarship of engagement (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, vol. 29, no. 5). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Baker.indb 91

19-09-2019 15:20:35

92  

leadership development

Appendix 4A Mid-Career Professional Growth and Development Mini-Retreat Priming the Pump Three words or phrases that YOU believe describe your strengths:

Three words or phrases that you think OTHERS would say describe your strengths:

Three words or phrases that YOU believe describe your weaknesses/ limitations/challenges:

One thing you are MOST satisfied about regarding your present WORK life:

One thing you have been FRUSTRATED or DISSATISFIED about regarding your present WORK life, but that you do not seem to be able to change:

One or two ways in which this stage of your career feels different from earlier stages:

One or two people you admire greatly, from your professional arena, loosely defined. Why did that person/those people come to mind?

If someone were to give you the gift of two extra hours per day, what would you do with that time? Why?

Baker.indb 92

19-09-2019 15:20:35

“stayin’ alive” and thriving at mid-career   93

Appendix 4B Considering the View From Different Vantage Points From ground level: Think about your daily life and work. • What does your “average” day or week look like? • What keeps getting pushed aside? What are the “highs” and “lows”? From 1,000 feet: Think about your career thus far. • What themes run through your work? • Is there a common denominator to what you are drawn to or to what you make of opportunities? From 30,000 feet: Think about the alignment of your work . . . • With your personal values—your “True North” • With your perspective on how professionals in your field can engage with issues of significance • With your understanding of your role as an educator, writ large

Baker.indb 93

19-09-2019 15:20:35

94  

leadership development

Appendix 4C San José State University Center for Faculty Development—Career Planning Tool Teaching Activities What do I teach now (key courses, topics)?

What do I understand about my teaching and impact on students?

What might I modify in the way I approach teaching these courses/ topics in order to be more effective?

What else might I enjoy teaching? What should I be doing to make that happen? How might I like to take a more significant role in the architecture or deployment of my department’s curriculum? How does what I teach and how I teach help me make a contribution to my department? To my college? To the university?

Scholarly and Creative Activities Areas of interest— prioritized

Projects related to area of interest— describe

Products expected and deadlines

How might I identify collaborators for this endeavor?

What do I want to continue to work on? Why? What do I want to change or move away from? Why?

Baker.indb 94

19-09-2019 15:20:35

“stayin’ alive” and thriving at mid-career   95 What threads (philosophical, political, scholarly, ideological, personal) connect these areas of interests?

Service Activities What sorts of professional service do I currently provide for the university and for my broader community (committees, boards, etc.)?

How can I adjust my service to better contribute to the life of the department, college or university, or to my broader community?

How can I adjust my service to make myself feel more personally and professionally fulfilled?

What kinds of service to the university or to my professional community would I like to explore? How do I go about doing that?

Work-Life Balance Considerations What are my most important priorities in my personal life? Am I attending to them sufficiently? If so: How am I managing to do this? What assets (personal skills or dispositions, other people, technology, etc.) am I drawing upon to do this? How can I sustain this? If not : What would it take to attend to these priorities sufficiently? How can I make that happen?

Do I feel stressed trying to attend to elements of my personal life and elements of my professional life simultaneously? If so: Is this a problem I feel I need to address? What might I do to lessen the stress? If not : What am I doing to keep my life in such balance? What assets (personal skills or dispositions, other people, technology, etc.) am I drawing upon to do this? Am I particularly skilled at time management? Am I good at delegating tasks to others? Am I just good at finding compromises and at taking the longer view of things?

Baker.indb 95

19-09-2019 15:20:35

96  

leadership development

Appendix 4D Worksheet for Planning and Time Management— To Do’s—Quick Sketch Arena

Spring Plan Summer Plan 2018–2019 Plan

3+ Year Plan

Courses (refresh and/or develop) Research, scholarship, and creative activity Service and other work-related tasks Family and community obligations Self-care

Baker.indb 96

19-09-2019 15:20:35

PA RT T W O TEACHING AND LEARNING Aimee LaPointe Terosky

P

art Two of Success After Tenure highlights three faculty development programs that foster the agency of mid-career faculty in their teaching. By creating programs that elevate teaching and agency at the mid-career stage, the authors and their institutions attend to gaps in the literature and in practice regarding how best to support the professional growth of mid-career faculty within the teaching mission of higher education (O’Meara, Terosky, & Neumann, 2008). In the following paragraphs, I provide relevant background on teaching, agency, and mid-career in order to contextualize the purposes and aspirations of the three faculty development programs showcased in chapters 5, 6, and 7. Whereas K–12 teachers’ impact on student success is viewed as paramount and well known (Darling-Hammond, 2008), the narrative about the impact of college and university faculty on student learning, as well as the significance of the teaching role in the mission of higher education, is largely understated and underdeveloped (Kezar & Maxey, 2016). In fact, scholars question if teaching and teaching improvement efforts receive the attention they deserve at the higher education level, particularly when viewed through the lens of the prioritization of research during the tenure and promotion process (Fairweather, 1996; O’Meara, Rice, & Edgerten, 2005). However, the extant literature clearly documents that faculty and their teaching matter to student success. Numerous studies have found that faculty-student interactions positively impact students in terms of learning (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Kuh, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006); persistence and completion rates (Braxton, Bray, & Berger, 2000; Lundquist, Spalding, & Landrum, 2003); critical thinking skills (Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006); knowledge 97

Baker.indb 97

19-09-2019 15:20:35

98  

teaching and learning

acquisition and skill development (Kuh & Hu, 2001); and sense of purpose (Martin, 2000). These findings are particularly relevant for underserved and underrepresented students, such as first-generation students and students of color (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004). Scholars note that “high-impact” instructional strategies such as collaborative learning, experiential learning, internships, undergraduate research, and service-learning have been linked to increased student learning and student engagement (Arnsparger & Drivalas, 2016; Henderson, 2009; Hurtado et al., 2011; Kuh, 2008). The aforementioned high-impact teaching practices, such as facultystudent interactions, experiential learning, and undergraduate research opportunities, require a reprogramming of the ways in which faculty have traditionally taught. Historically, faculty followed teacher-centered instruction, such as lectures and standard examinations of course content. However, with advancements in instructional technology, changing student demographics, and enhanced understandings of cognition, experts argue that other models of teaching are now required. Barr and Tagg (1995) called for a shift from an instructional paradigm that accentuated knowledge transfer from professor to student toward a “learning paradigm” (p. 15). They note that the role of a learning paradigm is to “create environments and experiences that bring students to discover and construct knowledge for themselves, to make students members of communities of learners that make discoveries and solve problems” (p. 15). Evolving into a learning paradigm, especially in light of the pedagogical, technological, and demographic shifts in American higher education, requires new approaches to not only instructional practices but also faculty development. As higher education stakeholders consider new faculty development models around teaching, the concept of agency is viewed as a beneficial lens to apply to potential models. Two prongs define agency: intentional perspectives and applied actions (O’Meara, Campbell, & Terosky, 2011), with intentional perspectives consisting of what faculty members believe is possible and applied actions as the steps they take to achieve their goals. As an example of the juxtaposition of agency and professional development in teaching, a reflective faculty member increasingly becomes passionate about infusing practical experiences, vis-à-vis service-learning, into her classes (i.e., perspective) and then proactively establishes a study group consisting of veteran and aspiring service-learning teachers and faculty support staff to regularly meet and reflect on best practices in service-learning (i.e., action). Past research has found that agency can be developed and enhanced through strategic interventions; for example, Terosky, O’Meara, and Campbell (2014) note that associate women professors identified with a higher level of agency following

Baker.indb 98

19-09-2019 15:20:35

teaching and learning  

99

participation in a National Science Foundation ADVANCE program aimed at assuming agency in career advancement to full professor. In sum, faculty development programs that advance notions of agency honor faculty preferences for autonomy and self-directedness in their professional growth (Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2007), as well as adhere to calls for restoring professionalism in the professoriate (Kezar, Holcolme, & Maxey, 2016). One career phase that could benefit from faculty development programs that integrate agency and teaching improvement is the mid-career stage. Midcareer is largely understudied and poorly defined (Baldwin, Lunceford, & Vanderlinden, 2005); for example, the range of years considered mid-career can extend up to 25 years (Neumann & Terosky, 2007). Since mid-career is considered a significant period of career transition, the literature contains numerous descriptors for mid-career faculty that symbolize dissatisfaction, including “stuck,” “pulled,” and “stagnant.” Following the probationary period of tenure, research indicates that post-tenure faculty members face increased demands for service and administration, often resulting in being pulled away from scholarly learning and professional passions (Neumann & Terosky, 2007). Moreover, the extant literature highlights a dearth of faculty development programs that focus on mid-career faculty and their unique set of needs (Baldwin et al., 2005), as institutions of higher education typically invest resources into early career faculty programming. With the awarding of tenure, a process that typically requires a faculty member to prioritize scholarship, the mid-career stage might be a prime time for faculty to engage in development that intentionally infuses agency-enhancing opportunities into their teaching improvement, innovation, and teaching-related scholarship. The authors in the following three chapters do just that: They describe proactive and intentional faculty development programs centered on teaching improvement and innovation, which stands in contrast to reactive responses to factors that shape faculty lives (Maxey & Kezar, 2016). Each chapter not only explains the rationale, content, and outcomes of their faculty development programs but also serves as a jumping-off point for reflection on the role of faculty agency in teaching improvement programming and the ways in which administration, staff, and faculty can work as partners in this endeavor. In chapter 5, Boelryk and Amundsen share the theoretical underpinnings of a teaching improvement program, the Course Design Workshop, at McGill College. Grounded in a sociocultural model that integrates individual, social, and contextual factors, Boelryk and Amundsen describe a key element of their program—disequilibrium in teaching. Defining disequilibrium as a sense of dissatisfaction with some aspect of instruction, Boelryk and Amundsen argue that disequilibrium is a powerful tool for reflecting and

Baker.indb 99

19-09-2019 15:20:35

100  

teaching and learning

improving on one’s teaching, especially at the mid-career level. Embedded in this model is a “socially affirming context,” which fosters support, trust, and collegiality among participating faculty members, specifically because working through disequilibrium in teaching is often considered risky and complex work. Boelryk and Amundsen’s teaching improvement program models the proactive and reflective approach called for in the literature on faculty development. In chapter 6, Pinter highlights a series of faculty development programs at Belmont University geared toward encouraging and supporting engagement in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), which he defines as applying the inquiry process of research to the improvement of instructional practices. Pinter argues that post-tenure is an appropriate stage to consider SoTL as faculty members seek ways to build on or reidentify their scholarly paths. Moreover, according to Pinter, SoTL could integrate faculty interests (i.e., teaching, scholarship) with institutional needs (i.e., teaching improvement). In this chapter, Pinter provides a blueprint for supporting faculty in their SoTL endeavors, including developing means of accountability and safe spaces, such as writing groups, sabbatical support, and peer mentoring. Finally, in chapter 7, Steiner features a faculty development program at Kennesaw State University that supports faculty members teaching a firstyear learning community. Acknowledging the “rut” that many mid-career faculty face, Steiner argues that teaching a first-year learning community could revitalize mid-career faculty careers, especially because first-year learning communities are typically interdisciplinary and collaborative, largely new areas for faculty to explore. However, Steiner illustrates that successful teaching of a first-year learning program requires appropriate support of a collegial network, in addition to framing participation through a teacher-scholar lens. Although each chapter in part two describes a distinctive program within a specific context, their faculty development programs will likely resonate with other institutions and individuals, as well as serve as catalysts for others to reimagine the ways mid-career faculty members’ sense of agency and teaching innovations are supported and celebrated.

References Anaya, G., & Cole, D. G. (2001). Latina/o student achievement: Exploring the influence of student-faculty interactions on college grades. Journal of College Student Development, 42(1), 611–622. Arnsparger, A., & Drivalas, J. (2016). Students speak about faculty: What students need, what they want, and what helps them succeed. In A. Kezar & D. Maxey (Eds.), Reimagining the faculty for the 21st century: Moving to a mission-oriented

Baker.indb 100

19-09-2019 15:20:35

teaching and learning  

101

and learner-centered model. (pp. 101–116). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Baldwin, R. G., Lunceford, C. J., & Vanderlinden, K. E. (2005). Faculty in the middle years: Illuminating an overlooked phase of academic life. The Review of Higher Education, 29(1), 97–118. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 12–26. Braxton, J. M., Bray, N. J., & Berger, J. B. (2000). Faculty teaching skills and their influence on the college student departure process. Journal of College Student Development, 41(2), 215–227. Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practices in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7. Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Teaching for Intelligence, 2, 91–100. Fairweather, J. S. (1996). Faculty work and public trust: Restoring the value of teaching and public service in American academic life. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education’s strategic imperative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Henderson, B. B. (2009). Beyond Boyer: SoTL in the context of interesting scholarly things. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 4, 12–20. Hurtado, S., Eagan, M. K., Tran, M., Newman, C., Chang, M. J., & Velasco, P. (2011). “We do science here”: Underrepresented students’ interactions with faculty in different college contexts. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 553–579. Kezar, A., Holcombe, E., & Maxey, D. (2016). An emerging consensus about new faculty roles: Results of a national study of higher education stakeholders. In A. Kezar & D. Maxey (Eds.), Reimagining the faculty for the 21st century: Moving to a mission-oriented and learner-centered model. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Kezar, A., & Maxey, D. (2016). Recognizing the need for a new faculty model. In A. Kezar & D. Maxey (Eds.), Reimagining the faculty for the 21st century: Moving to a mission-oriented and learner-centered model (pp. 23–44). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities. Kuh, G. D., Bridges, B., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to student success? Washington DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interactions in the 1990s. Review of Higher Education, 24(3), 309–332. Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student interaction as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development, 45(5), 549–565.

Baker.indb 101

19-09-2019 15:20:35

102  

teaching and learning

Lundquist, C., Spalding, R. J., & Landrum, R. E. (2003). College students’ thoughts about leaving the university: The impact of faculty attitudes and behaviors. College Student Retention Research, Theory, and Practice, 4(2), 123–133. Martin, L. M. (2000). The relationship of college experiences to psychosocial outcomes in students. Journal of College Student Development, 41(3), 292–301. Maxey, D., & Kezar, A. (2016). The current context for faculty work in higher education: Understanding the forces affecting higher education and the changing faculty. In A. Kezar & D. Maxey (Eds.), Reimagining the faculty for the 21st century: Moving to a mission-oriented and learner-centered model (pp. 3–22). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Neumann, A., & Terosky, A. L. (2007 May/June). To give and to receive: Recently tenured professors’ experiences of service in major research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 282–310. O’Meara, K. A., Campbell, C., & Terosky, A. L. (2011, November). Living agency in the academy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Charlotte, NC. O’Meara, K. A., Rice, R. E., & Edgerten, G. (Eds.). (2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered: Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. O’Meara, K., Terosky, A. L., & Neumann, A. (2008). Faculty careers and work lives: A professional growth perspective (ASHE Higher Education Report, vol. 34, no. 3). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Terosky, A. L., O’Meara, K., & Campbell, C. M. (2014). Enabling possibility: Women associate professors’ sense of agency in career advancement. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(1), 58–76.

Baker.indb 102

19-09-2019 15:20:35

5 EXAMINING MIDC A R E E R F A C U LT Y DEVELOPMENT THROUGH A S O C I O C U LT U R A L , PROFESSIONAL LEARNING LENS Annique Boelryk and Cheryl Amundsen

C

ontinuous professional learning plays an important role in sustaining the vitality and effectiveness of mid-career faculty (Baldwin, Lunceford, & Vanderlinden, 2005; O’Meara, Terosky, & Neumann, 2008). Such learning, as it relates to the development of mid-career teaching practice, has typically been conceptualized using an individual, cognitive lens and has neglected to explicitly address the sociocultural context. This context includes one or more of the following elements: classroom, departmental, and institutional cultures; professional and higher education standards; societal and disciplinary norms; and workplace resources and expectations. These sociocultural elements significantly influence teachers’ willingness, agency, and ability to make instructional changes that improve student learning (Ashwin, 2009). Although several researchers of postsecondary teacher development have adopted a sociocultural lens (e.g., Lindblom-Ylänne, Trigwell, Nevgi, & Ashwin, 2006; Mårtensson, Roxå, & Stensaker, 2014), the majority of research in this field still fails to adequately consider the sociocultural contexts in which faculty practice their teaching. We argue that continuous professional learning (CPL) related to the development of mid-career teaching practice needs to be conceptualized and designed using a sociocultural 103

Baker.indb 103

19-09-2019 15:20:35

104  

teaching and learning

lens rather than focusing primarily on the individual, cognitive dimension. A sociocultural lens would address the interdependent individual, social, and contextual elements involved in this professional learning process (Boelryk & Amundsen, 2016) and thereby enhance its design and support.

Chapter Overview To address the need for additional literature and research that applies a sociocultural lens to the conceptualization and design of mid-career faculty CPL, we explore how an empirical model was applied to enhance a program delivered at many postsecondary institutions in Canada. We begin by describing the sociocultural model of teacher professional learning, which was developed through a research study of mid-career college faculty experiences with development in teaching practice (Boelryk, 2014). By identifying interdependent individual, social, and contextual elements for each phase in the process, this multiphased model provides a meaningful sociocultural lens for understanding the process involved in the development of teaching practice. The model depicts how the process of development involves both individual and social agency. Although individuals have control over many aspects of their work, social and contextual factors also have agency in promoting and supporting CPL. As Billett (2008) explains, the social environment plays a significant role in enabling or constraining the individual’s willingness and ability to make changes to practice. Next, we provide a brief overview of a Canadian intensive educational development program called the Course Design Workshop (CDW) (Saroyan & Amundsen, 2004), which was offered exclusively to mid-career faculty at one Canadian postsecondary institution over several years. Despite its effectiveness at facilitating conceptual change (Amundsen, Weston, & McAlpine, 2008), faculty participants did not necessarily enact the changes to their teaching practice that they had identified as being important for enhancing student learning. This observation prompted us to reflect on the design of the original workshop and examine possible reasons why a faculty member might use—or not use—knowledge and skills gained in a professional learning activity or process to enhance student learning. Although this aspect of teacher professional learning remains difficult to explain (Kane, Sandretto, & Heath, 2002; Mälkki & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2012), we argue that part of the answer lies in acknowledging that change in practice is a sociocultural process. By identifying social and contextual factors that have agency in the change process, we can enhance the design of professional learning activities, such as the CDW, aimed at promoting development in teaching practice for mid-career faculty.

Baker.indb 104

19-09-2019 15:20:35

examining mid-career faculty development  

105

The next, and perhaps most significant, part of this chapter is a case analysis of the CDW at one institution in Ontario, Canada, using the  sociocultural model of teacher professional learning as a lens to enhance the workshop design. The analysis examines how findings reflected in the model affirm original design elements of the workshop and discusses revisions made to better support mid-career faculty CPL from a sociocultural perspective. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how a sociocultural learning lens generally, and the sociocultural model of teacher professional learning specifically, can inform the conceptualization and design of CPL for mid-career faculty and help us better understand the many individual, social, and contextual elements contributing to enacting change in teaching practice.

A Sociocultural Model of Teacher Professional Learning: Acknowledging Interrelated Elements in Faculty Professional Learning Processes Sociocultural theories conceptualize learning as involving interdependent relationships between the individual and the environment (Ashwin, 2009; Billett, 2009). Adopting a sociocultural lens for CPL in teaching means that in addition to considering individual cognition, engagement, and agency in the change process, it is also crucial to understand and address social agency and the interrelationships among individual, social, and contextual variables (Trowler, 2008). The social agency of departments, disciplinary communities, and organizations (e.g., leadership, strategic goals, political agendas, norms) powerfully influences teaching practice (Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009) and exerts considerable influence on individual agency in the process of making changes to teaching practice. The sociocultural model of teacher professional learning (Boelryk, 2014), depicted in Figure 5.1, provides an empirically based four-phase model to guide consideration of the interrelated individual, social, and contextual factors in the development of teaching practice. The four phases include catalyst, idea development, implementation, and outcome. Within the model, individual elements that impact development include, for example, personal goals, conceptions of teaching and learning, and comfort zones. Social elements are related to classroom culture, collegial relationships, and departmental norms. Contextual elements are related to institutional culture, expectations, and support for teaching. The model, which is discussed in more detail elsewhere (Boelryk, 2014; Boelryk & Amundsen, 2016), is briefly described as follows.

Baker.indb 105

19-09-2019 15:20:35

106  

teaching and learning

Figure 5.1.  Sociocultural model of teacher professional learning. Constructive Interaction Social

Idea Development Phase Individual

Contextual

Personal Fit

Support

Social Feedback

Student Response

Social

Social

Catalyst Phase

Implementation Phase

Individual

Contextual

Individual

Contextual

Disequilibrium

Expectations

Navigating Change

Support

Affirmation Social

Outcomes Phase Individual

Contextual

Growth Orientation

Navigation

Catalyst Phase In the catalyst phase of the model, the individual, social, and contextual dimensions, as well as the interrelationships among them, prompt development in teaching practice. The individual dimension is characterized by disequilibrium related to one’s teaching practice; the social dimension is characterized by social feedback; and the contextual dimension is characterized by expectations. Although there is variation in how individuals experience disequilibrium, it generally involves dissatisfaction with some aspect of instruction. Social feedback comes from students or peers and helps legitimize faculty experiences related to the disequilibrium. Expectations for student learning act as catalytic influences and stem from professional standards, advisory committees, community or industry partners, administrative processes, curriculum expectations, quality improvement measures, and more. The interrelationships between the dimensions of the catalyst phase can be described as follows: “Individual faculty experience some type of disequilibrium which they would like to resolve. Feedback from the social environment that affirms the disequilibrium and contextual expectations related to the disequilibrium, catalyze effort toward its resolution” (Boelryk & Amundsen, 2016, p. 97).

Baker.indb 106

19-09-2019 15:20:37

examining mid-career faculty development  

107

Idea Development Phase The idea development phase of the model involves faculty conceptually working out alternatives that might address the disequilibrium. In this phase, personal fit characterizes the individual dimension, constructive interaction characterizes the social dimension, and support characterizes the contextual dimension. When faculty are in this phase, they explore ideas and strategies related to the disequilibrium as they try to conceptualize a resolution that fits with who they are, what they believe, and what they are trying to achieve in their teaching practice. Constructive interaction with respected peers is essential in the process and occurs with colleagues, other learning professionals (e.g., educational developers, instructional designers, counselors), or other experts and peers. Contextual support for this phase includes aspects such as time, curriculum and policy frameworks, technological capabilities, classroom space, resources, program culture, or supportive leadership. The interrelationships among the individual, social, and contextual dimensions of the idea development phase can be described as follows: Individuals explore ideas for addressing disequilibrium through constructive interactions with respected peers. When faculty are able to conceptualize a resolution that fits on a personal level and perceive contextual support for an idea, they move toward implementing changes to their practice.

Implementation Phase In the model, the implementation phase reflects faculty experience as they enact new ideas or approaches in their classrooms. Navigating change characterizes the individual dimension; student response characterizes the social dimension; and, similarly to the idea development phase, support characterizes the contextual dimension. In this phase, development in teaching practice involves navigating change, a process that encompasses risk management, dealing with various emotions, and role (re)definition. As faculty enact new ideas or approaches, the influence of student responses is often powerful. A supportive context for implementation includes supervisory and departmental support as well as supportive curriculum and policy frameworks, access to resources, and appropriate classroom spaces to support particular teaching practices. The interrelationships between the dimensions of this phase can be described as follows. Implementation related to development in teaching practice involves navigating change in the classroom. This requires faculty to engage with new ideas, feelings, skills, and roles. Student responses to changes in practice along with experiences of contextual support strongly affect the faculty experiences of implementation.

Baker.indb 107

19-09-2019 15:20:37

108  

teaching and learning

Outcomes Phase In the outcomes phase, a growth orientation characterizes the individual dimension; affirmation characterizes the social dimension; and navigation characterizes the contextual dimension. A growth orientation involves being more reflective about one’s practice and inspired to learn more about student learning and pedagogy, while also feeling more comfortable experimenting in the classroom. Social affirmation comes from colleagues and students or from opportunities such as mentoring, providing input, taking on new roles and responsibilities, and sharing experiences with others. Navigation refers to the way that the institutional environment supports one’s ability to persist with changes in practice by providing ongoing access to appropriate technology, classroom space, and scheduling options. The interrelationships between the dimensions of this phase can be described as follows. When faculty are socially affirmed for their efforts to implement changes in teaching practice, they are more likely to adopt a growth orientation toward their practice and continue the development process. Such continued growth, however, is dependent on the institutional context for navigating the logistics related to the changes in practice. The sociocultural model of teacher professional learning affirms many aspects of faculty professional learning, which appear in other research that explores this process from the faculty perspective (Åkerlind, 2005; Kreber, 2010; Mälkki & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2012; McAlpine, Weston, Timmermans, Berthiaume, & Fairbank-Roch, 2006; Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009). It also adds to this literature by specifically deriving a model for the development in teaching practice from the narratives of mid-career faculty. Based on empirical data, the model identifies distinct individual, social, and contextual elements for four phases of the learning process. We believe this model offers a meaningful sociocultural lens for examining educational development practice and have therefore used it for a case analysis of an intensive educational development program described briefly in the following section.

The Original Course Design Workshop: Practicing Theoretically Informed Educational Development In the early 1990s, Amundsen and her colleagues at McGill University argued that professional development activities for faculty (including those they had facilitated) were rarely informed by instructional design principles or based on theories of professional growth and development (Saroyan & Amundsen, 2004). To address this gap, the McGill group drew on existing theories of professional growth (Mezirow, 1991; Schön, 1983) to develop

Baker.indb 108

19-09-2019 15:20:37

examining mid-career faculty development  

109

an intensive course design and teaching development program focused on providing faculty with a sound basis for instructional decision-making. Their approach viewed development in teaching practice as an individual, cognitive process in which faculty moved toward more sophisticated ways of understanding and enacting the facilitation of student learning (Ramsden, 2003; Saroyan, Amundsen, & Cao, 1997), and in which faculty themselves exercised personal agency in the direction of teaching enhancement. As such, although the original design of the workshop acknowledged the role of context in teaching, it did not explicitly address the sociocultural nature and role of social agency in the development of teaching practice. Although a primary goal of this chapter is to discuss how, at one Canadian institution, the sociocultural model of teacher professional learning provided a theoretical lens to enhance the CDW, we briefly describe the original workshop design before moving to the case analysis. For a full description of the original workshop, refer to Saroyan and Amundsen (2004). The original CDW was designed as a 30-hour workshop delivered over five consecutive days. Many variations for delivery now exist. The workshop’s instructional design perspective (Kemp, Morrison, & Ross, 2004) prompts consideration of the interrelationships among content, goals, activities, and assessments, as well as the importance of personal meaning-making and agency in the professional learning process. The CDW acknowledged that “many professors consider themselves subject experts and scholars rather than teachers, [let alone] teacher-scholars within their discipline” (Saroyan & Amundsen, 2004, p. 16). As such, engaging faculty first through their understanding of learning in their discipline is at the heart of the process. The original workshop built on the following principles of course design and teaching development: (a) learning facilitation is a complex activity that “extends far beyond mastering a set of skills” (Saroyan et al., 1997, p. 98); (b) in effective course design, student learning serves as the basis for instructional decision-making and, as a result, every effort in the instructional process should be directed at enabling the intended learning (learning-centered approach); and (c) “professors develop into competent instructional decisionmakers through an intellectual process. . . . [Hence] competency is developed through the practice and close examination of decision sequences and teaching actions” (Saroyan & Amundsen, 2004, p. 19). Based on these principles, the design process involves faculty participants analyzing course content, crafting learning goals based on the course content analysis, selecting instructional activities based on knowledge of student learning, and determining appropriate methods for evaluating learning. The overall learning outcomes for the workshop include depicting the conceptual structure of the selected course; defining what students will know,

Baker.indb 109

19-09-2019 15:20:37

110  

teaching and learning

value, and do as a result of participating in the selected course; determining practice and feedback strategies that will help students reach the learning outcomes (learning-centered approach); and determining strategies by which students and faculty can assess progress toward the learning outcomes. Although the course design aspects build on one another each day, the learning activities, which are grounded in theories of professional learning and growth, are similar across the days. Table 5.1 shows a general overview of the daily activities in the original workshop design. In the CDW, reflection on practice (Schön, 1983) is considered a crucial mechanism for fostering development in teaching. Concept mapping, the process of visually depicting course elements and the relationships between them, supports the reflective process in the following ways: (a) making the course’s major concepts, overall purpose, organization, and learning pathways explicit for both the faculty participant and his or her peers; (b) revealing coherence (or lack thereof ) among course goals, content, instructional strategies, and evaluation methods; and (c) promoting and supporting collegial dialogue about one’s pedagogical decision-making (Amundsen et al., 2008). It should be noted that, although the workshop leads faculty through a design process, individual agency is promoted in terms of decision-making. The emphasis is on making the faculty member’s own understanding of the course explicit; two individuals teaching the same course could conceivably have quite different concept maps. The workshop is facilitated by both educational developers and invited faculty members who have completed the workshop previously. Past participants, who return as cofacilitators, play a significant role by sharing their experiences of the process, facilitating small groups, offering feedback and insights, and discussing how ideas for their redesigned courses were implemented and received. As is shown in Table 5.1, participants move between large group sessions that introduce major concepts, to small multidisciplinary group sessions, and then to individual time for reflection and design thinking throughout the process. The large group sessions introduce faculty participants to key ideas and concepts using a variety of participatory instructional techniques (e.g., thinkpair-share, reflective writing, concept mapping, and formative feedback). Through these sessions, participants acquire a common language for discussing teaching and learning, interact with a variety of peers to consider multiple perspectives, and engage in reflective learning processes. In the small multidisciplinary working group sessions, participants apply the design process individually and discuss their evolving thinking with others. Despite a lack of empirical evidence at the time, the developers of the original CDW saw collegial interaction in small multidisciplinary groups as essential in the professional learning process. Subsequent research has affirmed its importance

Baker.indb 110

19-09-2019 15:20:37

Baker.indb 111

TABLE 5.1 

Overview of the Course Design Workshop Daily Activities (Original Design)

19-09-2019 15:20:37

AM—Large Group Session (to explore key learning design concepts)

AM—Work Time (to work on one’s selected course individually or with facilitators or peers)

PM—Small Multidisciplinary Groups (to explicitly share, probe, and reflect on pedagogical thinking for a specific design step)

PM—Large Group Session (to introduce key learning design concepts)

Day 1

Design concepts: Relationships between course concepts; overall meaning and purpose of course

Work focus: Generate a first draft of a concept map

Small group focus: Share and discuss concept map

Ideas introduced: Introduce key ideas and concepts related to learning outcomes

Day 2

Design concepts: Learning-centered outcomes; learning domains

Work focus: Draft learning outcomes that align with concept map

Small group focus: Share and discuss learning outcomes and how they relate to concept map

Ideas introduced: Introduce key ideas and concepts related to instructional strategies

Day 3

Design concepts: Active learning; learning-centered instruction

Work focus: Identify instructional strategies that align with learning outcomes

Small group focus: Share and discuss instructional strategies and how they align with learning outcomes

Ideas introduced: Introduce key ideas and concepts related to assessment methods

Day 4

Design concepts: Learning-centered assessment; practice and feedback; formative and summative assessment

Work focus: Identify assessment methods that align with learning outcomes

Small group focus: Share and discuss assessment methods and how they align with learning outcomes and instructional strategies

Ideas introduced: Introduce key ideas and concepts related to ongoing course evaluation

Day 5

Design concepts: Reflective practice

Work focus: Identify ongoing feedback and evaluation strategies for course

Small and large group focus: Share and discuss coherent vision for course and ongoing evaluation mechanisms

112  

teaching and learning

(Amundsen et al., 2008). Each evening, participants complete a reading relevant to the topic of the following day. These readings, and the discussions based on them, are designed to expand faculty thinking about the instructional endeavor and to create awareness of the literature that exists to inform teaching practice. At the end of each day, participants reflect on their learning process using a variety of formative feedback strategies. These strategies are designed to promote metacognitive thinking, to demonstrate the value of structured reflection, to model strategies that faculty might use in their classes, and to provide facilitators with feedback on the learning process. The impact of this theoretically based educational development program on the effectiveness and vitality of mid-career faculty is documented in several narrative accounts (Saroyan & Amundsen, 2004) as well as a comprehensive case study of one experienced faculty member (Amundsen, Saroyan, & Frankman, 1996). Using a sociocultural lens to consider how the program might be enhanced is not intended as a critique of its initial design. Rather, it is a way of considering how learning that results in enactment of changes to practice might be better supported for mid-career faculty. In the following section, we engage in a case analysis of the CDW as it was delivered at one institution in Ontario, Canada.

Course Design Workshop Case Analysis: Using New Empirical Research to Enhance Educational Development Practice In this case analysis of the CDW at a Canadian institution, we use the sociocultural model of teacher professional learning as a theoretical lens (see Figure 5.1) to examine elements of the original CDW that the model affirms (see Table 5.1 for an outline of the original design of daily activities) and to discuss how the original design of the CDW was enhanced to better support the professional learning process related to development in teaching practice. At the case institution, the CDW has been offered as a mid-career faculty development program since 2010. Although the original CDW was not explicitly designed for mid-career faculty, the case institution offered it exclusively for this group. At this institution, the CDW is offered over 4 days (as opposed to the original 5), and there are 12 faculty participants in each offering. At least 3 former participants are invited as cofacilitators. At the time of writing, 90 full-time, mid-career faculty had participated in the workshop. Each time the CDW is delivered, information is collected from the following sources: participant needs assessments, participant summative feedback, and facilitator reflective feedback. This information, as well as the daily formative feedback, is used to continuously improve the learning

Baker.indb 112

19-09-2019 15:20:37

examining mid-career faculty development  

113

design of the workshop in order to better support the individual, social, and contextual elements involved in the development of teaching practice. This case analysis seeks to demonstrate how the sociocultural model of teacher professional learning offers a useful tool for enhancing the design of activities such as the CDW in order to more clearly address the individual, social, and contextual elements of the teaching development process.

Affirmation of Disequilibrium as a Key Catalyst for Learning In the process of development in teaching, the sociocultural model asserts the catalytic importance of acknowledging and addressing individual disequilibrium in a socially affirming context. Disequilibrium has been previously identified as a catalyst for learning in the educational literature (Dewey, 1938; Mezirow, 1991; Piaget, 1971) and in research that investigates influences for change in teaching (Pickering, 2006). In the original design of the CDW, disequilibrium emerges as faculty explore their assumptions about teaching through the lens of educational scholarship and through the development of concept maps, which uncover misalignments among course goals, instructional activities, and assessment activities. In addition, the needs assessment that faculty participants complete prior to the workshop asks them to identify specific challenges they are experiencing related to the course they have chosen to focus on. Activities throughout the CDW involve peer sharing, discussing texts, exchanging ideas, and problem-solving. When designed well, these activities have the potential to powerfully explore interrelated individual, social, and contextual factors related to challenges or disequilibrium people are experiencing in their teaching practice. In the Canadian institution, the following design considerations were applied to enhance the way CDW addressed the role of disequilibrium in the professional learning process. These considerations involved surfacing disequilibrium intentionally and using the collegial environment to acknowledge, affirm, or support its exploration. First, faculty are asked to select a course (a) that they do not enjoy teaching, (b) that students do not enjoy or engage with, or (c) where students do not achieve the expected learning goals. Making these forms of disequilibrium more explicit at the outset, both in writing and through social interactions, has increased openness to examine instructional assumptions and commitment to the process of course redesign as well as making participants more purpose-driven in their course design efforts. Second, during the process of using concept mapping as a reflective analytic tool, we ask small working group members to provide feedback to their colleagues on not only the overall conceptualization and alignment in the course they are (re)designing but also how they experience this conceptualization as a

Baker.indb 113

19-09-2019 15:20:37

114  

teaching and learning

learner (i.e., does it seem engaging and success oriented?). This prompts additional disequilibrium related to learning-centered teaching. Third, during the process of identifying learning goals, many faculty struggle to articulate goals that are both meaningful from a disciplinary perspective as well as engaging for learners. After observing this phenomenon several times, the facilitators began to acknowledge common struggles, naming and affirming them as a part of the process. Finally, the facilitators engage the large group to consider ways to address challenges identified in the needs assessments. By using collegial interactions to more intentionally acknowledge, affirm, or support the exploration of disequilibrium, participants have been more willing to embrace it as part of the learning process. Summative feedback from participants has included many remarks that echo the following comments. “Even though the course design process was at times challenging and difficult, the focus on the process and hearing/seeing the process that others went through was so helpful.” “Hearing about other people’s journeys was comforting and reaffirming, making it okay to be at the stage that I am at.” The design enhancements focus on making authentic challenges and tensions experienced by the faculty participants more explicit, collectively exploring these challenges, and examining the individual, social, and contextual factors related to addressing those challenges.

Collegial Trust That Supports Personal Fit as Key to Idea Development The sociocultural model of teacher professional learning confirms the importance of developing collegial trust in order to promote idea development related to teaching practice. The power and importance of collegial interaction in the professional learning process has been identified in the educational development literature, particularly in relation to the influence of disciplinary contexts on teaching and learning (Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009), communities of practice (Green, Hibbins, Houghton, & Ruutz, 2013), and learning through personal networks (Pataraia, Margaryan, Flaconer, & Littlejohn, 2015). Trust and respect are essential in the growth process because they create a safe space for exploring new ideas and honor individual agency in the development process. Each person comes to the growth process with his or her own levels of confidence and risk tolerance, disciplinary and departmental culture, goals, and values (Kreber, 2010), which will ultimately guide their instructional practice. Despite the importance of collegial trust and respect in the teaching development process, it does not tend to be part of the intentional design considerations for educational development programs. In the original design of the

Baker.indb 114

19-09-2019 15:20:37

examining mid-career faculty development  

115

CDW, there was immense philosophical respect given to the disciplinary expertise and professional identity of the faculty participants. The original designers argue that teaching effectiveness is not developed through the acquisition of generic skills alone but through deep, pedagogical understanding of one’s discipline and how the various components of practice interact to support the achievement of learning goals in that discipline (Saroyan & Amundsen, 2004). As well, they discuss the importance of acknowledging the challenges of the postsecondary context where faculty have multiple roles and have to navigate competing and conflicting ideologies with respect to teaching and learning. The design considerations applied to enhance the CDW, in relation to the importance of building collegial trust and finding personal fit, involved planning activities in a way that would build trust and respect rather than simply expecting it to develop. The first time the CDW was delivered at the case institution, it involved faculty who had already developed relationships of trust and respect through prior multidisciplinary discussions and collegial activities facilitated by the teaching center. The second time it was delivered, the participants did not have such prior experiences and therefore had not established trusting relationships with their peers from other disciplines. Because of this lack of trust many individuals remained closed to critically examining the design of their courses from a learning-centered perspective. This had a significant negative impact on participants’ development process and prompted several workshop design changes to intentionally promote the development of collegial trust. First, participants now gather together four times prior to the workshop itself to discuss the book chapters related to the workshop (Saroyan & Amundsen, 2004). These discussions are designed and facilitated with several purposes: 1. To acknowledge various perspectives and ideologies related to teaching and learning 2. To acknowledge the complexity of the postsecondary teaching-learning endeavor 3. To affirm faculty as effective educators 4. To promote idea exchange related to effective instructional practices 5. To create a safe space to raise questions and issues about teaching practice

In the large group sessions, we use facilitation techniques to build trust and community. We also use pair activities more often than small group activities on the first day so that participants have ample time to express and work through ideas in a safe space. By designing trust-building processes into the professional learning process and using more scaffolding tools to build trust within the groups, the

Baker.indb 115

19-09-2019 15:20:37

116  

teaching and learning

collegial interactions in subsequent offerings have been more positive and individuals have increased their openness to the professional learning process. In the summative feedback, comments such as the following provide insight into the importance of this process: “The intimacy and respect in the small groups allowed me the chance to be vulnerable and to move through the process.” “The support, understanding, and encouragement in the group helped to gently push me out of my familiar place to new energizing places.”

Supportive Contexts for Navigating Change as Key to Implementation The learning process portrayed in the sociocultural model of teacher professional learning demonstrates the importance of intentionally designing support for navigating change. Rethinking course design, and hence teaching practice, can involve complex change processes for both faculty and students. Anxiety related to changes in teaching practice (Postareff & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2011; Sadler, 2012) is often overlooked or minimized in the educational development literature. Individual approaches to change are related to one’s confidence, risk tolerance, relationships with students, departmental culture, as well as other personal and contextual elements (Eraut, 2004; Gregory & Jones, 2009). Gregory and Jones identified that maintaining competence was at the core of faculty members’ choices related to teaching strategies and that one’s sense of competence was influenced by a variety of forces both in the individual and in the environment, or individual and social agency. Although narratives of the change processes experienced by individual faculty participants provide testimony of the development in teaching that occurred through the CDW (Amundsen et al., 1996; Saroyan & Amundsen, 2004), the original CDW did not explicitly address or design a process of navigating change. After a few years of delivering the CDW at the case institution, the facilitators noticed how faculty struggled to implement changes they had identified during the workshop. Design considerations that were applied to enhance the CDW, in relation to providing support for navigating change, involved strategies to support the change process and build self-efficacy with new instructional practices. First, during the workshop faculty cofacilitators openly share their experiences of implementing new practices. This includes examining the struggles and rewards, as well as the individual and contextual elements, related to these practices. These authentic narratives provide insight into ways that experienced faculty navigate changes to practice and help faculty participants create a vision of what is possible and plausible (Pickering, 2006). Second, to expand access to the quantity and variety of shared experiences related to teaching and assessment strategies, we create

Baker.indb 116

19-09-2019 15:20:37

examining mid-career faculty development  

117

an “Ask Me About” wall during the workshop. Here participants identify practices that they have used successfully in their classrooms and post them so others can ask them about it. Following the workshop, a resource with all this information is distributed to participants for future reference, encouraging faculty to learn from their colleagues as they begin to implement new practices. Third, we emphasize that changes to courses can be approached using a long-term view and that small changes sometimes provide better feedback regarding impact than large-scale changes. For many participants, small changes build confidence and self-efficacy in new approaches, although both small-scale and large-scale change approaches are discussed and shared. Fourth, based on the action plans developed in the workshop, we organize follow-up groups to examine resources and implementation strategies for specific pedagogical practices. This includes practices such as using portfolios for assessment, implementing formative assessments, employing case-based teaching, teaching professionalism, and facilitating learning in the affective domain. Fourth, we organize an annual reunion of all previous CDW participants where successes and challenges related to pedagogical practices are shared. Information from this event is then compiled and redistributed for future reference. By being more intentional about supporting the change process, particularly through the use of collegial networks that explore possibilities and build self-efficacy, faculty report higher levels of confidence in implementing new instructional strategies in their courses. In a follow-up survey on the impact of the CDW, comments such as the following affirm the importance of this in the professional learning process: “Collaborative sharing in a supportive environment has encouraged me to expand/develop/implement new ideas. These ideas have, in turn, led to additional ways of approaching things as well as further expansion and implementation.” “One of the most important aspects of the CDW for me has been the opportunity to develop relationships with colleagues that carry on and lead to further discussion, brainstorming, and support.”

Social Affirmation as Key to Sustaining a Growth Orientation The sociocultural model of teacher learning asserts the important roles of social affirmation and contextual support in sustaining a growth orientation and faculty commitment to new practices. For example, Billett (2006) argues that workplace learning and practices are strongly impacted by the social situations in which individuals “participate, think, act, and learn” (p. 55). Efforts to implement new practices need to be nurtured and supported by the work context in order to lead to improvements in the overall

Baker.indb 117

19-09-2019 15:20:37

118  

teaching and learning

quality of teaching and learning in the institution (Mårtensson et al., 2014). The original design of the CDW attends only nominally to social affirmation and navigating the broader institutional context as part of the instructional enhancement process. Design considerations that were applied to enhance the CDW process, in relation to social affirmation and sustaining a growth orientation, involve making intentional efforts to expand and nurture the networks through which effective practices are shared, discussed, and affirmed (Pataraia et al., 2015). To be intentional about expanding and nurturing networks, we collect and share knowledge from collegial discussions that examine pedagogical practices with the broader teaching community through various methods (e.g., documents of effective practice and web resources). To promote social affirmation from peers, we encourage CDW participants to share their learning related to effective practices with colleagues through one-on-one discussions, panel presentations, web resources, or conference sessions. Importantly, educational developers at the case institution continue to lobby for teaching spaces and teaching technologies that effectively support the pedagogical approaches teachers want to implement (e.g., problem- and case-based learning, portfolios, formative assessments). Intentional efforts to expand faculty networks and to advocate for departmental and organizational support of innovative pedagogical practices are essential in promoting and sustaining faculty professional growth (Pataraia et al., 2015).

Conclusion: Advancing the Conceptualization and Design of Continuous Professional Learning for Mid-Career Faculty Educational development practice, like other professional development practices, ought to be informed by empirical work and theory (Amundsen & Wilson, 2012; Webster-Wright, 2009). Sociocultural learning models provide a rich theoretical lens for examining mid-career faculty growth related to the development of teaching practice because they take into consideration the many interrelated individual, social, and contextual elements of this professional learning process (Ashwin, 2009; Trowler, 2008). By acknowledging that change in teaching practice involves individual and social agency (Billett, 2008), we begin to treat it as much more than just an individual, cognitive process and expand our understanding of the support that faculty need as they engage in this process. As new empirical research grounded in these theories emerges, such as the study described in this chapter (Boelryk, 2014), educational developers have opportunities to expand their understanding of the faculty professional learning process, revise and enhance

Baker.indb 118

19-09-2019 15:20:37

examining mid-career faculty development  

119

existing practices, and design new practices. We can begin to design support for a complete learning process, as opposed to only designing a program or activity, and provide effective support prior to and subsequent to programs or activities. Explicit descriptions of educational development program designs and the underlying thinking can enrich our understanding of educational development practices and their impact (Stes, Min-Leliveld, Gijbels, & Van Petegem, 2010). The CDW in its initial conceptualization was based on sound design principles and consistent with the learning theories and research of the time. However, new research, such as the sociocultural model of teacher professional learning (Boelryk, 2014), enables us to revisit the original CDW design and refine it in order to enhance the professional learning process. The model also allows us to clearly articulate general sociocultural design principles that might be considered in the design of other educational development activities or programs. These design principles include the following: explicitly acknowledging the many interrelated individual, social, and contextual elements involved in making changes to teaching practice; surfacing and affirming disequilibrium related to teaching practice; using collegial interactions intentionally to promote and support the professional learning process; incorporating strategies targeted at building collegial trust and respect; building self-efficacy with new instructional practices; and promoting the sharing and affirmation of effective pedagogical practices. By providing a detailed description of the design enhancements of a specific educational development program, the CDW, we hope that new studies will be able to build on this work. Going forward, we suggest that more needs to be done to address the social (collegiality, classroom culture, affirmation) and contextual (departmental norms, institutional culture, societal expectations) elements related to the development in teaching practice (Amundsen & Wilson, 2012). It is imperative for institutional leaders to acknowledge that agency related to change in teaching practice, especially for mid-career faculty, occurs through interrelationships between the individual and the sociocultural environment (Billett, 2008). Design principles for teaching enhancement that are directed at the contextual factors, although complex and difficult to define, are key to situating educational development practice strategically within institutions. Based on the sociocultural model of teacher professional learning, we suggest that these principles include defining and communicating expectations for the learning process, creating supportive environments for exploring and implementing new instructional practices, affirming teaching efforts to enhance student learning, and ensuring that resources and structures in the educational context enable continued implementation of effective practices.

Baker.indb 119

19-09-2019 15:20:37

120  

teaching and learning

Given the intensification of postsecondary teaching due to factors such as increased student diversity, rising quality expectations, and ever-changing technology (Trowler, 2008), it is more important than ever for institutions to conceptualize and design meaningful support for development in teaching practice. For mid-career, post-tenure faculty, the model presented and examined here brings awareness to the perspectives and actions involved in such development. Agency of the social and contextual environments can be enhanced by providing supportive collegial opportunities to explore disequilibrium, develop ideas, and implement changes. Agency of the individual can be enhanced by engaging faculty in acknowledging disequilibrium, identifying instructional ideas that have personal fit, and navigating the changes required for implementing new practices. Both forms of agency are equally important in promoting CPL related to the development of teaching practice.

References Åkerlind, G. S. (2005). Academic growth and development: How do university academics experience it? Higher Education, 50(1), 1–32. Amundsen, C., Saroyan, A., & Frankman, M. (1996). Changing methods and metaphors: A case study of growth in university teaching. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 7(3), 3–42. Amundsen, C., Weston, C., & McAlpine, L. (2008). Concept mapping to support university academics’ analysis of course content. Studies in Higher Education, 33(6), 633–652. Amundsen, C., & Wilson, M. (2012). Are we asking the right questions? A conceptual review of the educational development literature in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 90–126. Ashwin, P. (2009). Analysing teaching-learning interactions in higher education: Accounting for structure and agency. New York, NY: Continuum International. Baldwin, R. G., Lunceford, C. J., & Vanderlinden, K. E. (2005). Faculty in the middle years: Illuminating an overlooked phase of academic life. The Review of Higher Education, 29(1), 97–118. Billett, S. (2006). Relational interdependence between social and individual agency in work and working life. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1), 53–69. Billett, S. (2008). Learning throughout working life: A relational interdependence between personal and social agency. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(1), 39–58. Billett, S. (2009). Conceptualizing learning experiences: Contributions and mediations of the social, personal, and brute. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16, 32–47. Boelryk, A. (2014). Professional learning and post-secondary teaching: Investigating faculty’s lived experiences of development in teaching practice (Doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University). Retrieved from http://summit.sfu.ca/item/14571

Baker.indb 120

19-09-2019 15:20:37

examining mid-career faculty development  

121

Boelryk, A., & Amundsen, C. (2016). A sociocultural model for mid-career postsecondary teacher professional learning. In S. Billett, D. Dymock, & S. Choy (Eds.), Supporting learning across working life: Models, processes and practices (pp. 91–111). Basel, Switzerland: Springer International. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone. Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247–273. Green, W., Hibbins, R., Houghton, L., & Ruutz, A. (2013). Reviving praxis: Stories of continual professional learning and practice architectures in a faculty-based teaching community of practice. Oxford Review of Education, 39(2), 247–266. Gregory, J., & Jones, R. (2009). Maintaining competence: A grounded theory typology of approaches to teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 57(6), 769–785. Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of the research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 177–228. Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. V. (2004). Design effective instruction. New York, NY: Wiley. Kreber, C. (2010). Academics’ teacher identities, authenticity and pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 35(2), 171–194. Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 285–298. Mälkki, K., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2012). From reflection to action? Barriers and bridges between higher education teachers’ thoughts and actions. Studies in Higher Education, 37(1), 33–50. Mårtensson, K., Roxå, T., & Stensaker, B. (2014). From quality assurance to quality practices: An investigation of strong microcultures in teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 39(4), 534–545. McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Timmermans, J., Berthiaume, D., & Fairbank-Roch, G. (2006). Zones: Reconceptualizing teacher thinking in relation to action. Studies in Higher Education, 31(5), 601–615. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. O’Meara, K., Terosky, A. L., & Neumann, A. (2008). Faculty careers and work lives: A professional growth perspective (ASHE Higher Education Report, vol. 34, no. 3). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pataraia, N., Margaryan, A., Flaconer, I., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). How and what do academics learn through their personal networks. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 39(3), 336–357. Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. Pickering, A. M. (2006). Learning about university teaching: Reflections on a research study investigating influences for change. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 319–335.

Baker.indb 121

19-09-2019 15:20:37

122  

teaching and learning

Postareff, L., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2011). Emotions and confidence within teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 36(7), 799–813. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2009). Significant conversations and significant networks: Exploring the backstage of the teaching arena. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 547–559. Sadler, I. (2012). The challenges for new academics in adopting student-centred approaches to teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 37(6), 731–745. Saroyan, A., & Amundsen, C. (Eds.). (2004). Rethinking teaching in higher education: From a course design workshop to a faculty development framework. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Saroyan, A., Amundsen, C., & Cao, L. (1997). Incorporating theories of teacher growth and adult education in a faculty development program. In D. Dezure (Ed.), To improve the academy (Vol. 16, pp. 93–116). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London, UK: Temple Smith. Stes, A., Min-Leliveld, M., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). The impact of instructional development in higher education: The state-of-the-art of the research. Educational Research Review, 5, 25–49. Trowler, P. (2008). Cultures and change in higher education: Theories and practice. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739.

Baker.indb 122

19-09-2019 15:20:37

6 SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING AS A VEHICLE FOR THRIVING IN MID-CAREER Mike Pinter

A

s faculty move into the mid-career stage, they gradually develop an understanding of evolving expectations for their teaching, service,   and scholarship. These expectations manifest as both opportunities and challenges for professional growth and the development of agency, defined as individuals’ intentional will to direct their career trajectories. Some of the opportunities and challenges experienced at mid-career include rise in service and administrative work (Beauboeuf, Erickson, & Thomas, 2017); expanding interactions with a broader campus community; developing new skills, demeanors, and attitudes due to new roles in academic leadership; redefining what constitutes professional success (Mathews, 2014); refining constructive communication skills for multiple constituencies; facing high teaching loads at teaching-oriented institutions; and balancing loyalty to the discipline and to the department or institution (Baldwin, DeZure, Shaw, & Moretto, 2008). Mid-career faculty often face these challenges and opportunities with limited support for building their capacity to learn and meet new demands. As such, mid-career faculty report higher levels of career and advancement dissatisfaction, especially for those who remain at the rank of associate professor for longer periods of time (Mathews, 2014). One role linked to advancement—that of scholarly productivity—remains a concern for mid-career faculty because their new roles and demands often pull them away from their scholarly learning and pursuits (Neumann & Terosky, 2007). No wonder that the swirl of professional and personal opportunities 123

Baker.indb 123

19-09-2019 15:20:37

124  

teaching and learning

and challenges facing the mid-career stage can be viewed as a daunting time to remain active in scholarship. With these challenges in mind, this chapter outlines the goals, services, and outcomes of a faculty development program at Belmont University that supports faculty in integrating their teaching and their scholarship through the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL).

Context: Belmont University and Boyer’s Framework for Scholarship Belmont University is a comprehensive university with over 7,700 students, including almost 6,300 undergraduates (Belmont University, 2016). Like its sister institutions in the New American Colleges and Universities consortium, Belmont has a rich mix of liberal arts and professional education programs. Undergraduate offerings span the range of programs in arts and sciences typically available at comprehensive universities, with additional large programs in commercial music, the entertainment and music business, and nursing. Most students in master’s and doctoral programs study law, pharmacy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, nursing, education, music, or business (with a few other smaller graduate programs). For undergraduate faculty, the standard teaching load is 24 semester hours total for fall and spring semesters combined; courses taught in the summer or during a 3-week May semester are in addition to the standard load. Graduate faculty have a similar teaching load. Given the emphasis on teaching and the subsequent heavy teaching loads for faculty members at Belmont, combined with the range of general challenges described previously, a concern among faculty members and other stakeholders is the challenge to uphold traditional disciplinary scholarship at a level leading to peer-reviewed expositions and publications. Carlson, Quigley, Richardson, Salomon, and Schneller (2015) describe an alternative approach to scholarship and its evaluation for faculty members at institutions similar to Belmont; instead of viewing scholarship singularly as a continuous buildup from early career disciplinary research, scholarship is considered robustly with more than one channel available for development and pursuit. Belmont’s pre-tenured faculty members are typically encouraged to translate their dissertation work into corresponding scholarship publications. For many pre-tenured faculty members at Belmont, this may serve as a successful strategy to meet the scholarship requirements for tenure and initial promotion. For the majority of faculty members (especially in undergraduate programs that provide a large amount of general education courses relative

Baker.indb 124

19-09-2019 15:20:37

scholarship of teaching and learning mid-career  

125

to their overall course offerings), by the time they are tenured they are far enough removed from their doctoral work that they need a new avenue for potential scholarship. At Belmont, Boyer’s (1990) framework for scholarship is accepted and encouraged in tenure and promotion and annual reviews, and therefore can serve as a possible avenue for scholarly productivity. Boyer (1990) makes the case that the framework for scholarship should be expanded so that it more accurately addresses the variety of constructs in which we develop knowledge—namely, through traditional disciplinary research (the scholarship of discovery), synthesis (the scholarship of integration), practice (the scholarship of application), and teaching (the scholarship of teaching). The Boyer (1990) model for scholarship is relevant for mid-career faculty members, especially at teaching-centered institutions, with its inclusion of the scholarships of integration, application, and teaching in addition to the scholarship of discovery. Eventually Boyer’s phrase “scholarship of teaching” was expanded to SoTL. Chick (n.d.) notes that SoTL includes asking and answering questions about student learning and associated teaching actions, gathering and analyzing evidence to support the answers, and sharing the results for peer input and feedback. The overall intent is for better student learning to result from more effective teaching practices. Belmont’s Teaching Center’s mission and expertise lead institutional efforts in supporting SoTL.

SoTL Support at Belmont University The philosophy of Belmont’s overall scholarship framework follows an integrative model in that the lines between the scholarships of integration and application and SoTL blur. This intentional approach to scholarship with overlapping category boundaries offers many opportunities that flow in and out of a workload that is focused heavily on teaching. In that regard, the specific distinctions between the scholarships of integration and application and SoTL are less important than faculty awareness that all of these scholarship forms present viable opportunities for actively engaging in scholarship of some stripe. Therefore, for the purposes of this chapter, I follow a very broad view of SoTL to include most scholarship that falls outside of the scholarship of discovery. In order to help faculty imagine how their primary interest in teaching and learning can be directly connected to scholarship, we intentionally use SoTL language and models that feel attainable to faculty. For example, we reference the following phrasing that was once posted on a 2013 Georgia Southern University website:

Baker.indb 125

19-09-2019 15:20:37

126  

teaching and learning

Teaching can always become more effective and learning more significant and enduring. Growth in students and their learning is the life-juice of being a teacher. SoTL can stimulate those juices to flow in innovative, effective, and reflective ways. SoTL is not only the engagement by individuals in vigorous research on teaching and making that research public in building a body of knowledge, but also an attitude and a way of thinking about teaching. SoTL emphasizes that teaching is serious intellectual activity that can be both deeply personal and highly collegial. SoTL, as understood in an expansive sense, is perhaps the best way to improve teaching for student understanding.

That is a lofty claim, yet it is not only possible but, when done well, also probable. In that vein, we routinely describe SoTL very broadly instead of jumping immediately to peer-reviewed publications. Given the career timing challenges, opportunities, and constraints described earlier, we observe that Belmont faculty often initially turn their focused attention on SoTL as they move into mid-career. Ideally, our early career faculty develop at least a basic understanding of SoTL language, frameworks, and opportunities even if they are successfully producing scholarship within their discipline. With such a basic understanding, their transition to mid-career (and, for many, the concurrent “drying up” of scholarship leading to publication within the discipline) can include a smoother shift toward SoTL. Through our Teaching Center’s SoTL programs and activities, we encourage and support a model of faculty thriving in their overall work. To that end, we argue that faculty who can find meaningful integration of their teaching, scholarship, and service—as opposed to having a teaching silo, a scholarship silo, and a service silo—are more likely to thrive over the arc of a career. SoTL offers an integrating factor, especially for teaching and scholarship, which provides rich professional outlets and opportunities that can extend throughout a career. For mid-career faculty in particular, we want to support their efforts to develop agency around a personal program of scholarship connected to their teaching and its integrations that can eventually lead to presentations and publications. In the next section, I describe programs and activities at Belmont that support building faculty agency in scholarship that differs from traditional research—namely, the various forms of SoTL. Although this chapter focuses on mid-career faculty, for the most part, the activities that will be described are presented as opportunities to engage with SoTL for faculty at all career stages. Faculty beyond mid-career who are new to SoTL often find the opportunity to remain vital in their teaching and professional work. Latecareer faculty may be able to use SoTL as a vehicle for passing along some of

Baker.indb 126

19-09-2019 15:20:37

scholarship of teaching and learning mid-career  

127

their accumulated experience and lessons learned on campus and in external venues. Scholarship requirements at Belmont were recently spelled out in more detail in the faculty handbook in regard to tenure and promotion expectations, including an expectation of publications. Consequently, the Teaching Center increased its offerings associated with SoTL. In this section, I will provide an overview of Teaching Center programs at Belmont that encourage, promote, facilitate, and support SoTL as a vehicle for faculty to thrive in mid-career and beyond. For each program I will discuss the problem being addressed, associated program goals, outcomes, and assessments. Afterward, I will describe the impact on mid-career agency for faculty.

Faculty Writing Groups Finding time for scholarly writing amid heavy semester teaching loads and the continued expectation of highly effective learning outcomes for students is a problem that was identified by frequent feedback from faculty. Several faculty members requested assistance from the Teaching Center to find others who could help with motivation and accountability related to writing. Consequently, to help with support, community, accountability, and camaraderie, the Teaching Center formed writing groups for interested faculty members to pursue SoTL or other forms of scholarship. Faculty members were invited to participate in a writing group either of their own formation or to be grouped by the Teaching Center with other faculty. As a direct result of our invitation, nine faculty writing groups were formed from summer 2015 to fall 2016. In addition to the invitation and the offer of assistance in forming a writing group, the only other specific resource the Teaching Center supplied was one hard copy of Belcher’s (2012) Writing Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success for each group. The Teaching Center helped locate meeting space if requested, although most groups were readily able to arrange a convenient venue on their own. The Teaching Center did not provide specific leadership support for groups. For each group, the Teaching Center identified one person who served as a liaison to the Teaching Center for continued communication and so that additional support could be provided as needed. Three of the nine groups were formed with Teaching Center assistance (usually with a focus on SoTL), whereas the others formed on their own. Some groups organized within academic units (e.g., pharmacy and education) whereas other groups formed around a theme or connecting point that included faculty from a variety of academic areas within a single group (e.g., minority faculty, cooking and gardening lessons and activities

Baker.indb 127

19-09-2019 15:20:38

128  

teaching and learning

embedded in precollege and college courses, interprofessional education in health-related fields). Although faculty members who have participated in these writing groups range from pre-tenure to full professors, 25 of the 35 to 40 faculty participants are in mid-career or on the cusp of mid-career. Group sizes have ranged from 4 to 8. There has been sufficient interest to form several groups each year, mostly for the May session and summer session but a few during regular semesters. The initial commitment by group members is for the summer or the fall semester (depending on when they begin). Some of the groups continue to work together for an additional semester or more after their initial commitment to each other. The outcomes of the faculty writing groups have had an overall positive impact on the mid-career faculty who participated, according to informal surveys of group members by the Teaching Center and follow-up conversations with individual faculty members. For example, the Teaching Center formed one of our most successful writing groups and included faculty members from chemistry working with colleagues in English and religion, for a total of six members. One of the faculty members is not on a tenure track but might be considered in mid-career. Three of the faculty members are moving toward application for tenure. A mid-career group member who is tenured but was not yet promoted to full professor at the time the group formed benefited within the group both from writing up some of her own scholarship and mentoring pre-tenure colleagues in their scholarly writing; group participation helped her to complete a manuscript that was accepted for publication and became part of her promotion portfolio, resulting in promotion to full professor. Within the first six to eight months of the group working together, all faculty in the group had concrete outcomes such as conference presentations, submitted manuscripts, and a variety of other similar works in progress. Two of the group members also turned their efforts into a conference presentation about the writing group experience (Rigsby & Garrett, 2016). The abstract for the presentation included the following statement: “Members unanimously agreed that they would not have been as productive without the support of the group, which fostered a positive environment in which faculty could effectively move forward in their scholarship.” An important element for the success of this particular group was the organization and leadership provided by the mid-career faculty member; she was able to provide direct support for her pre-tenure departmental colleagues in the group as well as a clear focus and sense of purpose for the group overall. In general, based on responses to surveys of each group, after a summer or semester together, writing groups that were successful had someone serving as a group leader. The Teaching Center does not have the human resources to provide a leader or facilitator for each group, which creates both a challenge

Baker.indb 128

19-09-2019 15:20:38

scholarship of teaching and learning mid-career  

129

within each group and an opportunity for group members to develop those skills.

Sabbatical Support Sabbatical opportunities are available to Belmont faculty after seven years of full-time teaching, with eligibility for an additional sabbatical after another seven years of service. For a variety of reasons, many faculty members do not pursue a sabbatical when they initially become eligible. Informal one-on-one faculty consultations and conversations at Teaching Center event venues, as well as observations of mid-career faculty who had never applied for sabbatical, identify one obstacle to applying for a sabbatical—faculty uncertainty about a potential scholarship topic. Multiple mid-career faculty voiced some version of “I can’t think of anything I would do for a sabbatical.” When coupled with the incorrect sense that preparing a sabbatical proposal is an onerous task (on the scale of a tenure and promotion application), this has led to many mid-career faculty members opting out of a sabbatical by default, thereby negating an opportunity for concentrated scholarly work. The Teaching Center has long taken on the informal role of encouraging faculty members to apply for sabbatical when they become eligible. More recently, we became more intentional about addressing the obstacle of uncertainty by providing events for faculty to imagine SoTL as among the potential topics for a sabbatical project. On more than one occasion, the director and other Teaching Center representatives have served informally as sabbatical mentors for mid-career colleagues who have been reluctant to develop sabbatical proposals; often this mentoring role included portraying how SoTL might be an especially good sabbatical option. In order to reach as many faculty members as possible, the Teaching Center is now offering an ongoing series of events (e.g., lunch discussions, short workshop sessions) devoted specifically to encouraging faculty members from across campus to view a sabbatical as an important component of their continuing scholarly learning and productivity. Over the course of a recent 12-month period, we offered events entitled “Beyond Rest: A Sabbatical as Part of Faculty Professional Development,” “Planning and Preparing for a Sabbatical,” and “Post-Sabbatical: Now What?” For each of these events, we included faculty panelists situated in their mid-late careers who described their experience with the proposal process and/or the value of a sabbatical in their professional development, with a slightly different focus for each event. In addition, we also invited 12 associate deans from across all academic units to an informal conversation that included the associate provost for academic affairs. In this conversation, we encouraged the associate deans—working

Baker.indb 129

19-09-2019 15:20:38

130  

teaching and learning

with the dean and department chairs in their individual areas—to take an active role in promoting, encouraging, and supporting sabbaticals for faculty. Although attendance at these events was typically pretty small compared to other Teaching Center events (around a dozen faculty), the discussion was focused and very fruitful for faculty who participated. In addition to information obtained, faculty who came to the sessions also gained direct contact with potential faculty mentors. We are aware of half a dozen faculty participants who had been on the fence about applying for a sabbatical or were not even seriously considering one but have now applied for a sabbatical or are making plans to do so in the near future.

Support for Faculty Who Teach General Education Courses The Belmont general education program includes undergraduate courses (typically nonmajor courses) required of all majors, including courses from writing and literature, communication studies, mathematics, religion, social and natural sciences, and humanities. In addition, Belmont has signature general education courses that all undergraduates are required to complete: the First-Year Seminar with a broad focus on ways of knowing and taught by faculty from throughout the university; linked learning community courses in which a single group of students takes two courses together, from different disciplines, in the same semester with two faculty who work with each other; and the Junior Cornerstone Seminar, which is taught from the faculty member’s discipline. For faculty who routinely teach general education courses, there is often a perceived problem that teaching such courses impedes time and potential for scholarship. The Teaching Center sees in this problem an opportunity to promote SoTL as a viable means of scholarship that arises from general education courses. Because virtually all faculty members in programs that supply general education courses typically teach such courses, this issue is pertinent for many of our undergraduate midcareer faculty. In recent years, the Teaching Center and the Office of General Education have coordinated workshop offerings in May, the week after spring semester commencement. We spread the workshop sessions across two days, with Teaching Center workshops offered at times that allow general education faculty members to participate in both Teaching Center and general education workshop sessions. The Teaching Center sessions typically have a SoTL connection of some kind for all participants, with an overt suggestion for general education faculty to consider SoTL potential. With heavy time demands for teaching during the fall and spring semesters, many faculty members are most able to have concentrated time for scholarship during the

Baker.indb 130

19-09-2019 15:20:38

scholarship of teaching and learning mid-career  

131

summer months. With that in mind, the May workshop setting seems to be one of the best times for encouraging and supporting faculty SoTL work. Some of the May Teaching Center workshop sessions have a clear SoTL emphasis. For example, sessions were titled “The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Planning for Presentations and Publication” (presented and facilitated by a panel of Belmont faculty members); “Beyond Best Practices: The Scholarship of Teaching & Learning 2.0” (presented by Nancy Chick); “Reacting to the Past: Role-Playing to Enhance Deep Learning” (Barnard College, n.d.; presented and facilitated by a Belmont faculty member); and “Team-Based Learning—Using a Flipped Classroom to Engage Students” (TBLC, n.d.; presented and facilitated by a Belmont faculty member). Although Reacting to the Past and Team-Based Learning are not tied to SoTL, any faculty member who incorporates elements of either pedagogy has a clear opportunity to build a SoTL project from their inquiry into the associated impacts on student learning. General education May faculty workshop sessions for our signature general education courses, identified earlier, are scheduled among and around the Teaching Center workshop sessions. In so doing, we encourage faculty members to consider their signature courses as rich with SoTL possibility. The following excerpt was used in the invitation for the general education workshop sessions: Developing these [signature] courses is a way to engage in creative course development for faculty, which may lead to opportunities in SoTL. We welcome all faculty to engage in a discussion about teaching/learning/scholarship and how to start incorporating this into their own work life.

As a result, a small but growing number of faculty members are generating SoTL projects from their signature general education courses (e.g., presentations at disciplinary conferences and teaching and learning conferences as well as publications in general SoTL journals or disciplinary journals with a pedagogy emphasis). For instance, four pairs of faculty members from a wide range of academic disciplines (most of whom are in mid-career or on the cusp of mid-career) who teach linked learning community courses have recently given presentations at teaching and learning conferences or submitted journal articles associated with their learning community courses. In addition to May workshop sessions that suggest SoTL can flow directly from general education courses, some of the recent Teaching Center fall or spring lunch discussions that are offered several times each semester have highlighted Belmont faculty members whose scholarship includes SoTL within general education teaching. Over the past two years, Belmont

Baker.indb 131

19-09-2019 15:20:38

132  

teaching and learning

faculty panelists have given presentations on their SoTL projects connected to general education courses within Teaching Center sessions entitled “Many Roads Lead to SoTL” and “Celebrating Innovative Teaching and Opportunities Through General Education.” The use of Belmont faculty for presenting such SoTL projects provides clear role models of SoTL possibilities for other faculty who teach general education courses. Most of the faculty panelists were either in mid-career or very close to it.

Teaching Center Events That Showcase Internal SoTL Engagement The events described earlier make specific connections between general education courses and the potential for SoTL. The Teaching Center also arranges for other workshop and lunch experiences that invite faculty members, undergraduate and graduate, to consider SoTL as part of their scholarship. Many Belmont faculty members, mid-career and otherwise, have a limited understanding of SoTL; consequently, they find it difficult to imagine SoTL as a possibility for their scholarship. Similar to the positive modeling for SoTL and general education courses previously described, by providing successful Belmont faculty SoTL outcomes from courses that are not part of the general education curriculum we aspire to help faculty from all academic areas see SoTL as a realistic option for themselves, too. The August Belmont Teaching Center workshops are one of the signature events offered by the center each academic year the week before fall semester classes begin. Some years we bring in an outside teaching and learning expert to lead and facilitate the workshops. When we do not have an outside expert for our August workshops, we instead showcase on-campus expertise (SoTL and otherwise) with sessions presented and facilitated by Belmont faculty and staff. These two days of workshops in August before the fall semester begins have the feel of a teaching and learning conference (and require a corresponding substantial amount of planning!). For a recent August workshop of this nature, the sessions presented by Belmont faculty included SoTL topics connected with syllabus design, effective discussions, flipping the classroom, and transdiscipline classroom swaps. Some of these sessions were related directly to applications of Belmont workshops led by outside experts, including “Developing an Inviting Syllabus and Strategies for an Effective First Day of Class,” from Ken Bain’s (2014) How to Foster Deep Learning, and “Good Faith Effort and Homework and Deepening Student Learning and Engagement Through Writing,” from Barbara Walvoord’s (2012) Teaching Well, Saving Time: How to Find What Really Works in Your Classroom. By applying teaching and learning concepts from previous workshops and communicating their classroom results, the presenters were

Baker.indb 132

19-09-2019 15:20:38

scholarship of teaching and learning mid-career  

133

modeling one avenue to SoTL. The session presenters shared their involvement with SoTL for their own scholarly and teaching purposes; participants were engaged with applications that could help to germinate SoTL project ideas, typically small-scale. About half of the sessions with a strong SoTL component were led by faculty in mid-career. In a survey of workshop participants, we received extremely positive and enthusiastic responses that included statements of intent to take first steps toward SoTL. The small-scale nature of many of the SoTL ideas presented helped faculty feel that SoTL is also doable for them. Two recent in-semester Teaching Center lunch discussions entitled “Opportunities for Participating in Belmont Faculty Scholar Communities” and “Learning From Our Teaching Mistakes: Teaching With a Growth Mindset” included presentations by a mix of undergraduate and graduate faculty members who described how they collaborated with colleagues on SoTL projects. The faculty scholar communities typically comprise faculty from a range of disciplines and at various career stages. The growth mind-set concept (Dweck, 2006) suggests that humans learn by taking appropriate risks, which sometimes result in failure, and then responding constructively to failure by adjusting and trying again. For our lunch discussion, we applied the mindset notion and research to the professional development of faculty members. Yet again, these lunch discussions provided a model of Belmont faculty members who are doing SoTL as a component of their overall scholarship. For the past two years, the Teaching Center has included a day for the Belmont Faculty SoTL Showcase as part of the May workshop offerings with general education, described in the previous section. As with other workshop and lunch discussion presentations by Belmont faculty regarding their SoTL projects that have been described herein, one intent of the SoTL Showcase is for faculty members to be nudged to develop ideas for individual or collaborative SoTL projects by seeing what their peers are doing in that regard. We invited all Belmont faculty to submit proposals. Faculty representatives of the Teaching Center who are familiar with SoTL peer-reviewed proposals for acceptance. For each of the 2 May SoTL Showcases, the 25 presenters included faculty members at all career stages; approximately two-thirds of the presenters each year were in or near mid-career. Several presentations included mid-career faculty members collaborating with 1 or more early career and senior colleagues. Faculty members from 7 of the 9 colleges in the university gave presentations, with graduate faculty members comprising about one-fourth of the presenters. Over 60% of the showcase presenters were female faculty members. Although we have yet to explore this more generally, it at least prompts the question of Belmont faculty SoTL involvement by gender.

Baker.indb 133

19-09-2019 15:20:38

134  

teaching and learning

Overall, based on informal conversations and feedback, the SoTL Showcase was determined to be a significant success for presenters and participants alike. Although some presenters used the showcase to share SoTL projects they had already developed into off-campus presentations or manuscript submissions, other presenters seized the opportunity to initially develop an idea that they later further developed and submitted for a teaching and learning conference presentation.

Organizing and Supporting Travel Groups for SoTL Conferences Many Belmont faculty members, at all career stages, have limited understanding of and minimal experience with SoTL. As an impetus to help address this problem, the Teaching Center regularly identifies and provides information about teaching and learning conferences of potential interest. In recent years, the Teaching Center has also organized and supported groups of faculty members to travel together to teaching and learning conferences, often with SoTL elements. A faculty member who has not previously attended such a conference is encouraged to participate in the conference without feeling the need to submit a presentation proposal. This often applies to faculty who are in or near mid-career because they have given their attention (and travel funds) to conferences specific to their academic discipline. In addition to experiencing firsthand a cross-disciplinary conference with a teaching and learning emphasis, faculty members also see campus colleagues in the SoTL context and benefit from the community-building that occurs at the conference. Because geographic proximity allows us to drive and ride together, the Teaching Center organizes annual travel for faculty groups to attend the Lilly Conference on College Teaching in Oxford, Ohio, and Asheville, North Carolina. In recent years, we typically have 10 to 15 faculty who participate in the Oxford Lilly Conference. When the Teaching Professor Conference is within driving distance from Belmont, we also organize travel groups for it. We also consider the potential for a travel group to other teaching and learning conferences that are within driving distance. In particular for the Lilly Conferences, our steady and regular participation has also improved success with presentation proposal acceptances. Over the 5 most recent Oxford Lilly Conferences, Belmont faculty have given 23 paper and poster presentations, including as many as 7 presentations at a conference during a particular year. Some of the presentations were given by faculty who have developed an ongoing SoTL series of projects and who repeatedly present at the Lilly Conference. Other faculty who are new to SoTL have developed their first SoTL presentation for a Lilly Conference. The faculty

Baker.indb 134

19-09-2019 15:20:38

scholarship of teaching and learning mid-career  

135

presenters range from pre-tenure to late career, including many who are in mid-career. Some of the presentations are developed further to result in manuscripts submitted to SoTL journals. To encourage and support travel to a wide variety of teaching and learning conferences, and the resulting SoTL exposure and opportunities for faculty members, the Teaching Center has a pool of funds distributed as travel grants on a competitive basis to faculty members. Early in the fall semester and again in the spring semester, faculty are invited to submit a brief proposal for travel grant support. Faculty on the Teaching Center Advisory Board (whose membership comprises exactly one representative from each college) review the proposals and determine travel grant recipients. For some grant recipients, especially those in early or mid-career, a travel grant allows them to experience a SoTL conference setting for the first time. In addition to helping with funding, the travel grant process helps faculty to become aware of teaching and learning conferences and to articulate for themselves and peers how their participation in such conferences benefits their teaching and Belmont student learning. In addition to conference presentations and funding support for travel­ ing to teaching and learning conferences as outcomes, we also invite faculty who participate in teaching and learning conferences to write a brief reflection on the experience. For the majority of Belmont faculty who participate (including a mix of faculty who are in or near mid-career and others who are in the latter parts of their careers), such a conference allows them to continue their SoTL work in the form of a conference presentation. Over the most recent three years, of the five faculty who were invited to join a conference travel group and were not presenting (these five were pre-tenure or mid-career), three followed their conference attendance with a conference presentation the following year and the other two are developing ideas for a similar conference proposal. Based on feedback received from Belmont faculty participants via informal surveys, individual conversations during and after teaching and learning conferences, and faculty who self-report to the Teaching Center on their SoTL activities, virtually all who have attended such a conference express an increased understanding of SoTL and a boost in confidence that they can also produce SoTL. Faculty reflections are shared, informally and through blog posts, with other faculty who have not yet attended a SoTL conference.

Faculty Reading Groups As the size of our Belmont student body and faculty group have grown rapidly (more than double over the past 15 years), opportunities for informal

Baker.indb 135

19-09-2019 15:20:38

136  

teaching and learning

faculty interaction across disciplinary boundaries have become more important as a means of building community. Many faculty members express concern about their limited time to interact with colleagues across campus. To support faculty in this regard while also helping faculty explore literature on teaching and learning, the Teaching Center offers a variety of faculty reading groups. Every summer many of our faculty and a few staff participate in small reading groups. In recent years, around 10 groups (each with 6 to 8 members) have formed and met each summer. In a typical summer, approximately one-third of the participants are faculty members in or near mid-career; other group members include new faculty, faculty who are already promoted to full professor, part-time faculty, and a variety of academic staff. The book offerings always include several with a teaching and learning focus; for example, recent summer groups read works by Bain (2004, 2012), Carnes (2014), Cavanagh (2016), McGuire (2015), and Ross (2014). Although the summer reading groups have been helpful for some faculty members in terms of teaching and learning ideas and, to a lesser extent, SoTL, the time gap from a summer reading group to the beginning of fall semester diminished the likelihood that ideas from the books and group conversations would be directly applied in course structures and the classroom. Two years ago the Teaching Center began offering in-semester reading groups in an attempt to increase the direct connection for faculty from readings on teaching and learning to real-time application in courses. We refer to them as BeATLe groups (Belmont Applied Teaching and Learning). The primary goal is for group participants to connect and apply ideas from the semester’s book to their teaching and classrooms during the semester. Faculty participants are also encouraged to connect a SoTL project to the reading and corresponding implementation. We view the BeATLe groups as generally successful for the first few semesters offered. We used books by Bowen (2012); Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel (2014); Dweck (2006); and Lang (2016), and we will continue to invite faculty into BeATLe groups for upcoming semesters. Three of the 14 total groups were formed within a specific department to serve as a vehicle for the department to talk about current approaches to teaching and learning. The remainder of the groups included faculty members from multiple, and typically unrelated, departments. A few of the groups fizzled soon after forming for reasons that are unclear to us. Each group is requested to submit a brief report of its work together at the end of the semester. Unfortunately, getting groups to submit a report has been challenging, with only half of the groups sharing a report with the Teaching Center. Nonetheless, based on the group reports received, informal surveys of BeATLe group members,

Baker.indb 136

19-09-2019 15:20:38

scholarship of teaching and learning mid-career  

137

and conversations with group facilitators, we were able to verify that in half of the groups each member applied at least one specific teaching and learning idea from the reading to their courses during the semester they read a book together or planned to apply at least one idea the following semester. Although it is too soon to know how many individual faculty or groups will use a BeATLe group as a springboard for a SoTL project, we view the current level of active involvement as a springboard from which to build. Because the groups are still relatively new, we will follow up with participants in an effort to nudge some of them to take a next step of pursuing a SoTL project.

Agency for Mid-Career Faculty Faculty writing groups, support for sabbaticals and for faculty who teach general education courses, SoTL Showcases, travel to SoTL conferences, and faculty reading groups contribute to agency for our mid-career faculty and for pre-tenured faculty as they approach mid-career. Writing group members cited the accountability to each other and the front-end time commitment for a summer or a semester as positive influences for some participants who had previously struggled to complete scholarly writing projects, especially projects that incorporated SoTL. One reason Belmont faculty members participate in reading groups is to enjoy community and build a social network with campus peers. For the reading groups that directly explore teaching and learning, when SoTL project ideas are a concrete outcome for a reading group, the sense of community contributes to faculty agency in moving forward to pursue such ideas because that concept carries a structure for input, feedback, and time accountability. The modeling of fruitful SoTL work via Belmont faculty panels and faculty showcases is an important component of our ongoing efforts to develop agency for pursuing SoTL among our mid-career faculty and faculty in general. The panels and showcases provide mid-career faculty presenters a venue to share their SoTL work and ideas, from very early stages of development, with campus colleagues. For faculty who attended but did not present, the panels and showcases gave clear models of SoTL success that they could adapt for their own courses and possible SoTL ideas. In addition to the benefit for the faculty member who pursues a SoTL project, the SoTL conversation that energizes the broader conversation about student learning in our courses is another positive institutional outcome. After several of the internal presentations by faculty who were fairly new to SoTL, I personally approached the presenters and suggested they submit their work as a teaching and learning conference presentation. I also invited some other presenters to travel with our Belmont faculty

Baker.indb 137

19-09-2019 15:20:38

138  

teaching and learning

group to a Lilly Conference on College and University Teaching. In three or four cases of which I’m aware, the suggestion or invitation has led to conference proposals and presentations as well as interest in SoTL conferences. In a similar vein, the articulation of connections between teaching courses for general education and doing SoTL has had as one outcome a growing number of faculty who have developed related SoTL presentations and publications. Faculty reflections on, and colleague-to-colleague conversations about, participating in SoTL conferences with other Belmont faculty members led to increased SoTL understanding and confidence; in turn, early and mid-career faculty identify an option available to them for getting a start with SoTL. As a consequence, we are gradually building a stronger SoTL culture among faculty. We have seen that more detailed knowledge of sabbatical processes and expectations have clarified for mid-career faculty the role of a sabbatical experience in their scholarly output and their overall professional development. From informal conversations after the sessions and feedback about the sessions, we note that more mid-career faculty members are taking the initiative to explore their sabbatical options. In some academic departments, that includes a planning conversation about timing sabbaticals for multiple faculty members to reduce competition. Consequently, our mid-career faculty are assuming increased agency for sabbatical planning, including the potential for SoTL, as part of their continued development.

Some Lessons Learned These programs do not always reach mid-career faculty on the level hoped for. For some programs or events, mid-career faculty may participate but not gain a strong sense of agency from their involvement. One lesson learned is to experiment with calendar timing, frequency, format, and the invitation language associated with events that are intended to serve mid-career faculty. For example, the BeATLe groups were developed as an experimental variation on reading groups with a specific goal to increase faculty agency for SoTL; we continue to experiment with the groups, asking questions such as the following: How many should we offer each semester? What book(s) might work best for this format? What action from the Teaching Center would nudge participants to pursue a SoTL project? With a very limited overall operating Teaching Center budget, we have learned to be as strategic as possible with use of funds to support SoTL efforts. We look for opportunities to leverage our impact by partnering with other campus groups (e.g., the Office of General Education).

Baker.indb 138

19-09-2019 15:20:38

scholarship of teaching and learning mid-career  

139

A second very important lesson we have learned about Belmont faculty and SoTL is that simply telling faculty that they should or could do SoTL often proves unsuccessful. Faculty gain no sense of agency from such telling. Instead, we have seen that our faculty need the opportunity, structure, and support to gradually move into an understanding of and experience with SoTL; this gradual movement is not unlike the understanding and experience they developed with their academic discipline in graduate school, including a sense of scholarship within the discipline. Consequently, many faculty members seem to benefit initially from a book group on teaching and learning, attending a conference focused on teaching and learning, or seeing multiple small-scale examples of SoTL developed by Belmont peers. At Belmont, we have seen that providing a wide array of programs, events, and activities like the ones described in this chapter has a scaffolding effect for faculty agency in regard to SoTL. In hopes of encouraging as many mid-career faculty as possible to engage in SoTL, we gradually introduce pre-tenured faculty to SoTL ideas and opportunities. Instead of hearing something like “I need a SoTL publication for promotion to full professor. How do I do that?” from a mid-career faculty member who has no experience with SoTL, we aspire to help faculty members understand early in their careers that developing a potential pathway in SoTL is often a multiyear process. Over time, we are working to build a SoTL culture among our faculty that will feel as relevant and natural to them as their disciplinary culture.

Conclusion For most of our Belmont faculty members, as typical with faculty members at similar master’s-level institutions with a primary focus on teaching, SoTL offers an avenue for scholarship that is viable and sustainable for long-term success because it directly connects faculty scholarship with teaching. Given the time demands of heavy teaching loads, SoTL provides an opportunity to establish a link between faculty members’ primary focus on teaching and their scholarship. Also, a commitment to SoTL matches well with the teaching mission of the institution; the substantial investment in teaching expected from faculty can be a very useful bridge to scholarship, as well as interdisciplinary connections. One-on-one consultations with faculty members, observations of faculty who participate richly in the life of the institution, and frequent general conversations among groups of faculty members have demonstrated that Belmont faculty members who build strong institutional connections and commitments via SoTL (and other avenues) are more likely to thrive across a long career at Belmont with teaching at its heart.

Baker.indb 139

19-09-2019 15:20:38

140  

teaching and learning

For many of our faculty members, mid-career is an important time for them to further their understanding of and experience with SoTL. For some, beginning to take steps in this regard early in their careers moves to further fruition in mid-career. For other faculty, especially those who concentrated in early career on scholarship specifically associated with their academic disciplines, mid-career presents a challenge as they possibly struggle to imagine continued scholarship. In this case, faculty may make their first move toward SoTL out of necessity for further career development. We believe the variety of programs and experiences associated with SoTL that are described in this chapter can serve in part the continued professional development needs of mid-career faculty. Of course, mid-career faculty typically aspire to someday be late-career faculty. SoTL can be an important part of a vibrant teaching career from early in career, through mid-career, and on to the culmination of a long career.

References Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bain, K. (2012). What the best college students do. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Bain, K. (2014). How to foster deep learning. Nashville, TN: Belmont University Teaching Center Workshop. Baldwin, R., DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Moretto, K. (2008). Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(5), 46–55. Barnard College. (n.d.). Reacting to the Past. Retrieved from https://reacting.­barnard.edu/ Beauboeuf, T., Erickson, K., & Thomas, J. E. (2017, January). Rethinking the midcareer malaise: New lessons from post-tenure liberal arts faculty. Paper presented at the American Association of Colleges and Universities annual meeting, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/AM17/ Mid-Career%20Malaise%20PPT.pdf Belcher, W. (2012). Writing your journal article in 12 weeks: A guide to academic publishing success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Belmont University. (2016). Factbook. Retrieved from http://www.belmont.edu/ oair/factbook/ Bowen, J. (2012). Teaching naked: How moving technology out of your college classroom will improve student learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Enlarging the perspective. In Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate (chap. 2, pp. 15–25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L. III, & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Baker.indb 140

19-09-2019 15:20:38

scholarship of teaching and learning mid-career  

141

Carlson, J., Quigley, L., Richardson, N., Salomon, D., & Schneller, B. (2015). Changing faculty evaluation. In N. H. Hensel, L. Hunnicutt, & D. A. Salomon (Eds.), Redefining the paradigm: Faculty models to support student learning (pp. 39–58). Valparaiso, IN: New American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from http://newamericancolleges.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/redef1n1_ issue_low.pdf Carnes, M. (2014). Minds on fire: How role-immersion games transform college. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cavanagh, S. R. (2016). The spark of learning: Energizing the college classroom with the science of emotion. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press. Chick, N. (n.d.). SoTL: A guide from the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://sotl.ucalgaryblogs.ca/understandingsotl/a-scholarly-approach-to-teaching/ Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Lang, J. (2016). Small teaching: Everyday lessons from the science of learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mathews, K. (2014). Perspectives on midcareer faculty and advice for supporting them. Cambridge, MA: The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education. Retrieved from http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/kmathews/files/coache_ mathews_midcareerfaculty_20140721.pdf McGuire, S. (2015). Teach students how to learn: Strategies you can incorporate into any course to improve student metacognition, study skills, and motivation. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Neumann, A., & Terosky, A. L. (2007, May/June). To give and to receive: Recently tenured professors’ experiences of service in major research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 282–310. Rigsby, R., & Garrett, D. (2016). Encouraging scholarly productivity: Implementation of an inter-disciplinary writing group. Greeley, CO: Biennial Conference on Chemical Education. Ross, H. (2014). Everyday bias: Identifying and navigating unconscious judgments in our daily lives. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. TBLC. (n.d.). Team-Based Learning Collaborative. Retrieved from http://www.teambasedlearning.org/ Walvoord, B. (2012). Teaching well, saving time: How to find what really works in your classroom. Nashville, TN: Belmont University Teaching Center Workshop.

Baker.indb 141

19-09-2019 15:20:38

7 AT T R A C T I N G M I D - C A R E E R F A C U LT Y T O T E A C H I N F I R S T- Y E A R S T U D E N T LEARNING COMMUNITIES Hillary H. Steiner

M

id-career faculty who find themselves in a professional rut may be in a position to take advantage of institutional opportunities not prioritized during the tenure-seeking stage. These opportunities may include creating new pedagogies, collaborating with colleagues in other disciplines, and engaging in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). For faculty at research-focused institutions, the post-tenure stage may represent an opportunity to revisit teaching practices without as much competition from a heavy research load. However, even at teaching-focused institutions, the intense concentration required by the tenure and promotion process may prevent pre-tenure faculty from engaging in professional development and scholarly activities related to teaching (Austin, 2010). Thus, the post-tenure freedom to evolve and take risks in the classroom can arrive at just the right time for faculty seeking renewal. Teaching in a first-year student learning community is one opportunity that allows instructors to reimagine their pedagogical approaches through an interdisciplinary, scholarly lens. It is especially powerful when paired with targeted faculty development that leverages disciplinary expertise while providing faculty the skills to become self-reflective, integrative practitioners. This chapter will describe a learning community program at a large public university that has focused on faculty development as a means to attract outstanding faculty partners. As Beauboeuf, Erickson, and Thomas (2017) described in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association for American Colleges & Universities 142

Baker.indb 142

19-09-2019 15:20:38

attracting mid-career faculty to teach first-year lcs  

143

(AAC&U), there are various paths mid-career faculty may take post-tenure. From a developmental perspective, many of these faculty are experiencing a need to remain creative, productive, and relevant in their teaching. This can spark a desire to integrate the scholar and teacher identities better, especially for the type of professor termed the synergistic citizen (Beaubouef et al., 2017, slide 5). This individual possesses the self-reflection, interest, and agency to seek and choose opportunities that align with renewed career goals. Firstyear student learning communities, which involve linking general education courses from disparate disciplines through a common theme, can be one such initiative attractive to instructors who seek integration of their professional goals. Although models of student learning communities differ by institution, most involve a cohort of students enrolled in two or more concurrent classes in which the faculty have collaborated to address a theme, issue, or realworld problem. The courses’ curricula may be integrated to varying degrees, and there may be additional connections to residence halls, student affairs, or undergraduate research opportunities (Smith, MacGregor, Matthews, & Gabelnick, 2004). Traditionally, institutions offer learning communities for first-year students with the hope that students will continue to look for crossdisciplinary connections among their courses as they persist in their degree programs (Brownell & Swaner, 2010). AAC&U recommends learning communities as 1 of the 10 highimpact practices that research suggests make the greatest impact on student engagement and retention (Kuh, 2008). Learning communities benefit students by encouraging ­ relationship-building and integrative, critical thinking (Brownell & Swaner, 2010; Smith et al., 2004). They also serve faculty in many ways (Jedele, 2010). Interdisciplinary by nature, learning communities rely heavily on faculty collaboration and creativity. This interaction with colleagues from other disciplines allows faculty to try new pedagogical approaches and reimagine instructional goals in light of their colleagues’ differing perspectives. For mid-career faculty, learning communities offer a chance to try new pedagogies, collaborating with colleagues in other disciplines while finding renewed energy in the excitement of a student’s first year (Jedele, 2010). Faculty who have spent years teaching the same courses in the same way to upper-level students may find that working with first-year students in this interdisciplinary context provides a sense of revitalization and optimism during a time that might otherwise feel like an “associate professor slump” (Burgan, 2006, p. 138). Learning communities also can provide an outlet for engaging in teaching-related scholarship. In the learning communities field, systematic study of the impact of learning communities is valued and encouraged (Huntington,

Baker.indb 143

19-09-2019 15:20:38

144  

teaching and learning

2016). These attributes may appeal to mid-career faculty seeking a way to marry their teaching and scholarship goals. Although mid-career faculty can benefit from involvement in learning communities, students likewise gain from programs that attract mid-career faculty, as students enrolled in learning communities need the experience tenured faculty can provide. In institutions where first-year general education courses frequently are taught by graduate students or part-time instructors, learning communities led by mid-career faculty provide students unprecedented access to successful full-time faculty who can expose them to new opportunities such as undergraduate research (Smith et al., 2004). Finally, learning communities need tenured faculty to ensure that there is a committed cohort who can “carry the task of institution building and sustaining the long view” (Smith et al., 2004, p. 270), guaranteeing that learning community programs remain at the center of the institution’s culture. To encourage this symbiotic relationship, learning community programs that rely on faculty volunteers to propose and teach in learning communities must be prepared to attract and retain mid- and later-career faculty. Attracting talented faculty to learning community programs is where many institutions fall short. Because designing and teaching in an interdisciplinary first-year learning community often involves stepping outside one’s comfort zone, institutions must support this effort by providing faculty development that enables individuals to leverage their experience while attaining new knowledge and applying it to the practice of learning communities. Doing so helps give faculty a sense of agency in the pursuit of new, professionally interesting goals. As mentioned earlier, many mid-career faculty are at the ideal stage to take advantage of professional development opportunities that have valuable and practical relevance to their growth as teacher-scholars. Thus, mid-career faculty may be attracted to learning community programs that incorporate targeted faculty development. This chapter will provide an overview of Kennesaw State University’s (KSU’s) nationally recognized targeted faculty development program for instructors teaching in learning communities, which emphasizes the teaching-scholarship connection and includes a mini-grant program, workshops, one-on-one consultations, and an online course that has been expanded to include participants from other institutions. Finally, the chapter will discuss feedback from a faculty survey and focus group of mid-career faculty teaching in the Learning Communities Program at KSU.

Student Learning Communities at Kennesaw State University KSU has been recognized for many years by U.S. News and World Report (2017) for offering an exceptional first-year experience for students, of which

Baker.indb 144

19-09-2019 15:20:38

attracting mid-career faculty to teach first-year lcs  

145

the KSU Learning Communities Program, housed within the Department of First-Year and Transition Studies, is a part. However, the program has been successful while being entirely faculty-driven and very limited in funding. In part, this has been due to a committed group of interdisciplinary faculty, many in mid-career, who have embraced the learning community concept and helped market it to others interested in cross-disciplinary interaction. KSU is a large, comprehensive public university with 2 campuses located in the suburbs of Atlanta, Georgia. At KSU, all first-time, full-time students with less than 15 credit hours must meet a first-year requirement that involves registering for a first-year seminar or a learning community. The first-year seminar at KSU is a 3-credit-hour academic seminar that addresses life skills, strategies for academic success, foundations of global learning, and campus and community connections. Learning communities at KSU, many of which include first-year seminars, involve 2 to 4 courses that are linked through a theme. This theme may be major-specific, involve a special student population (e.g., student athletes or first-generation college students), or be of general interest. For example, one general-interest learning community on the history and culture of India combines a firstyear seminar, a general education sociology course, and a first-year course in Asian studies. The faculty who propose the learning community are responsible for developing the theme, structure, and integrative curriculum. Specifically, faculty teaching in learning communities are asked to collaborate prior to the beginning of the semester to build at least one integrative assignment and one out-of-class experience. Integrative assignments, which are a hallmark of many learning community programs (Lardner & Malnarich, 2008), involve cross-disciplinary course content and may be graded in one or multiple courses within the learning community. Learning communities faculty at KSU are uncompensated for the extra work that teaching in a learning community requires, so the program typically attracts faculty who appreciate its intangible benefits, many of which are linked to faculty development. This faculty development program is described in the next section.

Targeted Faculty Development in the KSU Learning Communities Program Faculty development is an important piece of any program involving a ­student-centered approach to learning, because many faculty have not been trained in how to use teaching techniques that encourage collaborative, active learning. Learning communities programs that incorporate faculty development tend to see positive results, particularly when these development opportunities are sustained throughout the semester rather than

Baker.indb 145

19-09-2019 15:20:38

146  

teaching and learning

presented in a one-and-done style (Graziano & Kahn, 2013). Additionally, faculty development is best when tied to relevant theory and scholarship. Lardner and Malnarich (2008) called for an approach to faculty development for learning communities that incorporates theories of teaching, learning, and student engagement. They recommended that institutions “notice what needs work, pay attention to research, try out new ways of working in the company of supportive peers, share insights, refine, and revise” (p. 36). At KSU, the Learning Communities Program has taken this approach with a multitiered faculty development program focused on applying research to practice. This was accomplished by hiring a temporary assistant director with professional interests in faculty development who, in partnership with the director of Learning Communities, created faculty development curricula for the Learning Communities Program. Currently, the director of Learning Communities partners with the institution’s Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) to continue the work that the assistant director began. To orient faculty to expectations of the Learning Communities Program, the program maintains a course site on our institution’s learning management system that houses a brief orientation video, essential documents, and links for submitting collaboration plans. Review and completion of these materials is the only activity that is required of learning communities instructors; all other development opportunities are optional. However, this initial orientation often sparks interest in the optional programs, in which many faculty choose to participate. These optional programs, which will be described in the following paragraphs, include workshops, individual consultations, and an online course that emphasizes SoTL. Several times throughout the academic year, the Learning Communities Program offers workshops on topics of interest to faculty. These may include topics like “Responding to Students in Crisis,” “Reaching Students Through Technology,” or “Busting Learning Myths.” These one- to twohour workshops are offered face-to-face and incorporate ample time for participant discussion. It is here that learning communities faculty often make the interdisciplinary connections that lead to new learning communities. The program’s best-attended workshop, “Building Integrative Assignments,” is offered in the spring and summer semesters. In this guided workshop, faculty teams work together to build integrative assignments using an adapted version of the protocol developed at Evergreen State College’s Washington Center (Malnarich & Lardner, 2003). This protocol uses a backward design method to encourage interdisciplinary thinking. First, faculty members work individually to brainstorm learning outcomes and goals for their courses. Next, they work with their learning community partners to identify areas

Baker.indb 146

19-09-2019 15:20:38

attracting mid-career faculty to teach first-year lcs  

147

where the goals intersect, paying attention to emerging themes. Finally, they build on these themes to create an assignment that crosses curricular boundaries. These workshops often lead to follow-up consultations with the Learning Communities Program director or CETL staff, who help faculty revise their assignments or plans for classroom assessment and research. Faculty then have the option of submitting a proposal for a mini-grant, which is described next. In lieu of offering incentives for all faculty teaching in learning communities, the KSU Learning Communities Program developed the minigrant program, which funds creative teaching ideas that support Learning Communities Program goals. Faculty propose an activity that involves integrative learning or an out-of-class experience and compete for one of several $500 grants to fund the activity. The amounts for mini-grant awards depend on budgetary allotments for the year, but our program seeks to award as many as possible. In fact, more than half of the Learning Communities budget for the year is devoted to this program. Many of our mid-career faculty have taken advantage of this opportunity to, in one surveyed faculty member’s words, “do something I’ve always wanted to do with my students but didn’t want to pay for myself.” For example, in one learning community for architecture majors, faculty members took their students on a tour of the key architectural sites of Atlanta, where they produced drawings of buildings they saw and created new drawings that improved upon existing structures. In another learning community with a global business theme, faculty and students visited an automobile manufacturing plant, where they met with executives to learn more about Korean-American business relationships. They followed this visit with a trip to a Korean restaurant, where many of the students tried authentic Korean food for the first time. Finally, a new addition to KSU’s faculty development program has allowed the program to expand our faculty development initiatives to include participants from other institutions. The Learning Communities Faculty Scholars (LCFS) course is an online course that promotes scholarly teaching and SoTL within the context of learning communities. It allows faculty to take a closer look at theory and literature that can directly influence learning community design and pedagogy. The course was originally designed for KSU learning communities faculty who were interested in diving deeper into the literature on learning communities and connecting that knowledge to scholarship (Steiner, 2016), but based on interest from other institutions, the course was expanded to include paying participants external to KSU. The LCFS course responds to a need in the learning communities field for more effective, short-term faculty development programming. Six weeks in length, the course uses current literature, short videos, active learning

Baker.indb 147

19-09-2019 15:20:39

148  

teaching and learning

strategies, and discussion boards to enable faculty from diverse disciplines and institutions to learn and exchange ideas about applying theory to practice. In the first 2 sessions of the course, 50 participants from 14 institutions around the country studied research on student learning and development, effective learning community practices, and integrative assignments. The course concluded with a module focused on generating ideas for SoTL projects that could contribute further to the literature on learning communities. This course has been one of KSU’s most successful faculty development programs to date, with 100% of participants indicating that they would recommend the course to colleagues. This amalgam of programs for faculty has as its goal the recruitment and retention of high-achieving faculty who will provide an excellent experience for students through designing and teaching in learning communities. However, another important goal of these programs is the development of the faculty members themselves. We hope that by connecting faculty development to the practice of teaching in learning communities, we are encouraging them to refine their identity as “scholarly teachers” (Richlin, 2001) who possess the motivation and agency to choose activities that align with their larger professional goals. Ideally, participating faculty will recognize the ways their scholarly and pedagogical goals intersect, and will continue to pursue opportunities that allow them to put these goals into practice. The next section of this chapter will describe the lessons learned from our practice of targeted faculty development, including the response of mid-career faculty to teaching in the Learning Communities Program.

Lessons Learned To better understand how teaching in learning communities and participating in the associated faculty development impacted faculty, we distributed an anonymous online survey to all faculty who participated in the KSU Learning Communities Program in fall 2016. This survey, which included Likert-scale and open-ended questions, asked faculty to respond to questions about their experiences with the Learning Communities Program. Additionally, we met with a focus group of five mid-career faculty to learn from their particular perspectives on targeted faculty development and the Learning Communities Program. The findings from the survey and focus group are described next. Forty-seven responses to the survey were collected, which represented approximately 56% of learning communities faculty. Of those responses, 78% were returning faculty who had previously taught in the program, and

Baker.indb 148

19-09-2019 15:20:39

attracting mid-career faculty to teach first-year lcs  

149

30% held a rank of tenured associate professor or professor. An additional 20% held the nontenure-track position of lecturer or senior lecturer but considered themselves to be at the mid-career stage. Satisfaction with teaching in the program was generally high; all but 3 of the 47 faculty members who responded to the survey indicated they would recommend teaching in the learning communities program to other instructors. When asked about the primary reason they chose to teach in a learning community, approximately 30% were attracted to the opportunity to incorporate an interdisciplinary theme into their courses. Another 22% were interested in working with first-year students, and 10% were drawn to working with faculty in other disciplines. Faculty developers designing programs for learning communities faculty might consider surveying their faculty in order to tailor their programs to faculty interests. At KSU, our focus on interdisciplinary learning in the first year of college has attracted many faculty to the Learning Communities Program. Therefore, the programming emphasized topics like designing an interdisciplinary learning community and understanding the transition from high school to college. Finally, 27% of faculty who responded to the survey indicated that they were assigned to teach in a learning community by their supervisors. This highlights a consistency problem that may need to be addressed in the future. At KSU, we intend for learning communities to be faculty driven— proposed and designed by the faculty who teach in them. However, a few departments on campus have chosen a top-down approach to learning communities, in which department chairs design the learning communities, and instructors are assigned to them. Although we have not formally studied the differences between the two groups of instructors, anecdotally we have found that instructors who did not participate in the design and proposal of the learning community are much more dissatisfied with the Learning Communities Program and more reluctant to participate in faculty development. Institutions may want to consider issues of agency and control when designing learning communities programs. Although a top-down approach may be easier to administrate, a grassroots, bottom-up approach where faculty control the learning communities that are offered may be best for cultivating a committed group of motivated faculty. Regarding faculty development, 90% of faculty in our survey indicated they had participated in at least one of the voluntary faculty development initiatives, including workshops, consultations, and the online course, and 92% of those faculty were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the programming. When asked how we might improve faculty development programming, many described issues with location and timing, asking us to “vary the days and times of [workshops]” to accommodate those who teach in the

Baker.indb 149

19-09-2019 15:20:39

150  

teaching and learning

evenings and “to have more [workshops] on the Marietta campus.” To this end, we plan to offer more online programming in the future, including webinars and additional online courses, which will provide more flexibility to busy faculty members. To better understand the specific needs of mid-career faculty teaching in learning communities, we asked all learning communities faculty members who identified as being in mid-career to indicate their interest in participating in a focus group session. Five faculty members from the engineering, business, and English fields agreed to attend our focus group session, which was split in two to accommodate KSU’s two campuses. To encourage openended discussion, a handful of questions were asked: 1. What drew you to teaching in a learning community at this point in your career? 2. How big of a role does faculty development play at this point in your career? 3. Did you participate in any of the Learning Communities Program faculty development initiatives, and if so, how did they influence your teaching? 4. What are your suggestions for encouraging more mid-career faculty to teach in learning communities?

A theme emerged in our conversation that was somewhat surprising: The mid-career faculty in our focus group saw enormous benefits in learning communities and the associated faculty development initiatives, but some worried that the institution did not always value this participation, which took considerable time and effort. This represents an important challenge for institutions. If we are to encourage faculty to participate in high-impact practices like learning communities, we must also communicate that these practices have value for the faculty as well.

The Appeal of Learning Communities for Mid-Career Faculty Our findings from the focus group of mid-career faculty were consistent with our findings from the survey of all learning communities faculty and illustrate our anecdotal experiences. Mid-career faculty are attracted to learning communities because they represent a way to engage with first-year students in a fresh, exciting, interdisciplinary way. Our focus group members saw participation in learning communities as a way to stand out among their peers and build relationships with colleagues from diverse disciplines. However, this excitement was moderated by a tentativeness regarding how their participation in learning communities was viewed by the larger institution.

Baker.indb 150

19-09-2019 15:20:39

attracting mid-career faculty to teach first-year lcs  

151

In order to attract mid-career faculty to learning communities, institutions must provide the support and encouragement necessary to ensure faculty assume agency in directing their professional goals. All of our focus group members expressed excitement about the interdisciplinary nature of learning communities that reflected a deep desire to serve students and connect with colleagues in other disciplines. One faculty member said that learning communities “have the potential to make student education more fluid, having less rigid boundaries between disciplines so that students don’t come away from their education thinking in compartmentalized ways.” She went on to say, “I believe in interdisciplinary study, so learning communities lend themselves well to that kind of approach to intellectual growth.” Another said he appreciated “finally being able to stress [to students] how interdisciplinary engineering really is.” This fits with the findings from our survey, that learning communities attracted many faculty because of the interdisciplinary themes. Meeting colleagues from across campus and being exposed to perspectives from other disciplines seems to be one of the primary benefits of teaching in a learning community (Jedele, 2010). Jedele notes the “radical transformation in pedagogy” (p. 113) that can occur when faculty begin teaching in learning communities, describing his initial learning community experience with a colleague in another discipline “as if the god or goddess of pedagogy waved a magic wand and turned me in a new direction” (p. 107). Faculty who have not considered approaches to teaching and learning that are uncommon in their discipline may find themselves with a new appreciation for alternative methods after working with a colleague in a different field. In addition, faculty members in our focus group appreciated the connections that learning communities make to real-world skills. One faculty member who serves as department chair and typically teaches upper-level students was drawn to learning communities because of the problems I saw with seniors. . . . We’ve got students getting to the senior level that don’t have basic life skills yet. They have never had responsibility, really, and many of them have not experienced failure until they got here, so we have graduating seniors who don’t really know how to study, they don’t know how to do research. . . . [The first year] is a good time to hit these students right when they come on board.

For him, first-year learning communities were an ideal support structure for teaching those kinds of skills. This connection to the real world can aid faculty who want to see that they have made a tangible difference in a student’s professional and academic life. Being able to control and document the interdisciplinary connections students make to the real world (and in our program’s case, support these connections with innovative

Baker.indb 151

19-09-2019 15:20:39

152  

teaching and learning

assignments funded by mini-grants) gives faculty a sense of agency in the type of general education and first-year courses that they worry students view as irrelevant. Another theme that emerged from the focus group is the sense of community that learning communities provide. One faculty member mentioned the importance of building peer-to-peer, peer-to-professor, and professor-toprofessor relationships: Too often our students have part-time jobs, full-time jobs, and never really get the full benefit of being an undergraduate. So, this program allowed for team building, for group dynamics, for spending time together. . . . I found [my learning community students] doing other activities together, and research has shown that students who feel part of a community have a higher success rate than those who were isolated.

Others mentioned the benefits learning communities had for their own development. In the words of one faculty member, “being a part of a community like this one keeps me socializing, keeps me intellectually engaged, keeps me creative.” Another, who was part of a large department of more than 75 full-time faculty members, said, I think the thing that excites me is, just like students need to find the “big KSU” and the “little KSU,” teachers need to find that. One [way] is by being part of a little group that’s thinking creatively, and so for that, just being teamed with other teachers is really cool. Second of all, having a niche within—okay, yeah, I teach English, but do I have a niche within that? That’s important.

For her, building an identity as a learning communities instructor was a way to help her stand out during mid-career. Another added that due to her tenured status “I [can] get away with certain things in my regular classes because I’m being sloppy or lazy. I’m not pushed to do certain things . . . but [learning communities] showed me where I am lazy.” In other words, being accountable to another faculty member in a team increased her motivation to try new techniques. In this way, learning communities programs can provide faculty with a strategic response to the malaise and monotony that often affects faculty in mid-career. In conclusion, our focus group participants described several benefits for faculty who teach in learning communities that address common problems for mid-career faculty. Learning communities can provide the chance to interact with diverse perspectives after years of intense focus on one’s discipline.

Baker.indb 152

19-09-2019 15:20:39

attracting mid-career faculty to teach first-year lcs  

153

They can also allow faculty to promote basic, real-world skills at a time when many are beginning to worry students see their courses as irrelevant. Finally, learning communities provide a sense of shared community and accountability in which individual faculty members have an identity. In response to the question about how to encourage more mid-career faculty to teach in learning communities, one faculty member said, “I’d say [they should] just do it. It’s hard to explain the benefits or how participating in a learning community can change your view on teaching, mentoring, curriculum innovations, but it does. What I do in learning communities certainly influences what I do in the traditional classroom.” Institutions that encourage new teaching opportunities such as this are providing faculty a powerful way to rejuvenate their passion for instruction at large. Among our lessons learned, however, were lessons on how not to approach learning communities. Not all faculty in our focus group felt that they had the agency to devote time and effort to teaching in a learning communities. One faculty member said, “I was initially required by my department to participate. . . . I didn’t know much about it and wasn’t initially thrilled because it just seemed like extra work,” work to which she could not devote time, given the demands placed on mid-career faculty in her department for obtaining external funding for research. This faculty member expressed her frustration: [Teaching] means a lot to me, but each year teaching performance seems to mean less to my department and college, to the point where pedagogical research is not considered scholarship. . . . It’s very frustrating because I came to the university because I wanted my research to be a close, but clear second to my teaching.

At KSU, as at many large institutions, the teaching-research balance varies by department, and many mid-career faculty feel they receive mixed messages regarding their professional goals. From these responses, it seems that mid-career faculty will feel motivated to participate in innovative pedagogical approaches only if they feel that administrators also value those approaches. Therefore, institutions must decide whether they truly value what learning communities provide for mid-career faculty and whether or not they will offer the necessary support for faculty to pursue these initiatives.

The Role of Faculty Development in Supporting Mid-Career Faculty The same may be true of faculty development opportunities. Faculty may find these opportunities professionally rewarding and personally valuable but are hesitant to get involved because of a worry that these activities are

Baker.indb 153

19-09-2019 15:20:39

154  

teaching and learning

not valued. Despite this, the focus group’s response to the various Learning Communities Program faculty development initiatives was overwhelmingly positive. For example, an engineering faculty member spoke specifically about the impact the mini-grant had on his teaching. “That process of me applying for the mini-grant was pretty instrumental in me being invested . . . in learning communities.” He added: It’s challenging to put another layer of responsibility on the courses that we’re already full to the neck on doing, but I felt that because [the minigrant project] was such a meshing of what I thought the course should be like, it made it rather easy to implement. We had community engagement, campus involvement, campus engagement, cross-disciplinary input, we even had outreach . . . with our campus sustainability program. That put the icing on the cake . . . and the students were delighted.

One of our most successful faculty development initiatives has been the LCFS course, perhaps because it is holistic and sustained. Regarding the course, one focus group member said: It’s the complete package. Sometimes [faculty development] is just a la carte, whereas this was a combo platter, where you’re going to learn certain things and you’re going to practice them, and you’re going to practice them with a built-in community of your partner-teachers.

This mirrored the feedback we received from the LCFS course participants at large, where 100% of survey participants agreed or strongly agreed that they gained knowledge that will directly impact their teaching. Another faculty member remarked: My favorite was the [integrative assignment workshop] where we planned together face-to-face. I felt like I always learned something, even if I wasn’t quite “on” in my thinking that day. Hearing what people were doing, hearing the range of assignments, just that kind of planning was a really helpful developmental thing to do. I wish everybody did that all the time. . . . I wish we could all bring our syllabi and do peer review. . . . I felt like the [integrative assignment workshop] was a model for thinking about your teaching.

Many faculty in the focus group spoke about the importance of this collaboration. Of the collaboration between learning communities faculty, one said, “At a minimum, you’re sending people your [assignments] to see whether it will work with theirs or whether they will say ‘are you insane?’ We all need those people to say whether we’re insane or not.” Another agreed:

Baker.indb 154

19-09-2019 15:20:39

attracting mid-career faculty to teach first-year lcs  

155

Everything on campus is so fragmented . . . and no one talks to each other, and that’s important. . . . That’s a major problem with academia today— we’re so individualized, and we don’t talk to each other, but it’s amazing what happens when [faculty] get together.

However, like changing one’s teaching methods, engaging in faculty development in order to improve one’s teaching may be perceived as risky when compared to other demands on faculty time. The faculty member who served as department chair admitted he had a hard time discriminating between “what was good valuable stuff, and what was trendy garbage” when he conducted annual reviews of faculty who included faculty development in their portfolios. Furthermore, he felt pressure to respond only to student evaluations when evaluating teaching, which troubled him: Student happiness is nice, and I think evaluations are important, but that’s not our product. Our product is students who are prepared for the real world. . . . Getting faculty involved in development, getting faculty to try new and different things, is of the utmost importance, and by [trying new things] you know that at times you are going to encounter failure. Whenever you make changes, sometimes it works, and sometimes it blows up in your face.

Even mid-career faculty, he said, were reluctant to take these teaching risks when they knew that student course evaluations were what their supervisors primarily valued. Another faculty member also expressed concern about her annual reviews, but saw faculty development as a way to stand out: Internally, I’m always curious—I think those are the qualities that made us all go into education, and I do get bored if I’m not learning new things, but externally, whether it’s real or not, I always feel insecure. English, especially, its position in the academy—you would think it is very stable but it’s not. First-year writing classes in particular . . . [are] not well-valued in the university . . . so I think that being a versatile teacher [is valuable]. I’m always an early adapter of things. I keep up with research. I think those things make me more valuable to the department. [Participating in faculty development] makes a statement about who I am as faculty.

Perhaps, then, with the help of supportive administrators, mid-career is just the right time to encourage the “synergistic citizens” to take risks, knowing that the reward is professional fulfillment and growth at a time when many have settled into the familiar.

Baker.indb 155

19-09-2019 15:20:39

156  

teaching and learning

Conclusion Baldwin, DeZure, Shaw, and Moretto (2008) describe the mid-career as a time when faculty may experience unclear goals and diminished motivation for teaching—a prime time for faculty to find new inspiration and for administrators to provide developmental support. Teaching in a learning communities program that is paired with targeted faculty development can serve to reignite that spark and encourage a teacher-scholar approach to midcareer goals. Faculty who teach in first-year learning communities serve a significant role as stage-setters for students’ college experiences, a rewarding experience for both faculty and students (Smith et al., 2004). When faculty are also encouraged to study the literature on interdisciplinary learning or engage in SoTL and apply this knowledge to practice, they can marry their interests in serving students with their scholarly goals. However, in order to attract and retain mid-career faculty, learning communities program staff (and perhaps the faculty themselves) must also be prepared to demonstrate the value of participating in learning communities and associated faculty development to their administrators. KSU’s Learning Communities Program responds to this issue by ensuring that all faculty development initiatives have a tangible, practical component such as the development of new curricula. We also place a high emphasis on the integration of scholarship and teaching by encouraging faculty to engage in SoTL projects within their learning communities. By communicating the role of learning communities in the academy to deans and department chairs, and even inviting their participation, learning communities programs can play a vital role in promoting the teacher-scholar identity. Finally, by encouraging mid-career faculty to propose and teach in learning communities, and to take advantage of targeted faculty development, learning communities’ programs can become a way to ensure that the enthusiasm and energy faculty have for teaching extends beyond tenure.

References Austin, A. E. (2010). Supporting faculty members across their careers. In K. J. Gillespie & D. L. Robertson (Eds.), A guide to faculty development (pp. 363–378). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Baldwin, R., DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Moretto, K. (2008). Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university: Implications for faculty and academic leaders. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(5), 46–55. Beauboeuf, T., Erickson, K., & Thomas, J. E. (2017, January). Rethinking the midcareer malaise: New lessons from post tenure liberal arts faculty. Paper presented at

Baker.indb 156

19-09-2019 15:20:39

attracting mid-career faculty to teach first-year lcs  

157

the American Association of Colleges and Universities annual meeting, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/AM17/ Mid-Career%20Malaise%20PPT.pdf Brownell, J. E., & Swaner, L. E. (2010). Five high-impact practices. Washington DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities. Burgan, M. (2006). What ever happened to the faculty? Drift and decision in higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Graziano, J., & Kahn, G. (2013). Sustained faculty development in learning communities. Learning Communities Research and Practice, 1(2), article 5. Huntington, S. (2016). Learning communities & our culture of inquiry. Learning Communities Research and Practice, 4(1), article 1. Jedele, R. E. (2010). A faculty “c” change: Inspired by learning communities. Thought and Action. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/img/PubThoughtAnd Action/TA10Jedele.pdf Kuh, G. D. (2008) High-impact educational practices: What are they, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities. Lardner, E., & Malnarich, G. (2008). A new era in learning: Why the pedagogy of intentional integration matters. Change, 40(4), 30–37. Malnarich, G., & Lardner, E. (2003). Designing integrated learning for students: A heuristic for teaching, assessment, and curriculum design (Washington Center Occasional Paper, winter, no. 1). Olympia, WA: The Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education. Richlin, L. (2001). Scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 86, 57–67. Smith, B. L., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R., & Gabelnick, F. (2004). Learning communities: Reforming undergraduate education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Steiner, H. H. (2016). Learning communities faculty scholars: An online, targeted faculty development course to promote scholarly teaching. Learning Communities Research and Practice, 4(1), article 7. U.S. News and World Report. (2017). First-year experiences. Retrieved from https:// www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/first-year-experience-programs

Baker.indb 157

19-09-2019 15:20:39

Baker.indb 158

19-09-2019 15:20:39

PA RT T H R E E S C H O L A R LY D E V E L O P M E N T Gretchen Neisler

T

he academic organization and its research practices are based on historical models of higher education in which the intrinsic impetus to advance new knowledge distinguishes universities from other research and development institutional platforms (Fairweather & Beach, 2002). When institutions conducting research arose in the nineteenth century, they were optimally structured and inherently calibrated to facilitate the production and diffusion of knowledge, but also to seek knowledge with purpose and link useful knowledge with action for the common good. A present-day review of research institutions shows a very different state and national context in which these institutions exist (Fairweather & Beach, 2002). The competitive nature of funding for the generation of new knowledge and innovation is a significant barrier to scientists in these universities. In particular, mid-career faculty are challenged to survive and thrive in this environment, an environment that has changed dramatically since they were initially trained and accepted positions in the academy. Mid-career faculty are the keystone of the academic enterprise because they are the continuity and innovators of the cutting edge in their disciplines (Baldwin & Chang, 2006). Mid-career faculty are in a position of rank to take calculated risks that push the scientific boundaries of their discipline and they are motivated to be competitive in that discipline. Although mid-career faculty are considered the keystone of the university, they report significant dissatisfaction with their roles in the academy. They feel undervalued in terms of professional recognition, stagnant in their scholarship, taken for granted by their institutions, and overwhelmed by the competitive nature of their work (Baldwin, DeZure, Shaw, & Moretto, 2008; Currie, 2008). 159

Baker.indb 159

19-09-2019 15:20:39

160  

scholarly development

Much of the literature written to date focuses on how doctoral students can prepare for the challenges of the academy, and there is a broad understanding of the needs for early career or pre-tenure faculty. However, there is little scholarly contribution focused on the competing identities of someone affiliated with a competitive, do-more-with-less academic institution and that of feeling stuck in one’s research trajectory with no organizational support to make a transformational change. The authors in this section each contribute to the notion that the university has a distinctive role to play in supporting faculty to conquer their status quo and discover the opportunity to engage in transformational work. The four chapters in part three explore innovative programs and ideas, while at the same time weaving together common threads of significance to the success of applied thinking. Those common threads include the power of mentoring, the importance of paying attention to the skills needed to manage stress and pressure in the current higher education context of research, and the significance gender plays in the management of the culture of higher education.

Mentoring Mentoring is a powerful tool for individual career development. Mentoring is utilized at many levels of the academy, but it often loses its significance with mid-career faculty. At this level, mentoring must be customized to the specific circumstances of mid-career faculty. Acknowledging faculty agency and enabling them to pursue the professional goals that make sense to them at this stage in their careers is critical to challenging the inertia that faculty are feeling. Mentorship can support women scientists to overcome inequities that still exist in the academy today. Providing women the opportunity to plan beyond the tenure time line for the duration of their careers and encouraging their agency is essential for them to achieve long-term goals and provide value to the institution. Mentoring programs must be developed in ways that allow for flexibility in practice and outcomes sought. Emphasizing both the informal and formal nuances of the tool is important to establishing an effective mentor-mentee relationship. All of the programs described in this section explain the value of a strong mentoring component to their programmatic objectives.

Managing Stress and Pressure in a Competitive Environment The decrease in national funding for research and the decline of overall success rates for grant procurement is significant across the higher education

Baker.indb 160

19-09-2019 15:20:39

scholarly development  

161

domain for science innovation. A driver of research success for academics is the ability to attract grant funding for their research portfolios. The attainment of external funds aids academics to move along the continuum from early career to senior scientist. When one compares the imperative to generate external funding with the decline in funds available and the extreme competitive nature in obtaining them, it is easy to see how and why mid-career faculty feel the inertia of their organizations as well as their own research agendas. Faculty have realized in this competitive market and at this stage of their careers they have not perfected their ability to communicate the compelling story of their work. It is in the way faculty have not yet realized the transformational potential of their work that they are not able to convey this to a multitude of audiences from prospective donors to their students. Faculty members’ challenge is the organizational structure that they operate in does not create the space for this competency to be perfected. The chapters in this section provide examples of programs on different campuses that focus on the communication of science in a way that enables faculty to break the pull of the status quo and receive the necessary mentoring and guidance for doing so in a time frame that real change is sustained. The programs discussed here fight against the heuristics of the academy and allow faculty to seek alternative narratives to generate different results that are both relevant and compelling to their key stakeholders. Ultimately, these programs provide faculty a new pathway to their agency and satisfaction in their role in the academy. The pressure placed on academics does not end with that of their role in generating knowledge. Most faculty face the added challenge of teaching and outreach, which presents a trifecta in terms of balance in the academy. The chapters also show that gender matters. Today, women receive slightly more than half of the doctoral degrees granted in the United States (NCES, 2009). With women and men now feeding the academic pipeline in equal numbers, is it just a matter of time before we see gender parity in the professoriate? Regrettably, the answer is no. Women experience the pressure and stress in ways that exacerbate their job dissatisfaction. Although there have been many years of efforts to close the gender gap that exists among women’s representation and equity in academic institutions, the fact is that not enough progress has been made (NCES, 2017). Research development programs within the institution assist individual women faculty and improve the institutional environment for women faculty as a group (Laursen & Austin, 2014). The authors of the chapters in this section provide detailed examples of research development programs in different higher education institutions. The structure and function of the programs have very different goals and

Baker.indb 161

19-09-2019 15:20:39

162  

scholarly development

objectives, yet they have similar outcomes. One such commonality is the intent to improve or create more inclusive institutional environments for faculty. Each chapter not only describes the successes and barriers to implementing research development programs but also provides a valuable dialogue for reflection on the importance of faculty agency and job satisfaction. These two elements have tremendous impact on the success of the university. These chapters also articulate common challenges faced by mid-career faculty at different institutional classifications, validating the impact mid-career programming can have with the presence of common elements: mentoring that accounts for the shifting needs of mid-career academics and purposeful programming around work-life issues. In the case of women faculty, programming must take into account the existence of implicit bias toward women academics as well as the opportunities for or barriers to women’s visibility, mobility, and leadership. Although the programs described herein are distinctive and nuanced, they will provide essential insight to other institutions who are considering platforms to enhance institutional research and scholarly contribution to policymakers and the general public. Providing a program that assists faculty in generating knowledge that positively impacts the lives and livelihoods of its citizens should be a top priority of the leadership in higher education. In chapter 9, Carayannopoulos and Graham articulate key components needed for impactful researcher development. Their work shows that programming to enhance one’s research must contain the following key elements: be longitudinal in nature, project based, collaborative, and work across disciplines. A specific key takeaway from Laursen and Austin in chapter 11 is that addressing one or two elements of the culture within a higher education institution is insufficient for significant change to occur. The point is that although the individual programs discussed by Manigault-Bryant and colleagues in chapter 10 and Neisler in chapter 8 are a step forward, the readers of this section should remember that culture must be addressed at many levels of the institution. It is best done in a coordinated and transparent fashion if it is to yield the most positive impact.

References Baldwin, R. G., & Chang, D. A. (2006, Fall). Reinforcing our “keystone” faculty: Strategies to support faculty in the middle years of academic life. Liberal Education, 92(4), 28–35. Baldwin, R. G., DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Moretto, K. (2008). Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university: Implications for faculty and academic leaders. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(5), 46–55.

Baker.indb 162

19-09-2019 15:20:39

scholarly development  

163

Currie, R. F. (2008). Supporting faculty at mid-career. University Affairs, 49(9), 84. Fairweather, J. S., & Beach, A. L. (2002). Variations in faculty work at research universities: Implications for state and institutional policy. The Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 97–115. Laursen, S. L., & Austin, A. E. (2014). StratEGIC Toolkit: Strategies for effecting gender equity and institutional change. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Boulder, Ethnography & Evaluation Research. NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). (2009). Digest of Education Statistics: 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from www.nces.ed.gov/prgrams/digest/do9/tables/ dto9_275.asp?referrer=list NCES (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics). (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2017 (NSF Special Report 17-310). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/

Baker.indb 163

19-09-2019 15:20:39

Baker.indb 164

19-09-2019 15:20:39

8 GLOBAL RESEARCH I N N O VAT I O N A Case of Evolving the Mid-Career Faculty Research Portfolio Gretchen Neisler

T

he landscape of knowledge generation and innovation in higher education features a distinctive component of global engagement among faculty affiliated with research-intensive institutions. This chapter examines the paradoxical problems of delayed faculty retirement, the empowerment of mid-career faculty taking on a global research agenda, and the challenge of enculturating early career faculty in a global research-intensive university. Global research and outreach is an integrated component of many researchintensive universities. Solving the world’s grand challenges is a function of interdisciplinary, integrated, and strategic knowledge generation and application (Altbach, 2000). In some institutions, global research is the bedrock of campus culture, providing a platform for students, faculty, and administrators to generate knowledge and contribute to local and global communities. Mid-career faculty members in research-intensive universities know that establishing a robust international research portfolio is challenging because the research endeavor is not always a good fit with the competitive environment in which they work. Faculty engaged in this work have removed many barriers to their success. Those who cleared the path have also created a legacy of impact in the regions where they worked for many decades, leveraging large grants that enabled them to establish comprehensive partnerships and building positive institutional reputations for their organizations. These same faculty “rock stars” are beyond the prime of their careers and have lost the motivation to work in the field, which can be dangerous, remote, and challenging in a multitude of ways (Altbach, 2000). 165

Baker.indb 165

19-09-2019 15:20:39

166  

scholarly development

This chapter examines how one institution provided for ongoing early and mid-career faculty development. In addition, the chapter discusses how administrators at Michigan State University (MSU) increased their understanding of faculty vitality and, in so doing, committed to faculty professional growth and development along the career continuum (Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006).

Context: Faculty Engagement in Global Research Senior faculty members are delaying their retirement. Some 74% of professors aged 49 to 67 years plan to delay retirement past age 65 or never retire at all (Fidelity Investments, 2013). In this same study, 69% of those surveyed cited financial concerns as a reason for the delay; an even higher percentage of professors said the love of their careers factored into their decision. Most of the faculty members who planned to delay retirement because of professional reasons said they wanted to stay busy and productive (89%), loved their work too much to give it up (64%), and were unwilling to relinquish continued access to and affiliation with their institution (41%). Faculty members who delay retirement may seem like a benefit to the university, but their delay also means delayed opportunities for change in the academy as there are then fewer slots for new faculty to implement a new vision (Flaherty, 2013). In the context of international research, it is critical that faculty are working in the field and consistently showing up and seen as the main driver of a partnership. With senior faculty not traveling as much, the university must hire fixed-term faculty to maintain the partnerships. The hiring of additional faculty and staff adds budgetary stress to academic units instead of shifting the research opportunities to mid-career faculty who are interested in conducting field research. Some large universities have not done an adequate job of preparing for the transition of senior faculty into emeritus status and mid-career faculty coming in to assume leadership. Though these universities have engaged in solid hiring practices, they lag in preparing or offering mid-career faculty the opportunity to learn in the trenches. While academic departments focused on the increasingly rigorous process of tenure for faculty, they were advised to engage in domestic research. Where do these paradoxical problems of delayed faculty retirement and the challenge of enculturating early career faculty in global research leave the research university? Universities have failed to leverage a significant and large resource on their campus—mid-career faculty members. Mid-career is the state of achieving “the rank of associate or full professor and having no intention to retire within the next 5 years” (DeFelippo, 2014, p. 7). Mid-career is also where most faculty members spend the longest

Baker.indb 166

19-09-2019 15:20:39

global research innovation  

167

amount of time. This stage starts in the sixth or seventh year and can continue for another two decades (Baldwin, DeZure, Shaw, & Moretto, 2008; DeFelippo, 2014). Determining how to not merely maintain but thrive in this potentially decades-long phase of scholarly life is the focus of researchers like O’Meara, Terosky, and Neumann (2008). They aimed to identify internal and environmental factors that spur “desire and will [and] ongoing commitment to be scholar-practitioners as a way of life” (O’Meara et al, 2008, p. 23).

Faculty Vitality and Faculty Development According to DeFelippo (2014), Faculty vitality, an important indicator of professional growth, has been widely written about for over two decades (Baldwin, 1982, 1985, 1990; Bland & Bergquist, 1997; Bland, Seaquist, Pacala, Center, & Finstad, 2002; Clark, Corcoran, & Lewis, 1986; Gaff, 1975; Gardner, 1978; Kirschling, 1978; Rice, 1985; Schuster & Finklestein, 2006). The term has multiple meanings; broadly speaking, it denotes liveliness and well-being. (p. 8; emphasis added)

Scholars agree that faculty vitality is vital; however, determining exactly what faculty vitality is and how to achieve it is elusive. This challenge is demonstrated by the plethora of studies that have attempted to do just that. Some scholars describe faculty vitality as “those essential yet intangible, positive qualities of individuals that enable purposeful production” (Clark, Boyer, & Corcoran, 1985, p. 3; see also DeFelippo, 2014). As compiled by DeFelippo (2014), the components of faculty vitality include balance (Baldwin, 1990; Bland & Bergquist, 1997), challenge seeking (Viggiano & Strobel, 1988), creativity (Baldwin, 1990; Gardner, 1978), curiosity (Baldwin, 1985), grit (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007), growth mind-set (Dweck, 2008), motivation (Viggiano & Strobel, 1988), optimism (Kalivoda, 1993), and risk-taking (Gardner, 1978). (DeFelippo, 2014, pp. 13–14)

DeFelippo (2014) also notes, “What faculty do is important, but vitality focuses attention on the motivation behind their behaviors—specifically, who they are and why they do this work” (p. 2). She goes on to agree with Lindholm (2003) that a good fit between institution and individual may be a crucial component of that intangible motivation, resulting in visible vitality. This is where faculty development programs may offer a structured opportunity for faculty to make sense of their research interests and the skills needed, moving intrinsic motivation from an unconscious part of overall fit to a planned and nurtured source of vitality. “Sense making, or understanding

Baker.indb 167

19-09-2019 15:20:39

168  

scholarly development

and interpreting what is occurring in the work context, is related to social cognitive behavior that affects motivation, job satisfaction, commitment, and performance levels” (DeFelippo, 2014, p. 32). DeFelippo (2014) lists the following three phases according to Kristof (1996) (the third phase is the focus of the MSU program described in the next section) in the faculty-organization relationship that may be critical to facilitating person-environment fit: first, at the entry level, during the interview and hiring process when faculty and leaders of the organization negotiate to work together; second, during socialization after hiring, which may consist of a formal orientation process and specific mentoring in a college or university; and third, long-term consequences such as how well one works, how satisfied one is, how long one stays, and how one’s faculty loyalty grows (Kristof, 1996). Commitment to the university in the form of loyalty may be an outcome of faculty vitality. . . . Faculty perception and understanding of their fit and feelings of belonging are important factors for career growth, professional development, productivity, and a sense of satisfaction. (DeFelippo, 2014 p. 32)

As noted by Kristof (1996), the focus of organizational behavior researchers and practitioners has been at the microlevel, such that the analysis of fit focuses on the relationship between the individual and the organizational environment. The macrolevel of fit focuses on the fit within the organizational system such as structures, strategies, goals, and culture. Baldwin (1990), in the article “Faculty Vitality Beyond the Research University: Extending a Contextual Concept,” described vital professors as curious and intellectually engaged. . . . Perhaps most significantly, vital professors develop personally and professionally throughout their academic career, continually pursuing expanded interests and acquiring new skills and knowledge. Adjectives that would apply to vital professors include: enthusiastic, caring, dedicated, vigorous, creative, flexible, risk-taking, and regenerative. (p. 180).

DeFelippo (2014), citing Baldwin (1985), Bensimon (2006), Blackburn and Lawrence (1995), Bland and Bergquist (1997), Daly and Dee (2006), and Wright (2004), notes the following: The institution may offer formal or informal opportunities to support ­faculty, and the best known of these structures is a program of faculty development. Many studies refer to faculty development as necessary to enhance faculty vitality. . . . Faculty development is an organizational response to

Baker.indb 168

19-09-2019 15:20:39

global research innovation  

169

[support] faculty needs and interests. It also provides quality assurance and may be considered an opportunity structure for faculty to learn new knowledge and develop new skills. (DeFelippo, 2014, p. 59)

DeFelippo (2014) also notes that faculty development projects achieve more positive results when they follow Rice’s (1985) principles: The project focuses on a topic or issue of importance to faculty and the institution; faculty plan the project from the beginning and lead the project until it concludes; there is buy-in and financial support from university administration, but it does not control the project; and finally, the project director is a [sic] effective manager. (p. 61)

An excellent manager, in this context, is defined as a faculty member who is both respected by peers and an exemplary scholar.

The Academy for Global Engagement Situated in the midwestern region of the United States, MSU is a large land-grant, research-intensive university. This section will provide the programmatic details of the Academy for Global Engagement (AGE), the new initiative at MSU that focuses on assisting early and mid-career faculty to more effectively communicate their science, making them more competitive in garnering grant dollars for their research as well as continuing a scholarly legacy of global research. In 2013, after a series of high-level discussions, two colleges at the university teamed up to create an innovative program designed to support mid-career faculty in their quest to become future faculty leaders and models for their peers. AGE, in its fourth year of operation, is a collaboration between the College of Engineering and the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources; it has transitioned from a pilot initiative to a recurring program with funding from both colleges and the provost. Each of the involved colleges is successful in its own right, but how success is generated for each unit is different. In the College of Engineering, faculty are expected to sustain their research portfolios through generating external funding. The expectation of sustaining one’s lab space and research agenda generates a business and entrepreneurial mind-set for the faculty. In contrast, the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources has a strong culture of interdisciplinarity. Many of the research problems that faculty set out to solve are undertaken through a team approach. Faculty become accustomed to working across disciplinary boundaries and are focused less on the potential commercialization of their work than are the engineering faculty. John A. Hannah, president of MSU from 1941 to 1969, actively encouraged faculty to apply their scholarship to the world’s most pressing development

Baker.indb 169

19-09-2019 15:20:40

170  

scholarly development

issues. During his tenure as president, a vanguard of international researchers rose to prominence and worked with scholars around the world to seek solutions to chronic global problems. In 2010, Lou Anna K. Simon (MSU's president as of 2017), crystallized MSU’s global history while at the same time charting a new course in international research by defining the era and vision for MSU as a “world-grant” university. As the first generation of MSU’s global researchers reaches retirement, the world-grant ideal poses for MSU’s leadership the question of how to intentionally cultivate a culture of global scholarship among the next generation of scholars. There is an institutional understanding that the university must continually reinvent, reinvigorate, and update in ways that both anticipate the needs of a globalized world and seriously engage the world-grant ideal. The future needs of global partners and funders—their commitment to deliver on solving real problems at significant scale—cannot be met in partnership with land grants that offer only limited strengths in just 1 or 2 academic disciplines. Approximately 25% of the faculty are globally engaged in a serious way with respect to their disciplines and their institutions. Others occasionally participate in international activities, but many faculty are simply disengaged from such opportunities and the pressing need to view their scholarship and the stakeholders they serve through the lens of a globalizing world.

Selection Each year, AGE personnel work with college leaders to select a cohort of 10 fellows (5 from each college). Interested faculty submit an application that includes a personal statement as well as a research project idea that they plan to work on during their fellowship year. The application process is competitive. Candidates must apply with thoughtful statements about what they want to achieve as fellows, what areas of strength and weakness they see in their research endeavors, and how they believe this experience will enhance their place in the organizational structure of the university. There is no requirement to have collaborated globally on research, although most of the 39 fellows have engaged in global research. A letter of support from the department chair is also required. This letter not only removes a potential barrier that a chair may unknowingly place in front of faculty but also serves as an initial touch point for the colleges to shift paradigms among their leadership. We have found that the department chair offering acknowledgment and support opened a door for a more comprehensive conversation focused on setting global strategies and goals in academic departments.

Content In the development phase of AGE, the leaders of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the College of Engineering spent time reflecting on

Baker.indb 170

19-09-2019 15:20:40

global research innovation  

171

the culture and the performance expectations of MSU faculty to gain a sense of what type of programming would have the most impact on faculty vitality. The information collected during the benchmark study (baseline needs assessment) directly influenced the content developed for the program. The findings were that most faculty who were not engaged in global research early in their careers saw several barriers to this work later in their careers. They did not understand how to navigate the competitive funding landscape, and they were unsure how to engage with partners in collaborations where research funding was shared across institutions. Further, some faculty members had adopted the views of their chairs and mentors that they would not be productive in their scholarly pursuits—the work would be too costly and time-consuming to complete. Thus, our goal in content development was to raise awareness among the fellows of the campus-based resources at their disposal that would make this endeavor more manageable. Often at a large institution, new faculty are oriented to support units on campus during the first week of their first semester, and this information is never revisited. Under pressure to succeed, faculty get to work on building their research portfolios, and they do this in a survival rather than strategic mode. They fashion inefficient mechanisms for developing proposals and working through the university bureaucracy. And once they find a way to reach the finish line—proposal submission—they continue to go back to the same process and forget that there are resources at their disposal to streamline their work and reduce the stress of competing for research funding. AGE takes the opportunity at the beginning of the fellowship to review internal funding opportunities and pre-award support mechanisms that are available that can launch a new research trajectory. The review of internal funding is significant to mid-career faculty looking to bolster their vitality— they often find shifting the focus of their work too daunting to undertake and therefore stay in the same track that has grown stale for them as scientists and lifelong learners. However, it is not just the mechanics of their research that the AGE program revisits. As scientists branch out into new technical topics, they also must revitalize their communication skills. How they talk about this new direction of their work is very important to their success. As a result of a filming activity in the first year we added communication of science as an AGE component. Fellows lacked the ability to communicate their work compellingly and succinctly. We filmed the accepted fellows delivering their project plans for their fellowship year. The fellows were asked to explain what problem they wanted to work on and why it was significant. They were to deliver a pitch asking for information, funding, or network connections. This was a challenging activity for most fellows. Thus, communication of science became the backbone of the program. Because we are working with a population of faculty who are curious about their environment, are not completely paralyzed by risk, and are committed

Baker.indb 171

19-09-2019 15:20:40

172  

scholarly development

to MSU, the program must be nimble and responsive to the changing global innovation landscape. The program shifts with each cohort. Although there is core content that will remain constant, there is flexibility in the program structure to tailor the details of the program to the needs of the cohort. These are very different organizational characteristics than faculty development programming has been constructed and implemented around in the past, and in some ways, this made the program pitch to senior leadership difficult. The program was a big investment, the first of its kind at MSU—or in many other places, for that matter—and it was perceived as risky.

Mentoring Component Another component to the program is the mentor-fellow relationship. Each fellow works with a mentor during the fellowship year (January to December). Fellows are encouraged to find a mentor outside of their department, someone with a different perspective on their global work and who is more experienced in global research. The selection committee and the AGE administrative team provide feedback directly to the fellows regarding their ideas for mentors. In some situations, we have asked the fellow to consider other mentors. Forging this relationship is hard; fellows who are overwhelmed by the act of confirming their own mentors can seek the help of the AGE administration team. Once mentors are identified, they are invited to participate in the initial meeting of the AGE cohort. During this meeting, each mentor and fellow pair drafts a mentoring plan using a template provided by AGE. This plan assists the mentor and the fellow to establish rules for engagement and set expectations for how often they will meet and what they will focus on in their discussions. The plan provides a mechanism for the AGE administrative team to hold the parties accountable to each other, and it frames the culture of their relationship. The AGE administrative team intentionally leaves specifics of the relationship vague, as to allow the fellow and mentor to define a relationship that meets the fellow’s objectives. The AGE administrative team conveys to the mentors that a sound commitment is expected from them. Research suggests that the model of mentoring should change to address needs relative to the mentee’s career stage. Research from the National Science Foundation ADAPP-ADVANCE grant suggests that faculty at the associate professor career stage benefit from having multiple mentors who work with them in informal ways to meet their career needs (Luz, 2009). Interviews with our fellows indicate that some are in search of a confidencebuilding relationship; others are looking to access the professional networks of their mentors. Regardless of their mentoring needs, fellows are required to work with the mentors to develop a clear strategy for the functionality of the mentoring relationship, along with stating the goal they hope to achieve.

Baker.indb 172

19-09-2019 15:20:40

global research innovation  

173

All fellows are encouraged to find a mentor who is a senior faculty member outside of their home department, so that they may gain a completely different perspective and guidance for partnership and development. As an example, a soil hydrologist studying environmental nanotechnology sought a mentor who is a microbial ecologist. Together, they are now looking at issues of antibiotic resistance and promoting protection of soil and water resources. When conceived, this mentoring program was meant to primarily benefit the fellow. We came to realize, however, that the mentor also benefited from collaborating with the fellow. Their professional networks were enhanced, and some are now collaborating with scientists they admittedly would not have crossed paths with in the normal research churn on campus (Walker, Neisler, & Bonnell, 2014–2016).

Metrics for Success and Analysis Plan One of the challenges in implementing AGE was the difficulty in evaluating the program. What are the right metrics of success? Should AGE evaluation efforts rely on qualitative assessment of learnings and outcomes from AGE fellowship? Or should outcomes be measured with a mixed methods evaluation with qualitative and quantitative data? What metrics best capture critical elements to enhance and measure AGE faculty’s academic success and at the same time be useful for decision-making and designing future actions? If quantitative assessment is included, what are the quantitative metrics and tools we need to guide the institution, colleges, and university administrators in evaluating benefits and the return on investment for mid-career faculty development initiatives such as AGE? Initial metrics considered included grants awarded and citation counts to measure competitiveness and research influence and visibility, respectively. This list was expanded to include academic (scholarly) output, citation, international collaboration and team science, and using publication count, normalized citation impact (field-weighted citation impact, or FWCI), percentage of internationally coauthored publications, and count of research clusters as proxies, respectively. These sets of metrics assessed scholarly engagement, citation impact with consideration of discipline differences, international engagement, and diversity of partnerships. The methodology that we used, including interpretation of the various research metrics and indicators, builds on best practices on indicators research has developed throughout the years (Moed, Glänzel, & Schmoch, 2004). We gathered baseline information to set standards to show the benefits of going through the AGE program and the changes in research performance of AGE fellows over time. The baseline collection included grants and publication data for all fellows before they started with the program.

Baker.indb 173

19-09-2019 15:20:40

174  

scholarly development

In addition, we collected data on nonparticipants for comparison purposes. We then expanded our fellows’ profiling and documented the state of research performance of AGE fellows. We collected their academic output available in Scopus, the largest peer-reviewed publication database, throughout their careers and classified fellows by their scientific cumulative contributions using the h-index. Hirsch (2005) estimated that after 20 years a “successful scientist” would have an h-index of 20, an “outstanding scientist” an h-index of 40, and a “truly unique” individual an h-index of 60. The majority of our fellows are below an h-index of 20, as we expected because the program targets mid-career faculty. It is AGE’s aim through some of our strategic initiatives to help these fellows reach h-index scores that would classify them as successful global scientists. Using the publication and citation data for all fellows, we recorded their 10-year (2006–2015) research productivity, academic impact, and international collaboration. We used scholarly output, FWCI, and the percentage of internationally based articles coauthored as proxies for research productivity, academic impact, and international collaboration, respectively. Our data analytics reveal that the research productivity, collaboration, and research networks of the 4 AGE cohorts (2014–2017), and a majority of AGE fellows in each of the cohorts, have a positive growth trend over the 10-year period. AGE fellows continue to actively publish with international experts and institutional partners and produce impactful scholarly output over the years with academic impact greater than the global average (1.0) and greater than MSU’s overall academic impact (Figure 8.1). Mapping the coauthor network of AGE fellows revealed an enhanced team science and global collaboration network. The positive growth trend in all research metrics is an opportunity for the AGE program. The data show the program administrators that AGE fellows have great potential to sustain this positive growth and achieve even more to support research excellence at MSU.

Field Weighted Citattion Impact (FWCI)

Figure 8.1.  Research performance and academic impact of the AGE cohort, 2006–2015. 2016 AGE Fellows, 280, 2.42

2014 AGE Fellows, 309, 1.98

2015 AGE Fellows, 217, 2.02 MSU, 469(’00),1.67 2017 AGE Fellows, 205, 1.25

Scholarly output

Baker.indb 174

19-09-2019 15:20:40

global research innovation  

175

Using the same metrics, we also assessed and benchmarked the quality of scholarly output and quantity of engagement in international research collaborations of the four AGE cohorts with faculty members from the MSU College of Engineering (Figures 8.2a–8.2b) and the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources (Figures 8.2c–8.2d). Findings indicated that AGE Figure 8.2a.  The FWCI (academic impact) of the AGE cohort from the MSU College of Engineering is greater than the academic impact of all MSU engineering faculty for 2007, 2008, and 2010.

FWCI AGE Engineering faculty MSU Engineering

2015

2006 3.00

2007

2.00 1.00

2014

2008

0.00 2013

2009 2012

2010 2011

Figure 8.2b.  The international collaboration of the AGE cohort from the MSU College of Engineering is greater than the international collaboration of all MSU engineering faculty for a majority of the years. AGE Engineering faculty

MSU Engineering

2006 50.00 2015

40.00

2007

30.00 20.00

2014

2008

10.00 0.00 2013

2009

2012

2010 2011

Baker.indb 175

19-09-2019 15:20:41

176  

scholarly development

Figure 8.2c.  The FWCI (academic impact) of the AGE cohort from MSU College of Agriculture and Natural Resources is greater than the academic impact of all MSU College of Agriculture and Natural Resources scientists only for a few years. AGE Agriculture faculty MSU College of Agriculture 2006 5 2015 2007 4 3 2 2014 2008 1 0 2013

2009 2012

2010 2011

Figure 8.2d.  The international collaboration of the AGE cohort from the MSU College of Agriculture and Natural Resources is greater than the international collaboration of all MSU College of Agriculture and Natural Resources faculty only for a few years. AGE Agriculture faculty

MSU College of Agriculture

100 2015

2006 2007

80 60 40

2014

2008

20 0

2009

2013

2010

2012 2011

fellows are contributing to and pulling up the overall research performance and collaboration scores for each of the colleges. We will continue to use a balanced set and combination of qualitative (baseline, midpoint, and exit interviews) and quantitative metrics to measure the immediate and long-term impacts of AGE and the academic and professional success of AGE fellows. As a next step, we will monitor and evaluate the research performance of AGE fellows on the following schedule: first year, third

Baker.indb 176

19-09-2019 15:20:41

global research innovation  

177

year, and fifth year after completion of the AGE fellowship. We will also develop tools to establish linkage and integration of some of the metrics (e.g., grants and publications data) and use data analytics to design and implement additional interventions (e.g., increasing web visibility of AGE fellows’ scholarly output and networking events that will promote exchanges on research synergies and collaboration among fellows and their research networks). We will also test and validate other nontraditional metrics (e.g., altmetrics) to establish the effectiveness of AGE as a strategic intervention to support midlevel faculty at MSU.1 Evaluating the mentoring component was challenging at first. The current evaluation tools used in mentoring programs have several limitations. They are designed to evaluate only specific mentoring programs. They measure the importance of mentoring functions and the frequency of mentoring behaviors, and these evaluation tools may or may not apply to faculty mentoring. Their questionnaire formats consist of short-answer constructed response and bipolar anchor scales with different anchors for each item. For example, the extreme anchors may be “very unsatisfied” and “very satisfied”; “very unimportant” and “very important”; “no support” and “high support”; and “no impact” and “high impact” (Berk, Berg, Mortimer, Walton-Moss, & Yeo, 2005, pp. 67–68). Despite all of the aspects of mentoring that these instruments measure, none measured the critical dimension “To what extent were any of the relationships effective?” Given the variation and complexity of faculty mentoring relationships, measuring effectiveness seems inextricably linked to the nature of each unique relationship. Therefore, we relied heavily on qualitative data to measure the effectiveness of the relationships.

Challenges and Lessons Learned There were numerous challenges in developing such a comprehensive program. We address the following main challenges we encountered: (a) how to have a robust program that acknowledges the different college cultures of the faculty participants and (b) how to be sure we create a program that enhances faculty vitality. The bringing together of these two colleges and their differences in culture, as described earlier, presented an organizational change opportunity for the university. The program team members had to understand the differences; then they had to develop content and activities that would enable the cohort to establish trust. Trust was developed by relying on time, mutual respect, and the individuals’ vitality. Creating space for faculty to explain, describe, learn, disagree, understand, and appreciate the science that each of them was conducting was a critical piece in building trust among the cohort. In essence, the codirectors of the program became salespeople; we needed

Baker.indb 177

19-09-2019 15:20:42

178  

scholarly development

to sell to the fellows the concept that this would be of value to their careers, and we needed to sell to the administrators of the colleges that this would enhance the faculty’s productivity in their colleges. The time created a platform for everyone to be heard and understood. As scientists, they felt enough mutual respect to agree to the time needed to understand one another. AGE simply gave them tools to do it while opening new professional networks. AGE content was focused on communicating science to a variety of stakeholders. One set of prominent stakeholders was prospective donors. Connecting the donors to the cohort of fellows required the program leadership to plan strategically. We had to understand the work of the fellows well enough to determine which sources of funding were relevant and find the donor organizations that were interested in the general nature of the science the fellows were conducting. The fellows were not obligated to secure funding during their fellowship, but the expectation was that the support they received would propel them down a successful road of financial support for their work. The programmatic content is designed to help fellows obtain a deep understanding of how specific donors are structured, how they invest, and what they are looking to invest in. Moreover, representatives of these donor groups are brought to the cohort to provide feedback to the fellows about what is and what is not compelling about their work. We encourage our fellows to stretch themselves and to spend time cultivating a sense of their work that would be compelling to a wide range of donors. As a result, program leadership has experienced the chemical engineering faculty member who previously would not have considered engaging in a discussion with a program officer from the U.S. Agency for International Development or the plant pathologist talking with someone from the Department of Defense. AGE opens these doors, and fellows begin to see their work through a different lens. Mid-career faculty can easily reach a career plateau, where professional goals are uncertain. The absence of motivational professional goals can cause professors to settle into a dull routine and invest more of their efforts into activities outside of their professional lives (Baldwin et al., 2008). Results from exit interviews in 2014 and 2016 and surveys of fellows indicates that this opportunity to frame their work in a new and different way provided the energy for a new focus of their work, and they indicated a renewed source of commitment to the university (Neisler & Walker, 2014, 2016). The collaboration between the colleges, like the mentoring component of AGE, has generated unintended benefits. To date, 22 proposals have been submitted with College of Engineering and College of Agriculture and Natural Resources faculty as coprincipal investigators. AGE analytics from 2017 indicate that these proposals have generated $3.6 million in awards made jointly to the two colleges (Payumo, 2017). The program has created a platform for faculty from 2 different disciplinary domains to come together, understand and value each other’s work, and then collaborate. In an era in

Baker.indb 178

19-09-2019 15:20:42

global research innovation  

179

higher education when interdisciplinary research has taken on great significance, this is a positive step forward. What became evident with the completion of each cohort of fellows was that the program gave the faculty the necessary support and resources to nurture and sustain their agency. Scholars note that agency consists of both intentional perspectives and applied actions (O’Meara, Campbell, & Terosky, 2011)—namely, what faculty members believe is possible and what they do to move toward those goals.

Conclusion AGE is a unique program in that it focuses on communicating science and professional growth in a global context. What began as an organizational experiment for MSU has evolved into a dynamic program with many outlets for scaling. The content offered is relevant for early career faculty as well as graduate students. With the inclusion of the following elements, the codirectors feel that this program would be a valuable faculty development experience on many campuses. Programs should limit the size of the cohort to 10 to 15 fellows. The fellows need to be judiciously selected, purposefully integrating academic disciplines into a cohort model. Once the cohort is formulated, allow plenty of time for fellows to develop trust and mutual respect. And of singular importance the programming needs to provide ample time and activities for fellows to self-reflect, network, and take risks in a safe environment.

Note 1. The data analytics and metrics discussion used inputs from Jane Payumo of MSU.

References Altbach, P. (2000). The changing academic workplace: Comparative perspectives. Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for International Higher Education Lynch School of Education, Boston College. Baldwin, R. G. (1982). Fostering faculty vitality: Options for institutions and administrators. Administrator’s Update, 4(1), 1–5. Baldwin, R. G. (1985). Incentives for faculty vitality (New Directions for Higher Education, no. 51). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Baldwin, R. G. (1990). Faculty vitality beyond the research university: Extending a contextual concept. Journal of Higher Education, 61, 160–180. Baldwin, R., DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Moretto, K. (2008). Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university: Implications for faculty and academic leaders. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(5), 46–55.

Baker.indb 179

19-09-2019 15:20:42

180  

scholarly development

Bensimon, E. M. (2006). Is post-tenure review a lever for organizational change? In C. Licata & J. P. Morreale (Eds.), Post-tenure faculty review and renewal: Vol. 3. Outcomes and impact (pp. 116–130). Bolton, MA: Anker. Berk, R., Berg, J., Mortimer, R., Walton-Moss, B., & Yeo, T. (2005). Measuring effectiveness of faculty mentoring relationships. Academic Medicine, 80(1), 66–71. Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work. Motivation, expectation, satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Bland, C., & Bergquist, W. (1997). The vitality of faculty members: Snow on the roof, fire in the furnace (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, vol. 25, no. 7). Washington DC: George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development. Bland, C. J., Seaquist, E., Pacala, J. T., Center, B., & Finstad, D. (2002). One school’s strategy to assess and improve the vitality of its faculty. Academic Medicine, 77(5), 368–376. Clark, S. M., Boyer, C. M., & Corcoran, M. (1985). Faculty and institutional vitality in higher education. In S. M. Clark & D. Lewis (Eds.), Faculty vitality and institutional productivity: Critical perspectives for higher education (pp. 3–24). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Clark, S. M., Corcoran, M., & Lewis, D. R. (1986). The case for institutional perspective on faculty development. Journal of Higher Education, 57(2), 176–195. Daly, C., & Dee, J. R. (2006). Greener pastures: Faculty turnover intent in urban public universities. Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 776–804. DeFelippo, A. M. (2014). Prime time in the academy: The individual and institutional factors that sustain mid-career faculty vitality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Boston. Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087–1101. Dweck, C. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. How can we learn to fulfill our potential? New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Fidelity Investments. (2013) Fidelity Investments higher education faculty study: Executive summary of key findings of those 55 and older. Smithfield, RI: Fidelity Investments. Flaherty, C. (2013). Working way past 65. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https:// www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/06/17/data-suggest-baby-boomer-facultyare-putting-retirement Gaff, J. G. (1975). Toward faculty renewal. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gardner, J. W. (1978). Morale. New York, NY: Norton. Hirsch, J. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572. Kalivoda, P. (1993). An investigation of factors that influence faculty vitality at a large public research university (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Kirschling, W. R. (1978). Evaluating faculty performance and vitality. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(1), 76–94.

Baker.indb 180

19-09-2019 15:20:42

global research innovation  

181

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49. Lindholm, J. (2003). Perceived organizational fit: Nurturing the mind, hearts, and personal ambitions of university faculty. Review of Higher Education, 27(1), 125–149. Luz, C. (Ed.) (2009). Michigan state university faculty mentoring toolkit. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Retrieved from: https://www.adapp-advance .msu.edu/files_adapp-advance/content/FacultyMentoringToolkit-final.pdf Moed, H. F., Glänzel, W., & Schmoch, U. (2004). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Neisler, G., & Walker, M. A. (2014, 2016) [AGE Exit Interviews with Fellows and Mentors] Unpublished raw data. O’Meara, K. A., Campbell, C. M., & Terosky, A. (2011, November). Living agency in the academy: A conceptual framework for research and action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Charlotte, NC. O’Meara, K., Terosky, A. L., & Neumann, A. (2008). Faculty careers and work lives: A professional growth perspective (ASHE Higher Education Report, vol. 34, no. 3). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Payumo, J. (2017). [AGE research analytics of Fellows 2014-2017] Unpublished raw data. Rice, R. E. (1985). Faculty lives: Vitality and change (Higher Education Report). St. Paul, MN: Northwest Area Foundation. Schuster, J., & Finkelstein, M. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker. Viggiano, T. R., & Strobel, H. W. (1988). The career management life cycle: A model for supporting and sustaining faculty vitality and wellness. In T. R. Cole, T. Goodrich, & E. R. Gritz (Eds.), Faculty health in academic medicine: Physicians, scientists, and the pressures of success (pp. 73–81). New York, NY: Humana Press. Walker, M., Neisler, G., & Bonnell, J. (2014–2016). [Personal exit interviews with mentors.] Unpublished raw data. Wright, B. E. (2004). The role of work context in work motivation: A public sector application of goal and social cognitive theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 59–78.

Baker.indb 181

19-09-2019 15:20:42

9 UNDER PRESSURE The Challenge for Mid-Career Researchers in the Innovation Age George Carayannopoulos and Ruth Graham

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Challenges Are Real Significant literature has been written on the development of skills and competencies for doctoral candidates and postdoctoral fellows as well as the development of teaching skills for academics. The literature has focused on the core problems that these groups face in progressing through the academic life cycle and the support structures needed to foster successful teaching and research outcomes. However, significantly less has been written about mid-career academics and their professional development. This chapter gives attention to the research identity of mid-career academics (i.e., those nestled between the early part of their academic careers and senior research leadership roles). It is appropriate to place a focus on this group, as the middle years are central to the refinement of research competencies in what is an increasingly complex academic landscape. In the current context, academics are being asked to do more with less and juggle the competing demands of teaching, research, and academic service. Although this chapter will place a spotlight on researcher development, it will do so with an acknowledgment that research-only roles are rare and the development of a research track record occurs against the background of the accompanying demands of teaching and service. In order to highlight the nature of the specific development programs, this chapter will present case studies from two distinct discipline areas—humanities and social sciences (HASS) and health and medical research (HMR) at the University of Sydney. Through the case studies it suggests that although disciplines and research methods may differ, the common requirements established through the model to be presented pervade across disciplines. 182

Baker.indb 182

19-09-2019 15:20:42

under pressure  

183

The following section provides a review of existing literature to frame the key challenges and opportunities that exist within the mid-career cohort. This chapter will ground debates around mid-career development within the Australian context and highlight the impact of the “National Innovation and Science Agenda” (NISA) on researcher development. This chapter will provide a model for mid-career researcher (MCR) competencies which seeks to provide a holistic and comprehensive overview of the skills needed to succeed. The remainder of this chapter will then look at the agency of individual academics in defining their career paths and identify relevant support programs. This chapter will provide a specific analysis of researcher development programs within the HASS as well as the HMR fields at the University of Sydney. The comparative analysis demonstrates that although discipline differences may exist, there are a core set of competencies and development activities that apply to researchers across the spectrum. Structured programs which address skills gaps and provide ongoing support represent the best pathway to improving MCR outcomes.

Defining What Matters Most There is an existing body of literature that points to the challenges faced by MCRs. Previous research has indicated a number of key factors that impact this group, including competing academic identities, availability and delivery of structured career progression programs, and the impact of gender on career progression. The following section provides a brief overview of these factors in order to frame the discussion on how challenges can be addressed and the agency of researchers in defining their career progression.

The Juggling Act: Competing Identities The MCR period of an academic life cycle is a critical juncture in which academic staff need to develop key competencies and skills to catapult them from junior faculty members to senior researchers. Mid-career has been defined as “the lengthy period between the end of professors’ probationary years and their preparation for retirement. For most faculty members, these are the most productive and influential years of the academic career” (Baldwin, DeZure, Shaw, & Moretto, 2008, p. 48). In the Australian context, mid-career is generally defined as being at the senior lecturer or associate professor level at a time more than 10 years from completion of the doctoral degree. The mid-career years can be seen as transformational as researchers ideally emerge as leaders in their given fields. However, this idealized career

Baker.indb 183

19-09-2019 15:20:42

184  

scholarly development

progression view must consider the significant existing challenges of modern academic identities and posit how these can be overcome. Academic identities can be viewed against a backdrop of technological disruption and heightened change. The world of higher education has evolved significantly over the past decade as a result of changes in technology, funding pressures, and the increasing competition among higher education institutions, making the sector “more precarious and unpredictable” (Debowski, 2016, p. 3). This unpredictability and the global changes occurring are central to understanding the pressures faced in balancing teaching, research, and administrative loads. In terms of the management of these competing priorities, it has been suggested by Karpiak (1996) that research remains a fundamental and primary interest area for academics given the intellectual challenge that it provides and noting that “whilst teaching is the vocation for many of the faculty, research is the primary interest . . . [and] with an interest in research comes the challenges of juggling its demands with those of teaching, administration, and family” (Karpiak, 1996, p. 62). It is also clear that although institutions are asking their academics to do more, there is heightened pressure on the quality and research impact of work conducted in that “research metrics and public-cross institutional comparisons have prompted institutional concern for supporting and developing highperforming researchers” (Debowski, 2016, p. 20). The challenges that have arisen around competing priorities can be juxtaposed against the support that is given to MCRs to balance these demands. MCRs are often seen occupying a “no man’s land,” straddling more junior and senior colleagues given that “they are frequently ineligible for many forms of institutional recognition—internal grants and awards and incentives are typically directed toward junior faculty still working their way to tenure” (Strage & Merdinger, 2015, p. 41). It has further been suggested that MCRs are also neglected in terms of the support they obtain given they receive less attention despite the increase in demands on them (Baldwin et al., 2008, p. 50). A paradox emerges indicating that at the time academics most need support, it is unavailable to them. As Wilson (2012) notes: Once a professor earns tenure, that guidance disappears, the amount of committee work piles on, and associate professors are often left to figure out how to manage the varying demands of the job—and fit in time for their research—on their own.

Therefore, the mid-career period represents a crucial window for transformation; however, it relies on structured support, which is often not readily available.

Baker.indb 184

19-09-2019 15:20:42

under pressure  

185

Structuring for Success In this context, it is pivotal to consider how barriers to MCR development can be overcome. Structured career development activities for academics have been cited as critical toward ensuring success for researchers. Sectorlevel bodies such as the Australian Academy of Science have emphasized the importance of career development by providing mechanisms for researchers to both network and integrate into the research community (Australian Academy of Science, 2014). Career development programs have increasingly been used as a means to address academic performance and enhance outcomes for researchers. Successful programs have been established based on clear structures and a high degree of reflexivity to allow agency for researchers to define and reflect on their development. Programs aimed at researcher development can often be difficult to design and implement given the need to balance program development against specific individual requirements. The need for initiatives targeted at individuals must be juxtaposed against the establishment of structured programs which can be designed, implemented, and assessed for efficacy. The evaluation of mid-career support undertaken at Boston University indicates that an effective mid-career program should be underpinned by the following key elements: longitudinal nature, project-based, collaborative, high levels of commitment, multilevel, driven by researcher needs, and evaluative (Boston University Medical Campus Mid-Career Task Force, 2013, p. 7). If we consider these elements in greater detail, it is apparent that longitudinal programs which work and track progress over a number of years are an important foundation of any structured program. Researcher development programs must also be designed to allow researchers to work on projects that are central to their research programs and allow for collaboration and engagement. Commitment from the institution to the researcher is also pivotal given that the impact of development programs cannot be measured over days or months but rather requires a sustained approach. Development programs should also take into account the multiple levels at which researchers operate (e.g., a research group, faculty, or broader research theme or cluster) in order to ensure there is a clear understanding of the internal context in which the researcher resides. Contextualizing the researcher also allows for the creation of networks at each of the relevant levels with a view to creating communities of practice that can help sustain and drive ongoing career development. Finally, researcher development programs should be based on the assessment of a particular group’s needs, considering the internal and external contexts as well as the development of skills for the immediate and long term to future-proof the researcher in the face of changes which may occur in the higher education sector.

Baker.indb 185

19-09-2019 15:20:42

186  

scholarly development

Reflexivity has been established as a key characteristic for successful development programs. Given the competing demands and tensions in academic roles, it is often difficult to allow appropriate space for this to occur. Pastore’s (2013) work on a mid-career development model indicates members of this cohort acknowledge “the importance of reflection and assessment, informal reflection, and approaches to reflection” (p. 27). In this way, appropriate space must be carved out to allow for reflexive practice as an iterative process as opposed to a discrete process which starts and ends as part of the development program. The need to encourage reflexive practice must be considered when designing academic workloads and responsibilities and be prioritized to allow development programs to provide a skill set which becomes part of academic life in the mid-career phase and beyond. Within this context, mentoring programs also play an important role given that they provide a means to support reflexive practice. Mentoring programs can help the participant to reflect on career decisions to date, review current obstacles, and workshop ideas around individual agency to overcome barriers.

The Impact of Gender Should Not Be Underestimated At a broad level, the impact of gender needs to be a central consideration in mid-career development programs. The idea of competing identities has been noted as “an especially salient issue for female academics” (Nottis, 2005, p. 95) given that mid-career often corresponds to the time when academics have increased burdens in terms of family responsibilities. It has been well established that female academics face serious challenges in career development and advancement. Notably, these often involve the construction of academic identities and normative views on what it means to be a mid-career academic, with many mid-career academics feeling that they “had to conform to ideal worker norms for promotion to full professor, which served as a deterrent” (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2016, p. 16). This indicates the serious challenges faced by female academics in achieving academic promotion when the transition from associate professor to professor has been seen as the final hurdle. Buch, Huet, Rorrer, and Roberson (2011) have identified through their work the “existence of unique career challenges facing associate professors, [which] mirror previous findings of gender differences in perceptions about the processes and expectations regarding promotion to full professor” (p. 44). These unique career challenges have substantial explanatory value and can be used “to provide strong support for the efficacy of mid-career mentoring, in the context of a supportive institutional environment, as a means to address these challenges” (p. 44). This brief review of the literature has pointed to a number of key themes that impact MCR development: academic identity, structured support

Baker.indb 186

19-09-2019 15:20:42

under pressure  

187

programs, and the impact of gender. In considering how these global themes impact researchers, it can be helpful for better understanding to view their application in a local context, as described in the following section.

Researcher Development in Focus: The Australian Context These global issues can be seen to have strong resonance to MCRs in Australia. The Australian higher education context has undergone significant change over the past decade, which the announcement of the federal government’s National Innovation and Science Agenda highlighted in 2015. This agenda has sought to redefine the nature of research undertaken within higher education institutions and places a premium on research translation and enduser impact (Australian Government, 2015). Policy changes come against a backdrop of declining grant success rates for the major national funding bodies and minimal growth in overall funding. These changes provide serious challenges to researchers and their ability to leverage funding in order to expand their research programs. The constraints of decreased funding are particularly difficult for the mid-career cohort as they need to adjust to emerging priorities and develop new skill sets. Finally, changes in the research landscape also must be viewed against developments which have occurred in the teaching and learning sphere. The introduction of a demand-driven funding system in Australia has resulted in exponential growth in the number of students enrolled in higher education institutions as caps on student enrollments have been removed. This growth has in turn placed greater pressures on teaching and research academics who are faced with increased teaching workloads while at the same time seeking to develop new research competencies. The following section will consider these three factors in greater depth to contextualize the practice examples to be provided later in the chapter.

The Innovation Agenda: Toward Engagement and Impact Over the last decade, there has been a substantial shift in the orientation of the Australian federal government in fostering innovation in the higher education sector. In 2012 the Australian Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research published a major report, “Research Skills for an Innovative Future,” which highlighted the need to better position researchers to capitalize on research translation and end-user use of research outcomes. One of the most striking features of the Australian research and development sector is the degree to which higher education has tended to provide the most significant proportion of the research workforce. Australia has a relatively low proportion of researchers in business as opposed to the proportion of

Baker.indb 187

19-09-2019 15:20:42

188  

scholarly development

researchers in the higher education sector (Figure 9.1). As a result, the initiation of programs and strategies that support researcher development are central to the overall research and development sector. The research workforce review noted in the previous paragraph signalled the beginning of a policy shift to encourage researchers to engage with a diverse range of partners: government, nongovernment entities, and private enterprise. The research workforce review was subsequently followed by the 2015 Watt Review as part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda as well as the Australian Council of Learned Academies review of research training. These reviews have further cemented the importance of the development of skills for researchers which position them to capitalize on future research opportunities (Australian Council of Learned Academies, 2016). The policy shift to encourage end-user research usage and the development of competencies to achieve it have also been reinforced with a realignment of national funding programs and block grant schemes to reward research with end-user acceptance (engagement and impact).

Competitive Grant Success, Harder Than Ever Another significant development at the national level has been changes to national grant-funding programs and declining overall success rates. One of the significant drivers of research success for academics is the ability to attract research grant funding in order to sustain and develop comprehensive Figure 9.1.  Proportion of health and medical researchers in business and higher education. Researchers in Business vs. Higher Education # Researchers per 1000 workers Researchers in Business Enterprises (per 1000 workers)

Ratio of 2.0 researchers in business vs. education

12 10

Finland

8

Denmark Austria

6

France Canada

4 Germany

Sweden Norway

Australia has a ratio of 0.4 researchers in business vs.education

Belgium Ireland

UK

2 Australia 0 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Researchers in Higher Education (per 1000 workers)

Source: Department of Health and Ageing, 2013, p. 223. © 2013. Commonwealth of Australia as ­represented by the Department of Health.

Baker.indb 188

19-09-2019 15:20:43

under pressure  

189

research programs. The ability to progress from early career researcher to senior researcher is often contingent on the externally funded grant and fellowship support that a researcher can achieve. Although the financial imperative to obtain funding is high, this is juxtaposed against the fiscal constraints of funding bodies and the competitive nature of applications. In Australia, there are two federally funded bodies (as well as other nongovernment funders) responsible for distributing grant funding on behalf of the federal government: the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the Australian Research Council (ARC). Whereas the NHMRC principally funds research into health and well-being, the ARC is a comprehensive grant-funding body which funds all disciplines outside health. An analysis of grant-funding success rates regarding NHMRC grants reveals the difficulties in successfully obtaining funding. For example, the success rates for the NHMRC over the past five years reveal project grants have decreased by half and fellowship categories have decreased by around 10% (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2016a). As a result, the degree of competition for these grants has been heightened with a disproportionate degree of success for those who hold research-only appointments, ensuring that teaching and research academics are effectively unable to fund their research work. Grant success data for the second funding body, the ARC, also indicates similarly alarming trends and demonstrates the difficulties researchers face. A key plank in the ARC’s research investment strategy has been a mid-career fellowship scheme entitled “Future Fellowships.” An evaluation of the Future Fellowship scheme published in 2013 states that “there is almost unanimous agreement among Administering Organisations that the Future Fellowships scheme is meeting its objective to attract and retain outstanding mid-career researchers” (Australian Research Council, 2013). However, given the extensive workforce of academic staff in Australia, it is evident that programs such as the Future Fellowships are aimed at supporting research “stars” rather than being a mechanism for the support of research careers across the broader mid-career population. Indeed, there is an identified gap through the lack of funding for more comprehensive programs which feed into overall discussions around research excellence. This has been exemplified through Excellence in Research Australia (ERA). The ERA is the national research excellence measurement system comparing institutions along discipline and thematic areas. When reviewing data from the ERA returns for 2012, Turner and Brass (2014) highlighted the low contribution of mid-career staff to research excellence measurements. They frame this as a risk to the development of MCR careers given that heavy teaching and administrative loads are impacting on their ability to contribute to research excellence.

Baker.indb 189

19-09-2019 15:20:43

190  

scholarly development

Increasing Access to Higher Education and Demands on Academics The demand-driven funding system for coursework education was introduced in Australia to significantly increase the number of Australians with a higher education qualification. The system moved to remove the cap on higher education places and allow institutions to enroll as many eligible students as possible within their courses. The demand-driven system was aimed at increasing the number of Australians with a higher education qualification as part of a national program of up-skilling. In essence, since the policy was put into place these changes have resulted in a significant extra influx of coursework students into the higher education system. If we look at overall numbers of students engaged in higher education, there was a 22% increase in the number of students supported by government funding in higher education between 2009 and 2013 through the implementation of the demand-driven system (Kemp & Norton, 2015, p. 3). The increase in the number of students has occurred in a limited time frame and from a financial perspective has allowed many institutions the ability to cement their economic situation in the wake of downturns experienced during the global financial crisis. The increase in teaching loads and demands has been acutely experienced by mid-career teaching and research staff. Given the increase in teaching time and associated responsibilities, safeguarded research time has been difficult to achieve, resulting in a barrier for researchers to improve their research outcomes.

Researcher Competency in Action Having established global and national phenomena that provide challenges around MCR development, this section presents a spoke-and-wheel model for researcher development. This model forms the basis of programs and support that have been designed to sustain researchers and provide them the opportunity to assert individual agency in the face of systematic limitations. The model provides a set of inputs that allow us to assess how MCRs can holistically approach the management of their roles in order to optimize career outcomes, promotions, and the achievement of a fulfilling vocation. Given competing tensions within the modern academic discourse, there is a responsibility to ensure the careful management of the pressures of academic work so that appropriate mechanisms are used for the MCR cohort (i.e., a balance among informal peer-based networks as opposed to formalized development models). The professional identity of the academic can easily move between the more traditional roles of teacher, mentor, and scholar to less traditional but equally significant roles such as administrator, project manager, entrepreneur, leader, and media commentator. To facilitate this

Baker.indb 190

19-09-2019 15:20:43

under pressure  

191

achievement, key developmental requirements should be in place to support the researcher as an established expert and in key leadership roles. These roles include the formal positions of heads of school, directors of research institutes, associate deans, and deans, as well as appointments within professional associations, industry groups, government advisory bodies, and national research councils. To determine these developmental requirements, a hub-and-spoke model is presented in Figure 9.2 to highlight the mid-career academic in both research and leadership roles. Given the variation across the sector, this model is intended to support research-mentoring conversations and planning throughout the researcher life cycle. Figure 9.2 indicates that an MCR has multiple identities within his or her research-related roles. As a result, structured development programs and mentoring should consider these multiple identities, noting there are unique and different skill sets involved in different contexts (i.e., an institutional research leadership role will vary from leadership of an external research network to collaboration with an industry group). As a result, key competencies such as leadership, project management, stakeholder engagement, strategic thinking, and career management form a core skill set that can be deployed in specific contexts. Critical to the model presented previously is the consideration of the MCR developing the following leadership identities: 1. Knowledge leader—in his or her academic discipline (maintaining role to produce academic outputs, developing new knowledge of high quality recognized within the discipline) Figure 9.2.  MCR model of researcher competency. Key development requirements: • Leadership of people and projects • Stakeholder engagement skills • Strategic thinking and creativity • Active career management and marketing

External Network Leader

Research Community Leader

Researcher

Service to Academic Discipline

Educator

Knowledge Leader Mid-Career Academic

Service to Institution

Baker.indb 191

19-09-2019 15:20:43

192  

scholarly development

2. External network leader—understanding the landscape of industry and practitioners in related fields and engaging as part of a broader community of practice 3. Research community leader—within the institution and more widely through national and international disciplinary and interdisciplinary groups

Taking the model provided in Figure 9.2 further, the development of skills required can be mapped to bespoke career development activities for the researcher. Table 9.1 presents examples of skills based on the earlier identified challenges and maps these to existing schemes at the University of Sydney, which will be outlined in the section to follow.

Researcher Development Programs in Action: The University of Sydney The University of Sydney is a large research-intensive university ranked in the top 100 institutions globally (QS Rankings, 2016a). In recent years, it has embarked on a number of strategic research developments, including the creation of a large-scale multidisciplinary cardiovascular research center (Charles Perkins Centre) and the development of numerous thematic centers (Sydney South East Asia Centre, China Studies Centre). The university has also committed to a significant uplift in its research funding through its strategic plan, which seeks to raise the research profile of the university and create a highly skilled and adaptable research workforce (University of Sydney, 2016). Within this context, a key plank of the overall research strategy is the continued development of its research workforce with a sustained commitment to researcher development programs at all levels.

Diversity Across the Disciplines: Humanities and Social Sciences This section will provide an overview of major programs aimed at researcher development within the HASS disciplines at the University of Sydney. In the most recent Times Higher Education 2015–2016 global rankings, Sydney’s arts and humanities disciplines ranked first in Australia and third in social sciences (Times Higher Education, 2017). In the ERA, the faculty scored above or well above world standard (the two highest classifications) in 13 out of the 17 fields assessed (Australian Research Council, 2017). The humanities cluster has sought to continuously improve its performance over the past five years and has designed many initiatives as support. In light of the university’s strategic aspirations for 2016–2020, researcher

Baker.indb 192

19-09-2019 15:20:43

Baker.indb 193

TABLE 9.1 

Mapping of Development Requirements With Skills and Programs

19-09-2019 15:20:44

Key Development Requirements

Examples of Skills Required

University of Sydney Schemes

Leadership of people and projects

• • • • • • •

Faculty Collaborative Research Scheme Faculty Research Incubator Program Accelerator Program

Stakeholder engagement skills

• Cross-cultural competencies • Develop a community of practice outside of academia • Industry collaboration skills

External Engagement Accelerator Program Accelerator Program

Strategic thinking and creativity

• Strategic goal-setting and long-term planning of research projects and networks • Adaptability to change such as innovation agenda and demand-driven model

Faculty Collaborative Research Scheme Energizer Program

Active career management and marketing

• Seeking mentors from inside and outside the academy • Disseminating research via traditional media and social media • Building a professional profile • Communicating to nonacademic audiences • Self-directed career development

Accelerator Program Strategic Promotion Advice and Mentoring Science and Gender Equity Program

Supervising and mentoring Developing gender equity programs Managing staff and performance Working collaboratively Experience in obtaining grant funding Managing time and resources Managing finances

194  

scholarly development

development activities have been structured in order to meet strategic objectives and provide opportunities to staff. Programs are targeted to support mid-career academics in understanding the mechanisms of grant applications and academic promotions, as well as looking at project management and communications issues. In addition, a strong collaborative focus in the humanities cluster exists through the internal schemes which have been created. Each of the programs presented aims to boost research performance as well as providing a means to develop the research skills and competencies necessary for ongoing success. Figures quoted for each of the schemes are in Australian dollars. 1. Faculty Collaborative Research Scheme. This is a program that seeks to support groups working together and to identify future leaders. The scheme aims to promote collaborative research across the university that will contribute to the faculty’s research profile, including competitive grant applications and research publications. The scheme provides funding up to $40,000 for groups across a 2-year period and has proven a seed initiative for significant university research centers including the Sydney Environment Institute. 2. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) Research Incubator Program. This initiative is designed to support researcher development, particularly early to mid-career researchers requiring consolidated thinking about their careers, their research trajectories, and how to translate research aspirations into workable grant proposals. There is a funding incentive of approximately $5,000 per person, subject to the staff member participating in a series of workshops and producing a small grant proposal that meets a threshold standard. 3. External Engagement Accelerator Program. This program, which began in 2016, is designed to support the development of ARC linkage applications and carries an award of up to $5,000 per group, subject to the conditions of the program. This program is key to the increased reliance on industry collaborations in academic research through the Science and Innovation Agenda. 4. Faculty Research Support Scheme (FRSS). The purpose of FRSS is to seed and support new research projects. FRSS small grants aim to assist researchers in building competitive track records that will lead to future success with external grant schemes. FRSS large grants are to seed highquality research projects with the expected outcomes leading both to ERA-eligible publications and new proposals for national competitive grants within two to three years.

Baker.indb 194

19-09-2019 15:20:44

under pressure  

195

Integration and Collaboration: Health and Medical Sciences This section will provide a description of programs aimed at researcher development within the HMR disciplines at the University of Sydney. These programs have been designed to provide a structured set of offerings that address the identities of researchers as leaders, project managers, and collaborators. The Sydney Medical School is a large research-intensive faculty within the University of Sydney. The school has a significant research output comprising publications, grants, and clinical trials and was ranked 17th in the 2016 QS rankings (QS Rankings, 2016b). At the national level, it achieved 11 rankings of 5 (a rating which indicates a status well above world standard) in the national quality ranking exercise ERA 2015, making the school a national leader (Australian Research Council, 2017). The University of Sydney (2013) Health and Medical Research Strategic Review outlined a strategic roadmap for health and medical research at the university. An important outcome was the recognition that there was a chronic issue with researcher development in the health field at the mid-career level. Mid-career academics, particularly those who combine teaching, research, and academic duties, experience limited opportunities and success with nationally funded grant programs. The recent rise in the number of research institutes and research-focused academics has tilted competitive research funding away from teaching-research academics (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2016b). It is evident that teaching and research academics face persistent pressures to balance their teaching commitments with research careers. As a result, a cohort of high-performing teaching and research staff are impeded by these pressures. Providing targeted, short-term funding to high-achieving staff allows an opportunity to create the stepping stones to enhance their research careers. As a result of these principles, two schemes were created to directly target this cohort of academics: the accelerator and the energizer (Sydney Medical School, 2017). Figures quoted for each of the schemes are in Australian dollars. 1. Accelerator Scheme. The accelerator scheme provides $50,000 over a two-year period and is intended to provide seed funding in order to allow researchers to further develop their research programs. The scheme is also supported by a mentoring program in which successful applicants are matched with senior mentors. In this way, the scheme seeks to maximize the benefits to awardees by providing a structured development opportunity alongside the grant funding. There is also an expectation that recipients will be able to demonstrate how the award will translate into their

Baker.indb 195

19-09-2019 15:20:44

196  

scholarly development

research-led teaching. As a result, this reinforces both the research and teaching identities of participants in the scheme. 2. Energizer Scheme. The energizer scheme was established in recognition that there is a degree of disenfranchisement among some of the best researchers who struggle to obtain the reliable funding that is needed to support their research activity, particularly bench or top-up support for PhD students through their three-year candidature. The scheme is targeted at teaching and research staff who demonstrate strong research performance or potential and can align their research with larger, highly productive groups. The scheme is underpinned by a cocontribution from the home school or department or larger research group. With this in mind, targeted funding support which aligns these researchers to highquality and successful research groups and provides an opportunity for them to boost their research careers while at the same time embedding students within high-quality environments provides considerable benefit to all groups.

The Tide Is Turning: Science, Gender Equity, Promotion, and Mentoring The specific programs in the HASS and HMR areas have been complemented by university-wide initiatives that target particular groups of researchers. An example of this is a program that seeks to directly address the issue of gender inequality in the realm of academic promotions. The Strategic Promotion Advice and Mentoring Program (SPAM) has been specifically created to address gender imbalance at the professorial level. The SPAM program began at the University of Sydney’s Division of Natural Sciences and School of Medical Sciences in 2013. It was designed to provide practical support for female mid-career academic staff to apply for promotion to professorial level, prompted by the low rates of conversion from MCR to senior researchers among female researchers. In order to address these trends, the SPAM program contained a series of targeted support mechanisms: 1. Workshops targeting women eligible for promotion in the subsequent two years, which provided mentors to applicants and clarified requirements for promotion 2. Development and review of promotion application including detailed review of résumés 3. Mock interviews with follow-up coaching to support confidencebuilding and to rehearse the interview process

Baker.indb 196

19-09-2019 15:20:44

under pressure  

197

The SPAM program at the University of Sydney can be seen as part of a broader trend of initiatives that have acknowledged and seek to address gender inequality within the research community. The most well-established initiative to date has been the Athena Scientific Women’s Academic Network (SWAN) Charter in the United Kingdom. The Athena SWAN Charter has outlined 10 key principles aimed at redressing inequality, reducing pay gaps, removing obstacles for women such as contracts and inflexible work practices, and achieving broad-scale cultural change in the higher education sector (Equity Challenge Unit, 2017). Following on from the Athena SWAN Charter in the United Kingdom, the Science in Australia and Gender Equity (SAGE) pilot has been created as a “national program promoting gender equity and gender diversity in STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics]” (Science in Australia Gender Equity, 2017). Through the pilot, institutions will be required to “collect, analyse and present data on gender equity policies and practices in science and medicine departments, as well as identify gaps and opportunities for improvement. Participants will work toward an Athena SWAN Award at the Institutional Bronze level” (Science in Australia Gender Equity, 2017). This pilot is intended as a first step to institutionalizing gender equity issues and keeping them on the agenda.

Putting the Pieces Together: Lessons Learned From Researcher Development Programs The case study examples from the University of Sydney provide a number of lessons in regard to the implementation of strategic initiatives aimed at addressing researcher development. In reviewing the efficacy of these programs, it becomes apparent that there is a need for an appropriate balance between centralized and discipline-specific programs in creating a cohesive program, that there is a need to frame development programs through a longitudinal lens, that generating appropriate buy-in from key stakeholders is crucial, and that blended learning delivery of programs and mentoring schemes should be considered. One of the key insights from the development programs run at the University of Sydney has been the need to understand the balance between institutional- and discipline-level programs. As part of its research strategy, at an institutional level, the university has made significant funding available for programs. Although these schemes play an important role, there is also a need to acknowledge that schemes at the local discipline level can often be highly effective but may not enjoy the same sustained funding. In this sense, it is clear that more integration between institutional and discipline programs needs to occur to improve how programs can nestle together and be sustainable over the longer term.

Baker.indb 197

19-09-2019 15:20:44

198  

scholarly development

Another challenge that has arisen is the need to frame development programs as longitudinal. This has often been difficult, given that there are many drivers and inputs into research success and pinpointing the value of a development activity or mentoring program through traditional research productivity metrics is challenging. Traditional research productivity metrics also do not acknowledge the longitudinal nature of career development (i.e., there may be a time lag between when an applicant is supported and when this materializes into a significant research productivity return). This requires a sustained institutional commitment (including financial) to provide confidence to researchers, which can be challenging with restrictions of annual budget cycles and accountabilities. One of the key strengths of the programs’ run at the University of Sydney has been the generation of buy-in from key stakeholders. In terms of creating interest and acceptance of these programs, one of the key strategies has been the presence of highly credible senior researchers in the role of champions to support and encourage researchers’ participation in programs. This use of champions has meant that one of the main risks, a lack of engagement, has been avoided. This has meant that all schemes are in fact oversubscribed and receive high-quality applications, paradoxically meaning that not all researchers who apply can be supported. A final reflection on the programs’ run to date relates to their delivery mode. Programs have been delivered in traditional workshop session format. In the case of mentoring this has been run through a face-to-face format. In considering program feedback, it is clear that blended delivery formats would be appropriate for their further development. This is particularly crucial for those researchers on remote sites who are juggling their research with teaching, service, and out-of-work commitments. Developing and investing in innovative education design will enhance the offerings which are in place and improve their ongoing reach.

Toward an Integrated Approach for MCR Development Given the practice examples that have been provided regarding schemes and initiatives aimed at enhancing researcher capability and competencies across both the HASS and HMR disciplines, and the lessons learned from these schemes, it is evident that a number of conclusions can be drawn: 1. Though discipline differences may exist, it is important to acknowledge that models of researcher development can be seen to have resonance across disciplines. Indeed, it is the generic skills or competences which are critical, particularly in the light of policy changes and emerging funding imperatives.

Baker.indb 198

19-09-2019 15:20:44

under pressure  

199

2. There exists a dual requirement of time and resource allocation (financial funding) needed in order to make structured development programs succeed. The allocation of time to support MCR development programs is an important contribution, but there is a need to financially support these development programs. Although the associated costs with these programs may be significant, it is evident that a lack of financial support may render them less effective. Providing financial support as well as mentorship and ongoing engagement provides the best possibility of sustained success beyond the duration of any specific development program. 3. There is a strong need to consider how different layers of development programs can be nested together so that these are mutually reinforcing. It is apparent that different types of programs may work well together and complement each other and should be structured to allow for interventions at multiple levels. For example, institutional gender equity programs and initiatives need to be supported at the local level to make a tangible difference. Complementary and mutually reinforcing activities provide an integrated approach to improving MCR development and counteract fragmentation that may occur through discrete and unconnected programs.

Finally, it is evident that the study of MCR development remains a nascent field with significant scope for further research to evaluate longitudinal efficacy. Future study should seek to evaluate both the quantitative measures of research performance (e.g., publications, grant funding) as well as qualitative measures (e.g., research impact and engagement). Research should be undertaken in Australia and globally to analyze the variations of national research council and institutional provisions to expand research capacity and competencies of the MCR cohort.

References Australian Academy of Science. (2014). EMCR forum. Retrieved from http://www.science.org.au/emcr-forum Australian Council of Learned Academies. (2016). Review of Australia’s research training system. Retrieved from http://acola.org.au/wp/saf13-rts-review/ Australian Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. (2012). “Research skills for an innovative future: A research workforce strategy to cover the decade to 2020 and beyond.” Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/ system/files/doc/other/research_skills_for_an_innovative_future.pdf

Baker.indb 199

19-09-2019 15:20:44

200  

scholarly development

Australian Government. (2015). National Innovation and Science Agenda. Retrieved from http://www.innovation.gov.au/page/agenda Australian Research Council. (2013). Evaluation of the Future Fellowships funding scheme. Retrieved from http://www.arc.gov.au/sites/default/files/FT_­Evaluation_ Report.pdf Australian Research Council. (2017). ERA national reports. Retrieved from http:// www.arc.gov.au/era-reports Baldwin, R., DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Moretto, K. (2008). Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university: Implications for faculty and academic leaders. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(5), 46–55. Boston University Medical Campus Mid-Career Task Force. (2013). Mid-Career Faculty Development Program. Retrieved from https://www.bumc.bu.edu/ facdev-medicine/files/2013/08/2013Aug19-MCFD-Final-Report.pdf Buch, K., Huet, Y., Rorrer, A., & Roberson, L. (2011). Removing the barriers to full professor: A mentoring program for associate professors. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(6), 38–45. Debowski, S. (2016). Developing academics: The essential higher education handbook. New York, NY: Routledge. Department of Health and Ageing. (2013). Strategic review of health and medical research. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/georgec/Downloads/Strategic_Review_ of_Health_and_Medical_Research_Feb_2013-Summary_Report.pdf Equity Challenge Unit. (2017). About ECU’s Athena Swan Charter. Retrieved from http://www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan/about-athena-swan/ Karpiak, I. E. (1996). Ghosts in a wilderness: Problems and priorities of faculty at mid-career and mid-life. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 26(3), 49–78. Kemp, D., & Norton, A. (2015). Review of the demand driven funding system. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review_of_ the_demand_driven_funding_system_report_for_the_website.pdf National Health and Medical Research Council. (2016a). Research funding statistics and data. Retrieved from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants-funding/researchfunding-statistics-and-data National Health and Medical Research Council. (2016b). Structural review of NHMRC’s grant program—Consultation paper. Retrieved from https://www ­ .nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/grants/consultation_paper_structural_review.pdf Nottis, K. E. K. (2005). Supporting the mid-career researcher. Journal of Faculty Development, 20(2), 95. Pastore, D. L. (2013). Faculty perspectives on Baldwin and Chang’s mid-career faculty development model. The Journal of Faculty Development, 27(2), 25–32. QS Rankings. (2016a). QS university rankings. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-universityrankings/2016 QS Rankings. (2016b). QS university rankings by subject 2016—Medicine. Retrieved from http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/universitysubject-rankings/2016/medicine

Baker.indb 200

19-09-2019 15:20:44

under pressure  

201

Science in Australia Gender Equity. (2017). What is the SAGE Pilot? Retrieved from https://www.sciencegenderequity.org.au/science-in-australia-gender-equity-sagepilot-2015/ Strage, A., & Merdinger, J. (2015). Professional growth and renewal for mid-career faculty. The Journal of Faculty Development, 29(1), 41. Sydney Medical School. (2017). Internal funding opportunities. Retrieved from http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/research/support/internal-funding.php Times Higher Education. (2017). University rankings. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2017/worldranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats Turner, G., & Brass, K. (2014). Mapping the humanities, arts and social sciences in ­Australia. Retrieved from http://www.arc.gov.au/sites/default/files/FT_­ Evaluation_Report.pdf University of Sydney. (2013). Health and medical research strategic review. Retrieved from https://sydney.edu.au/mbi/PDFs/willsreview.pdf University of Sydney. (2016). Strategic plan. Retrieved from https://sydney.edu.au/ dam/intranet/documents/strategy-and-planning/strategic-plan-2016-20.pdf Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2016). Academic motherhood: Mid-career perspectives and the ideal worker norm. New Directions for Higher Education, 176, 11–23. Wilson, R. (2012). Why are associate professors so unhappy? Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Are-­AssociateProfessors/132071

Baker.indb 201

19-09-2019 15:20:44

10 GETTING OVER THE HUMP Continued Professional Development for Mid-Career Faculty LeRhonda S. Manigault-Bryant, Denise Kimber Buell, Lee Y. Park, and John P. Gerry

T

here is a now well-known double bind when it comes to any discussion of mid-career faculty. We identify mid-career faculty as those who have achieved tenure and who are within seven years of having been at that rank. On one hand, mid-career faculty are indispensable because they form a bridge between faculty generations; fill essential instructional, administrative, and citizenship roles; and are instrumental to the continuity and regeneration of educational life at their respective institutions (Baldwin & Chang, 2006; Baldwin, Lunceford, & Vanderlinden, 2005). Mid-career faculty, who according to Baldwin and Chang (2006) “are the keystone of the academic enterprise” (p. 28), also make up the largest numbers (nearly 60%) of long-term faculty in the American professoriate (Byström, Given, Lopatovska, O’Brien, & Rorissa, 2016; Strage & Merdinger, 2015). On the other hand, mid-career faculty express notable dissatisfaction with their jobs, feeling as if they are undervalued in terms of professional recognition, stagnant in their scholarship, taken for granted by their institutions even while undertaking additional service and administrative responsibilities, and overwhelmed by underprepared, unmotivated students (Baldwin, DeZure, Shaw, & Moretto, 2008; Currie, 2008; Eason, 2002; Jaschik, 2012). Mid-career faculty worry about limited potential for growth in their scholarship, excessive service demands, and lack of preparation for administrative roles (Baldwin et al., 2005). Worse, faculty are afraid of becoming stuck in their careers or have been stuck for too long, with little to no support for getting out of the “mid-career hump” (Rockquemore, 2011). 202

Baker.indb 202

19-09-2019 15:20:44

getting over the hump  

203

In the broadest sense, we know very little about how mid-career faculty at liberal arts institutions are faring in relation to this purported “hump,” and even less about what liberal arts colleges are doing to support mid-career faculty. This chapter paints a clearer picture of mid-career faculty needs and challenges in a liberal arts context. Additionally, it demonstrates what kinds of institutional resources that value teaching, scholarship, and service can be made available at smaller institutions. In so doing, we strive to answer the following questions: What exactly does the mid-career look like for faculty at a small, rural liberal arts college in western Massachusetts? What are the challenges that faculty in this context face? What institutional practices and priorities have been established to support mid-career faculty? What are the lessons learned from various initiatives designed to aid mid-career faculty as they navigate this important stage of their professional lives? What more might be done to ensure that faculty avoid getting stuck and are able to traverse the mid-career hump, should it arise? At Williams College (Williams), we have found that these competing demands weigh heavily on mid-career faculty. Yet, even as the literature broadly characterizes these demands as a potential place where faculty may become stuck, the notion of a “hump” is one that dominates the literature but does not play out in quite the same ways as the literature suggests at Williams, which we detail later. Nonetheless, the concept of the mid-career hump is one that the Office of the Dean of the Faculty is especially mindful of, and to which we have paid preventative attention. In all, we have developed the following strategic responses to support mid-career faculty: (a) shifting cultures; (b) focusing attention; (c) clarifying policies and expectations; (d) making the most of collegial partnerships; and (e) streamlining available resources via “suite programming.” Taken together, these strategies are designed to accompany the self-directed goals of our faculty and to foster a productive and exciting scholarly trajectory at all stages.

Getting Over the Hump: Competing Time Demands, PostTenure Uncertainty, and Shifting Mentoring Needs Williams is a small, residential liberal arts college in the Berkshire Hills of western Massachusetts and the second oldest institution of higher learning in the state. At Williams, we take great pride in our ability to recruit from among the most competitive students in the world and in our unprecedented alumni ties. We boast a student-faculty ratio of 7:1 and provide faculty and students with opportunities to cultivate deep, lasting relationships within and beyond the classroom, laboratory, studio, or athletic field.

Baker.indb 203

19-09-2019 15:20:44

204  

scholarly development

Our office—the Office of the Dean of the Faculty—supervises faculty affairs and supports the faculty as teachers, scholars, and citizens of the college. We oversee the recruitment, appointment, evaluation, and promotion of faculty; assist with curricular and faculty career development; administer the annual budgets for all academic units; and manage the policies and procedures affecting all academic units. At Williams, the faculty are our most important resource, for they tend to the intellectual and educational needs of our nearly 2,200 students—students who are remarkably diverse in regard to geography, nationality, class, race, religion, and gender. Our faculty are also diverse, though less so than the student body. Women make up 44% of our 268 tenure-line faculty, and faculty of color, which includes those from historically underrepresented groups from the United States as well as international faculty members with permanent residency, comprise 21%. Combined data from multiple surveys and assessments administered between 2006 and 2011 (including campus-wide internal studies on faculty diversity and satisfaction) contradict broader data trends to reveal that well over 70% of our mid-career faculty felt “very satisfied” or “satisfied” rather than “stuck in the middle” as Rockquemore (2011) describes. Yet there were three interrelated concerns that mid-career faculty raised that caught our attention and have led to intentional, strategic responses from our office to improve their overall satisfaction. Among the most notable challenges mid-career faculty have identified is one that frequents the pre-tenure ranks as well: how to balance shifting personal and professional demands. At Williams, increased service expectations after tenure have proven to be somewhat difficult to manage while teaching and continuing one’s scholarly trajectory. Most surprising was a closely related concern that emerged from our faculty—namely, that many reported feeling unsure of what to do next professionally and how to proceed institutionally upon receiving tenure. A third issue that appeared in the surveys relates to mentoring. Faculty reported a lack of consistency in mentoring practices and expressed particular concern about having a limited number of mentors from which to draw for how to demonstrate success and thriving as a mid-career faculty member. At Williams, then, the mid-career faculty hump exists and has taken shape around three challenges our faculty face: 1. Balancing competing claims for time, especially as they relate to increased service expectations 2. Feeling ambivalence or uncertainty about the meaning of academic life post-tenure 3. Identifying and cultivating healthy mentoring relationships as mentoring needs change over time

Baker.indb 204

19-09-2019 15:20:44

getting over the hump  

205

Although we describe some strategic responses in greater detail later, our approach to addressing these three concerns has derived from several guiding principles. We recognize that many faculty in the untenured ranks focus on the actual moment of tenure. As such, we have been making every effort to diminish the achievement of tenure as signaling an “end.” Rather, we encourage faculty to build a long-term, sustainable career where tenure denotes a beginning. The mantra “it’s a marathon, not a sprint” has become central to our internal administrative ideology of supporting mid-career faculty. Relatedly, this means that we now place greater emphasis on the power of pacing and help faculty identify priorities for mid-career. Faculty should feel empowered to set their agenda, view themselves as having more time to do what they actually want to do, and feel supported rather than rushed into taking on overwhelming service demands just because they have successfully attained tenure. Lastly, we have discovered that we cannot overestimate the importance of offering mid-career women faculty and faculty of color both the resources they need to thrive professionally as their workloads potentially increase as well as mentors of their own as they take on more mentoring responsibilities (Vongalis-Macrow, 2014). Whether in the humanities, social sciences, or science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, the distribution of labor at departmental and institutional levels directly affects overall satisfaction among mid-career faculty, and especially for women (Hart, 2016). We have therefore strived for greater awareness of the significant “impact of the presence or absence of such supportive mentoring relationships” (Strage & Merdinger, 2015, p. 42) for female faculty and for faculty of color especially. We realize that it is important to our faculty and for us to enable all our faculty members to undertake the professional paths they determine for themselves. This is especially important for faculty of color and women faculty, who are often disproportionately burdened with service demands, who frequently feel as if their work is not valued in the same ways as their White male counterparts, and who report greater limitations in their access to supportive mentorship (Alex-Assensoh, 2003; Brayboy, 2003; Fenelon, 2003; Laden & Hagedorn, 2000; Matthew, 2016; Mills, 2000; Pittman, 2012; Ropers-Huilman, 2000; Salazar, 2009; Tillman, 2001).

Fortifying Agency: Five Strategies for Mid-Career Professional Development O’Meara, Campbell, and Terosky’s (2011) concept of academic agency, where an academic member assumes strategic perspectives and takes strategic

Baker.indb 205

19-09-2019 15:20:44

206  

scholarly development

actions toward goals that matter to him or her, offers a powerful way to understand how faculty navigate the academy and work toward achieving their individual goals. Thinking in terms of academic agency can help institutions such as ours better support faculty at various stages of their careers. By discovering what faculty desire for themselves, empowering them to achieve their goals, and ensuring their support along the way, we benefit from an alignment of personal and institutional priorities (Neumann, Terosky, & Schell, 2006; O’Meara, 2015; Terosky & O’Meara, 2011). At Williams, we want our faculty to thrive and we recognize the important role we play in contributing to their successes. We strive to alleviate the concerns our midcareer faculty face, including achieving balance, recognizing shifting mentorship needs, and maintaining professional certainty. As a result, we have developed five strategies to support faculty in the middle years and to sustain them in ways that complement the professional goals and desires they have expressed for themselves.

Strategy 1: Shifting Cultures One of faculty members’ oft-repeated concerns revolves around the notion of “the Williams way,” a perceived singular model for faculty success at Williams. As a result, we have embraced the strategy of shifting cultures, or doing the deep institutional work of altering our current language and expectations. As such, we underscore multiple examples that model how to be a successful faculty member at Williams rather than a single institutional model for what it means to be “successful” at the mid-career mark. We take this on in the aforementioned techniques of emphasizing the power of pacing oneself throughout one’s academic career and diminishing the sense of finality some faculty associate with the moment of tenure. However, we have discovered the significance of disrupting the idea that there is only one trajectory for a faculty member at Williams and that that trajectory must include, for example, receiving a national teaching or national book award (although we also make it a point not to diminish those who achieve those accomplishments, as many of our faculty receive this recognition during their careers). In addition, then, we highlight other forms of success that indicate the varied ways in which our faculty work (e.g., earning the lead editor role of the top journal in one’s field, receiving an external competitive grant, or being featured in a regional newspaper for one’s volunteer work with students at a local organization). One critical form the strategy of shifting cultures has taken has been to celebrate multiple kinds of faculty successes, which has been met with positive responses from our faculty. We have worked collaboratively, for example,

Baker.indb 206

19-09-2019 15:20:44

getting over the hump  

207

with our Office of Communications to ensure that the wide range of accomplishments our faculty achieve in teaching, in scholarship, and in service to the college or the broader professional community are highlighted with regularity and in ways that are visible. There are now, for example, more and different kinds of work featured by mid-career faculty celebrated on the college’s home page and in our alumni magazine. This gesture may seem small, but it goes a long way in communicating what constitutes success for our faculty and cultivating new energy among our faculty around the various forms those successes might take. We have found this to be an especially important effort for our mid-career faculty who express concern about uncertainty for the direction of their post-tenure life at the college. By presenting multiple modes of “the Williams way,” all faculty members can develop numerous examples from which to draw and feel more empowered to create their own professional paths. Arguably, this work of shifting cultures is the most challenging because it means we must identify unwritten norms or expectations about practices and attitudes toward what constitutes “success” at Williams. Shifting cultures also requires attention to what Steidl and Sterk (2016) describe as “microlevel symbolic processes” (p. 597) through which faculty expectations are constructed, communicated, and applied. We have discovered that ­cultures are not always crystallized in ways that are easily identifiable. Rather, they seep into and permeate the formal and informal language we use, and the unspoken assumptions about what is “good,” “right,” or “appropriate.” This work, then, of shifting cultures is thus ongoing. Our office is dedicated to unearthing and changing the ways that those expectations, assumptions, and languages become normalized among our faculty to ensure that Williams is a place where all faculty can thrive, and including especially our mid-career faculty. This is the work that we are committed to on a dayto-day basis and that structures our general approach to collaborative work with faculty.

Strategy 2: Focusing Attention It was apparent in the data we received from assessments conducted between 2006 and 2011 that we needed to pay greater attention to the varied and shifting expectations and challenges for faculty at every level, especially our faculty at the associate rank. Two ad-hoc committees in particular—one on mentoring and one on the relationship between academic departments and programs—surfaced a greater need for focusing on (and clarifying) what we mean by mentoring and collaboration among academic units. These two structures were not necessarily targeted for mid-career faculty but have had

Baker.indb 207

19-09-2019 15:20:45

208  

scholarly development

lasting impact because of the ways they revealed institutional gaps in how we think about what matters to mid-career faculty. In response, the college established a website to pull together faculty development resources and formal processes for faculty affiliation across academic units. Certainly, there are multiple, viable ways of approaching life as a midcareer faculty member that can work well for individual faculty members regardless of their particular professional goals. Yet we discovered a need for more fully addressing a range of professional development expectations for our faculty (Strage & Merdinger, 2015). Rather than taking a one-sizefits-all approach that presumes that all faculty experience the same things at the same moments in their careers (which our limited programming for midcareer faculty unintentionally signaled), we have focused on the specificity of challenges that arise for faculty at the mid-career stage. We have recently concentrated on getting more information about mid-career faculty expectations and challenges through annual activity reports that provide information about faculty productivity but also detail the specific needs and professional goals faculty articulate for the faculty dean, provost, and unit chair. As a result, for example, we now have a better sense of what constitutes “hidden service” for women and faculty of color and can provide resources to cultivate awareness and cultures of shared service among our faculty at large. In addition to taking a proactive approach to getting more evidence about what faculty want for themselves professionally, we have also begun providing more information to our faculty about the aspects of work and life at the college for which our mid-career faculty may be less familiar. One example of this focused attention has taken shape in our “How the College Works” workshop, an annual series offered for the first time in the fall of 2016. In the workshop, which met on a roughly biweekly basis and included a modest stipend, we covered topics such as the organization of the college, its financial workings, faculty governance and committee structures, the work of our Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP), admissions, financial aid, and capital projects. Each workshop, which consisted of a presentation and discussion, gave 14 tenured faculty (4 of whom were mid-career faculty) an in-depth opportunity to learn about and discuss aspects of the college that bear on big decisions made at the college. Faculty reported finding the series especially rewarding for the ways it familiarized (or refamiliarized) them with the institutional structures at the college and how they might best engage with those structures. By focusing our attention on mid-career faculty members’ diverse needs, we have discovered that we can provide more targeted support, work within existing structures to offer new approaches to “old” material, and assist faculty to take stock of what actually matters to them (Baker-Fletcher, Carr,

Baker.indb 208

19-09-2019 15:20:45

getting over the hump  

209

Menn, & Ramsay, 2005; Baldwin & Chang, 2006; Baldwin et al., 2008). Learning more about and responding strategically to what faculty say they experience and what they want to experience allow faculty to enact agency for their professional development that and create an energetic environment actively working against the well-known rut of the academic mid-career.

Strategy 3: Clarifying Policies and Expectations An additional challenge we have faced has been ensuring that all faculty members have a clear sense of what is available to and expected of them at every stage of their careers. Thus, a third strategy we have employed at Williams has been to clarify policies and make expectations transparent. We have also done the work of ensuring continuity and communicating policies as widely as possible. This has most readily taken place in our clarification of the process for promotion to full professor. Upon receiving tenure at Williams, faculty members begin a new phase of their relationship with the college. To begin this next phase, the dean of the faculty now meets individually with all faculty members in the summer after they receive tenure. This meeting enables the dean to communicate in some detail the basis for a positive tenure decision, to articulate any expectations or even concerns the CAP or home unit may have, and to ask the faculty member to express his or her hopes, plans, and questions for the next five to six years. During time in rank as associate professors, faculty members are expected to fulfill the promise seen in them at the time of the decision at tenure. The arc of the associate professor rank at Williams is roughly analogous to the assistant professor arc insofar as there is a mid-rank assessment. The decision concerning promotion to full almost always occurs during the sixth year in rank, with almost all associate professors promoted to full after the sixth year in rank. The mechanisms for formal evaluation at the associate or mid-career level are fewer and less frequent than for assistant professors. Appropriately, the emphasis shifts from evaluation by senior members to accountability and responsibility placed in the hands of the associate professor. After the third year in rank, associate professors produce a self-assessment that addresses teaching performance, curricular development, scholarship or creative work, and service to the college and profession. Then the full professors in the fall of the fourth year in rank submit a staffing report called the “Interim Associate Professor Report” to the CAP based on this self-assessment, teaching score results, and their knowledge of the colleague’s contributions to the academic unit. This report offers assessment, makes recommendations, and communicates concerns and expectations to the CAP about the associate

Baker.indb 209

19-09-2019 15:20:45

210  

scholarly development

professor. Based on the staffing report along with the associate professor’s self-assessment (and updated curriculum vitae) and teaching score results, the CAP discusses and then composes a written communication to the associate professor. After this written communication from the CAP is sent to the faculty member, the dean of the faculty meets individually with each associate professor. During the sixth year in rank, after receiving an updated report on activities from the associate professor, the full professors of a unit submit a recommendation to the CAP concerning promotion to full. The dean of the faculty meets individually with all faculty after this decision, regardless of the outcome. By offering a clear path to promotion we have effectively demystified the process and created greater transparency. In so doing, we have utilized a strategy that has proven to be especially helpful for faculty who express a sense of ambivalence about their professional paths. We have found that by clarifying policies wherever possible, we diminish uncertainty.

Strategy 4: Making the Most of Collegiate Partnerships Cultivating partnerships has proven to be a salient way to offer support for mid-career faculty in areas where our resources are limited, including strategies for advancing institutional priorities such as recruiting and retaining a diverse faculty and effectively using digital technologies. We have found that collaborating with other institutions can be beneficial for everyone involved and can further empower faculty to take on work they find personally and professionally meaningful. We want to highlight four recent initiatives for the ways they have resulted in notable, positive changes for our mid-career faculty. In all four examples, we solicit participation from faculty at various stages—especially mid-career faculty—to aid in the process of recruiting, vetting, and mentoring postdoctoral fellows; to participate in various workshops and campus visits; and to collaborate with faculty members at other institutions to foster broader intellectual networks. Doing so has helped cultivate buy-in from the faculty at large and has allowed mid-career faculty to take a greater role in developing and implementing college-wide priorities. The Alliance to Advance Liberal Arts Colleges (AALAC), which began in 2006 from a grant program funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, has since 2011 been supported entirely with funding from 24 institutional members, including Williams, which is a founding member. AALAC strives to advance liberal arts education through collective efforts to support faculty research and teaching so as to enhance the overall experience of students and

Baker.indb 210

19-09-2019 15:20:45

getting over the hump  

211

to develop faculty leadership. In addition to sharing best practices, we collaborate in a competition where teams of faculty from across AALAC schools propose self-determined workshops that integrate pedagogy and cuttingedge scholarship. The Liberal Arts Diversity Officers Consortium (LADO) facilitates systematic change to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in support of academic excellence and learning at colleges and universities with a core commitment to liberal arts education. Williams is a founding member of LADO, and the vice president for institutional diversity and equity serves as an executive committee member. LADO supports efforts to recruit and retain diverse faculties at liberal arts colleges. Faculty representatives and chief diversity officers of the schools partner to host visits to research institutions and to offer perspectives on successful faculty careers in a liberal arts context. Mid-career faculty regularly participate and offer constructive feedback to graduate students during visits to Research I institutions. Williams is also a founding member of the Creating Connections Consortium (C3), which implements programs that seek to transform higher education by building capacity, investing in cohorts of talented graduate students and faculty from underrepresented groups, and creating and nurturing connections between partners interested in institutional change. In partnership with LADO and with the Center for Institutional and Social Change at Columbia Law School, the C3 develops, disseminates, and promotes new strategies for building academic settings that foster the full participation of diverse students and faculty. In doing so, the C3 serves as an incubator of innovation for institutional diversity. The C3 has been funded by a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the grant has allowed us to place recent PhDs from the University of Chicago, University of Michigan, the University of California at Berkeley, and Columbia University into liberal arts contexts and to partner them with tenured faculty members who serve as formal and informal mentors. Lastly, Williams is a founding member of the Liberal Arts Consortium for Online Learning (LACOL), which explores new models of teaching and learning in the service of residential liberal arts education. The LACOL includes Amherst, Bryn Mawr, Carleton, Haverford, Pomona, Swarthmore, Vassar, and Washington and Lee, and it has examined how reading skills are taught, with consideration of the ways in which the landscapes of rapidly evolving technologies impact those skills. LACOL has proven especially valuable to our mid-career faculty for the ways it has sparked new energy into teaching and scholarship by offering them new partners with whom to collaborate.

Baker.indb 211

19-09-2019 15:20:45

212  

scholarly development

Strategy 5: Streamlining Resources via “Suite Programming” At Williams, we provide comprehensive and varied opportunities and offer funding and resources to support faculty in their teaching, scholarship, and broader professional goals. Where we have at times fallen short is in presenting these resources in a way that is coordinated, coherent, and accessible. Unfortunately, many mid-career faculty were unaware of these resources, due to three overlapping factors: 1. The lack of a single place or person associated with all available resources 2. A poorly designed website that was plagued by unfriendly and nonintuitive site navigation 3. Generational shifts in which new faculty are more familiar with the extent of resources than mid-career and more senior faculty, because new faculty are introduced to them during orientation and early career programming activities

Offering suite programming, or a collection of programming designed for mid-career faculty, has increased general awareness of issues mid-career faculty face and has improved the overall visibility of resources available to them. We have aligned our work with the three features Baldwin and Chang (2006) deem essential for successful mid-career faculty development: provide collegial support such as mentoring and networking opportunities, offer resources, and reinforce successes with recognition and rewards. Resources for Teaching and the Evaluation of Teaching Significant professional development programming that focuses on the teaching needs of mid-career faculty at large has not usually been considered a priority, especially at Research I institutions (Romano, Hoesing, O’Donovan, & Weinsheimer, 2004). And indeed, Williams has only recently added more options for tenured faculty to reflect on pedagogy. Given the importance and value of teaching in our residential, liberal arts context, we would be remiss if we did not direct our energies and resources to supporting this crucial aspect of academic and intellectual life for our faculty. Our office provides an expansive amount of support related to teaching and the evaluation of teaching. These resources can largely be grouped into three categories: adaptable suite-style programming, interorganizational support, and integrated support. The first category includes a suite of programming designated for teaching faculty at specific stages, but that can also be focused and adapted to accommodate the varied and shifting needs of faculty at any stage of their teaching careers.

Baker.indb 212

19-09-2019 15:20:45

getting over the hump  

213

This first category includes Three+, a new set of programming for faculty beyond their third year, which will include a regular “Middler Mixer” for mid-career faculty, as well as specific programming for more seasoned faculty related to course development, time management, strategies for transitioning to service at the college, keeping up with scholarship, and broadening the scope of mentoring and professional development. Also included in the programming category are our All Faculty Lunches on topics related to pedagogy, as well as the Open Classroom Initiative, which provides faculty with opportunities to observe teaching by specific courses and genres, and the New Faculty Mentor Program, where incoming faculty are partnered with more senior members outside of their academic units. Teaching Roundtables are a hallmark of our teaching-related programming. Faculty gather in groups of four and, with a modest stipend, meet for lunch discussions six times a semester and also organize a round-robin schedule of class visits. Other programs include biweekly associate deans’ lunches and a new annual faculty retreat, which attend to issues related to inclusive pedagogies and mid-career support. We have also developed an expansive online video and resource repository that includes techniques for developing courses at Williams, general teaching approaches and teaching tips, and strategies for teaching students from underrepresented groups. Lastly, support is also provided for Teaching Through Emotions Workshops, facilitated by a local consultant. These include course design groups (instructional design support), tactical support groups (which focus on teaching methods), emotional support groups (with an emphasis on the feelings that accompany teaching), and a newly formed workshop on administrator support, which is designed especially for unit chairs and Three+ faculty and offers unit chairs a chance to gain additional training for their role and to reflect on relationships in the workplace. Interorganizational support constitutes a second category of available resources, where coordination with other offices on campus leads to intentional work related to teaching and its evaluation, such as partnerships cultivated with the Center for Learning in Action (e.g., experiential courses); workshops, and individualized support on pedagogy and class practice offered by our director of writing programs; “Teaching Millennials” and other seminars offered by faculty fellows at the Davis Center, our multicultural center, to all teaching faculty; a series of informal, nonevaluative discussions about evaluation procedures and processes hosted by the Office of Institutional Diversity and Equity (OIDE); and collaborative programming efforts with the Office of Institutional Technology and the campus libraries on teaching topics such as the use of social media. Finally, integrated ­support includes resources that are geared toward research and scholarship

Baker.indb 213

19-09-2019 15:20:45

214  

scholarly development

.

(e.g., our Writing/Creative Endeavors Roundtables) but that also frequently have explicit and direct bearing on teaching and teaching evaluation. Resources for Scholarship and Creative Endeavors We have also taken a robust approach to supporting faculty scholarship and creative work. Notably, we offer a generous sabbatical leave policy for tenured faculty, where eligibility for a paid semester’s leave accrues after 6 semesters of teaching. Our Sabbatical Salary Grant Program, where sabbatical salaries are “topped-up” from 75% to 100% for tenured faculty members, frequently augment that leave. There are also a number of opportunities for faculty to gather around research topics they deem to be of interest. Our Writing/Creative Endeavors Roundtables parallel the format of Teaching Roundtables but are centered on the reciprocal exchange of works in progress and conversations about strategies for doing one’s work. In addition, we have a designated center, the Oakley Center for Humanities and Social Sciences, that offers funding for faculty in the arts, humanities, and social sciences to organize reading groups and shared research groups over the course of a semester or year, supports a manuscript review program for faculty preparing books for publication, and provides residency during sabbatical leaves. For faculty in STEM fields and psychology, Weekly Science Lunches feature faculty presentations on research and facilitate sustained interaction among faculty. There are three other noteworthy opportunities. Since 1911, we have hosted the annual Faculty Lecture Series, where our tenured faculty deliver six lectures (typically our mid-career faculty) each spring term. These talks are designed to present big ideas beyond disciplinary boundaries. We also frequently host Publishing Day, which features three to four editors of major trade and university presses who come to campus for a panel and one-on-one consultation. Finally, our in-house director of writing programs offers multiple writing retreats throughout the academic year and is available to consult individually with faculty about their writing. We offer extensive funding to support faculty research, including annual divisional funding, the World Fellowship to defray the costs for faculty who conduct research internationally, and funds for summer research assistants with Williams students. There are also pools of supplementary funding available through the Office of the Dean of the Faculty for Divisions I (The Arts) and II (Social Sciences) and through a separate funding committee for Division III (Natural Sciences). Periodically, there are opportunities specifically for mid-career faculty, such as the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation New Directions Research Fellowship. This latter opportunity has proven to be especially rewarding for mid-career faculty because it allows for training

Baker.indb 214

19-09-2019 15:20:45

getting over the hump  

215

in new methodologies or disciplines and can breathe new life into faculty members’ scholarship. Finally, in addition to individual consultations as needed from our in-house Corporate and Foundation Relations Office, we host annual fellowship workshops to assist faculty in seeking external funding and, on occasion, will host regional or local grant workshops, such as the National Endowment for the Humanities Regional Workshop. Resources for Service, Mentoring, and Other Professional Development In our final category of suite programming, we turn our attention to the resources we have made available for mid-career faculty related to service, mentoring, and other forms of professional development. This last grouping is especially significant because it addresses two of the three categories—service and mentoring—for which mid-career faculty at Williams have expressed some concerns. We have begun the important work of rebranding service as critical stepping stones into administration. Rather than treating chairing an academic unit or participating in faculty governance as onerous or overly burdensome, we have reframed taking on these roles as opportunities for mid-career faculty to “assess and hone their skills over time in low-risk contexts, to determine whether they enjoy service and leadership, and to learn about the institution and how organizational work gets done” (DeZure, Shaw, & Rojewski, 2014, p. 7). This ties into our broader strategy of shifting institutional cultures around approaches to service and holds true for our mid-career faculty who take on other kinds of leadership roles such as associate deans, the director of the Williams-Exeter Programme (our study-away program in Oxford, England), or coordinators for our First3 Program (designed for faculty in their first three years of teaching at Williams). It is common at Williams, especially in smaller academic units, for tenured faculty to begin chairing shortly after achieving tenure. We now strongly encourage academic units to project for leave patterns from three to five years out, so that faculty in the earliest years of the mid-career need not take on the added responsibility of chairing unless they express interest in doing so. This is essential for shifting cultural expectations about the timing of added service. Whether in the form of all-chairs meetings on topics such as strategies for more effective mentoring, chairs’ roundtables, budgeting and account management workshops led by the controller’s office, offering chairs copies of The Department Chair Primer (Chu, 2012), participation in workshops on hiring to support the institutional goal of diversifying the faculty, or providing a handy “Resources for Chairs” set of materials on the college website, we have developed an extensive array of support to ease faculty into the particular service role as chair.

Baker.indb 215

19-09-2019 15:20:45

216  

scholarly development

We came to see the necessity of providing written examples of the different kinds of professional successes our faculty can attain via mentorship. Broadening the scope of mentoring and professional development in this way led us to create an internal professional development and mentoring guidebook. In it, we emphasize the importance of mentoring, which we define as the formal or informal practices used to advise, train, and/or support those with less or different kinds of experience; practices that aim to develop and improve skills; practices that provide additional tools; and/or practices that expand knowledge. We acknowledge that inherent to effective mentoring are the development of trust and the cultivation of a relationship that is beneficial to all parties involved. Mentoring is a key aspect of professional development at all stages of a faculty career. Formally, we structure mentoring practices to provide faculty with an exposure to available resources, while offering them substantive, constructive support for career-long professional development. We also acknowledge a range of informal mentoring practices that are especially important to one’s day-today life as a faculty member at Williams, including mentoring at the local, inunit level as well as peer mentoring. We further acknowledge that mentoring practices reasonably vary according to field and academic unit; nonetheless, we believe in cultivating a college-wide climate that fosters regular contact among faculty to engage with each other, learn about themselves and their academic units, and receive the broadest level of personal and professional support. This guidebook has become very important to our work with mid-career faculty as it structures conversations among faculty to identify individual needs and goals so that mentoring can be most helpful. The form that this help takes will vary according to the needs of the faculty member and the expertise of the mentor, but often the mentor will be someone who can steer a colleague to college resources and facilitate forming contacts with other faculty. We encourage our faculty to treat the guidebook as a living document that can actively accommodate their needs at a given moment, but that can also adapt to their shifting needs over time. We have modeled this document around the creation of what Rees and Shaw (2014) call “peer mentoring communities of practice,” where faculty determine their mentoring needs with a group of peers. As such, the establishing of a sense of community has become more organic (versus hierarchical) and cultivates a deeper sense of support among faculty, as well as feelings of connection to the institution more broadly.

Conclusion As these examples suggest, there are a plethora of resources available to help faculty navigate teaching and, more specifically, their evaluation of teaching,

Baker.indb 216

19-09-2019 15:20:45

getting over the hump  

217

as well as their scholarship, their aspirations to become involved in service, and their desires to time such commitments in ways that are opportune for them professionally. These resources reveal an idea essential to our work with mid-career faculty—there are multiple ways to be a successful faculty member at Williams. The five strategies we have offered—shifting cultures to promote multiple modes of faculty success; focusing attention on the needs of mid-career faculty; clarifying policies and expectations around evaluation and promotion; making the most of collegiate partnerships; and offering a suite of recognizable, streamlined programming alternatives—tie into our overall objective of supporting our mid-career faculty as they discover what they desire for themselves in their careers. These strategies have explicitly addressed the three main concerns midcareer faculty experience, including uncertainty about the meaning of academic life post-tenure, an increased need for new forms of mentoring, and a balance between increased service and competing claims for time. When put in conversation with these expressed concerns, these strategies empower faculty to move beyond the moments of their careers that might facilitate a sense of being professionally stuck and do so in a way that allows faculty to be intentional agents in their professional lives; they also complement our institutional mission of offering a rigorous yet expansive liberal arts education to students by faculty who are doing transformative work in their scholarship and teaching. Valuing the ways that scholarship and teaching intersect for our faculty and providing more robust support that complement these interconnections have further positioned faculty to be their best selves. The more unit-level and institution-wide support faculty perceive to augment success in scholarship, teaching, and service at various stages of their academic lives, the more they report feeling greater satisfaction with their career trajectories (O’Meara, Rivera, Kuvaeva, & Corrigan, 2017). Just as all of our faculty arrive at Williams with different kinds of expertise, each member has different aspirations and needs for professional development, and those needs shift over the course of a faculty member’s time at the college. At Williams, we are thus committed to furthering the professional development of faculty members as teachers, scholars, artists, and contributors to college governance. We seek to provide support for continuing growth in these areas. Every faculty member has access to a range of college resources for professional development, both experiential and financial, and we offer many opportunities for faculty to continue to develop as teachers and scholars (or artists) as well as to develop leadership and administrative skills that are important for faculty members’ abilities to participate fully in the life of the college.

Baker.indb 217

19-09-2019 15:20:45

218  

scholarly development

References Alex-Assensoh, Y. (2003). Introduction: Race in the academy: Moving beyond diversity and toward the incorporation of faculty of color in predominantly White colleges and universities. Journal of Black Studies, 34(1), 5–11. Baker-Fletcher, K., Carr, D., Menn, E., & Ramsay, N. J. (2005, January). Taking stock at mid-career: Challenges and opportunities for faculty. Teaching Theology and Religion, 8(1), 3–10. Baldwin, R. G., & Chang, D. A. (2006, Fall). Reinforcing our “keystone” faculty: Strategies to support faculty in the middle years of academic life. Liberal Education, 92(4), 28–35. Baldwin, R. G., DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Moretto, K. (2008). Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university: Implications for faculty and academic leaders. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(5), 46–55. Baldwin, R. G., Lunceford, C. J., & Vanderlinden, K. E. (2005). Faculty in the middle years: Illuminating an overlooked phase of academic life. The Review of Higher Education, 29(1), 97–118. Brayboy, B. M. J. (2003, September). The implementation of diversity in predominantly White colleges and universities. Journal of Black Studies, 34(1), 72–86. Byström, K., Given, L. M., Lopatovska, I., O’Brien, H., & Rorissa, A. (2016). Life after tenure: Professional development strategies for mid-career faculty. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 53(1), 1–4. Chu, D. (2012). The department chair primer: What chairs need to know and do to make a difference (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Currie, R. F. (2008). Supporting faculty at mid-career. University Affairs, 49(9), 84. DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Rojewski, J. (2014, January/February). Cultivating the next generation of academic leaders: Implications for administrators and faculty. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46, 6–12. Eason, B. J. A. (2002). A portrait of long-term associate professors: Career, choices, and consequences. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (304627960) Fenelon, J. (2003, September). Race, research, and tenure: Institutional credibility and the incorporation of African, Latino, and American Indian faculty. Journal of Black Studies, 34(1), 87–100. Hart, J. (2016, September/October). Dissecting a gendered organization: Implications for career trajectories for mid-career faculty women in STEM. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(5), 605–634. Jaschik, S. (2012, June 4). Associate professors less satisfied than those at other ranks, survey finds. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered .com/news/2012/06/04/associate-professors-less-satisfied-those-other-rankssurvey-finds Laden, B., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2000). Job satisfaction among faculty of color in academe: Individual survivors or institutional transformers? In L. S. Hagedorn (Ed.), What contributes to job satisfaction among faculty and staff (New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 105, pp. 57–66). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Baker.indb 218

19-09-2019 15:20:45

getting over the hump  

219

Matthew, P. A. (Ed.). (2016). Written/unwritten: Diversity and the hidden truths of tenure. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Mills, N. (2000). Now that I’m tenured, where do I go from here? The vitality of mid-career faculty. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 20(4), 181–183. Neumann, A., Terosky, A. L., & Schell, J. (2006). Agents of learning: Strategies for assuming agency, for learning, in tenured faculty careers. In Susan J. Bracken, Jeanie K. Allen, & Diane R. Dean (Eds.), The balancing act: Gendered perspectives in faculty roles and work lives (pp. 91–120). Sterling, VA: Stylus. O’Meara, K. (2015). A career with a view: Agentic perspectives of women faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(3), 331–359. O’Meara, K. A., Campbell, C. M., & Terosky, A. (2011, November). Living agency in the academy: A conceptual framework for research and action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Charlotte, NC. O’Meara, K., Rivera, M., Kuvaeva, A., & Corrigan, K. (2017). Faculty learning matters: Organizational conditions and contexts that shape faculty learning. Innovative Higher Education, 42(4), 1–22. Pittman, C. T. (2012, Winter). Racial microagressions: The narratives of African American faculty at a predominantly White university. The Journal of Negro Education, 81(1), 82–92. Rees, A., & Shaw, K. (2014, May). Peer mentoring communities of practice of early and mid-career faculty: Broad benefits from a research-oriented female peer mentoring group. The Journal of Faculty Development, 28(2), 5–17. Rockquemore, K. A. (2011, November 28). Mid-career mentoring. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2011/11/28/essayneed-tenured-faculty-members-have-mentoring Romano, J. L., Hoesing, R., O’Donovan, K., & Weinsheimer, J. (2004). Faculty at mid-career: A program to enhance teaching and learning. Innovative Higher Education, 29(1), 21–48. Ropers-Huilman, B. (2000). Aren’t you satisfied yet? Women faculty members’ interpretations of their academic work. In L. S. Hagedorn (Ed.), What contributes to job satisfaction among faculty and staff (New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 105, pp. 21–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Salazar, C. (2009). Strategies to survive and thrive in academia: The collective voices of counseling faculty of color. International Journal of Advances in Counseling, 31, 181–198. Steidl, C. R., & Sterk, C. E. (2016, November). Interpreting productivity: Symbolic negotiation of gendered faculty career trajectories in the United States. Symbolic Interaction, 39(4), 595–614. Strage, A., & Merdinger, J. (2015). Professional growth and renewal for mid-career faculty. The Journal of Faculty Development, 29(1), 41–50. Terosky, A., & O’Meara, K. (2011). Assuming agency. The power of strategy and networks in faculty professional lives. Liberal Education, 97(3/4), 54–59.

Baker.indb 219

19-09-2019 15:20:45

220  

scholarly development

Tillman, L. (2001). Mentoring African American faculty in predominantly White institutions. Research in Higher Education, 42(3), 295–325. Trower, C. A. (2012). Success on the tenure track: Five keys to faculty job satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Vongalis-Macrow, A. (2014). Avoiding mid-career stalling. In A. Vongalis-Macrow (Ed.), Career moves: Mentoring for women advancing their career and leadership in academia (pp. 71–82). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

Baker.indb 220

19-09-2019 15:20:45

11 F A C U LT Y D E V E L O P M E N T FOR MID-CAREER WOMEN IN STEM Cementing Career Success, Building Future Leaders Sandra L. Laursen and Ann E. Austin

D

espite many years of efforts, significant gender gaps persist in women’s representation and advancement on science, technology, engineering, and mathamatics (STEM) faculties of U.S. academic institutions (National Center for Engineering and Science Statistics, 2017). This trend is not only a concern for individual women striving to create meaningful and impactful careers in STEM fields but also an issue of broad national import. The problems facing the country and world today are complicated, messy, and often seemingly intransigent. In the face of such daunting challenges, the full range of human talent is needed in order to contribute to advances in STEM that will help solve these problems (Valian, 2004; Van Ummersen, 2005). Systems that overlook, undervalue, or undermine the contributions of women inhibit innovation and jeopardize the interests of the nation and of humanity at large (Nielsen et al., 2017). Furthermore, factors that impede the recruitment and success of women in STEM fields not only affect those women scholars already prepared to make a contribution but also have long-term impact, because women scientists are the role models for the next generation of women considering STEM careers (e.g., De Welde & Laursen, 2011; Sonnert, Fox, & Adkins, 2007). In these ways, strategies for supporting the success of women STEM scholars have powerful implications for not only those women but also their institutions, future scholars, and the country at large. Within this context of interest, this chapter focuses on faculty development for mid-career women in STEM fields. We consider several models 221

Baker.indb 221

19-09-2019 15:20:45

222  

scholarly development

developed by institutional projects supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation’s (NSF) ADVANCE Institutional Transformation (IT) program. Faculty development is one of several strategies used by ADVANCE IT projects as they seek to both assist individual women faculty members and improve the institutional environment for women STEM faculty as a group (Laursen & Austin, 2014). These strategies tend to focus on posttenure career planning, including advancement from associate to full professor status as well as leadership development. In some ways these programs share many goals and characteristics of other mid-career faculty development efforts; however, they are also distinctive in their focus on issues that are salient or exacerbated for women in the STEM disciplines and in how they support the broader transformational goals of ADVANCE to establish institutional environments that support the recruitment, retention, and success of women STEM faculty. In this chapter, we discuss the origin and rationale for such programs and why they focus on mid-career STEM women in particular. We describe the program models we have observed, including workshops, seminars, small grants, mentoring and coaching programs, and leadership development activities such as “internship” opportunities in college or university administration. Using data from our multi-institution study of organizational change strategies in ADVANCE IT projects, we describe vignettes of specific programs and offer research-based advice about the design, implementation, and evaluation of such programs.

Context for Research: ADVANCE IT Projects The NSF ADVANCE program, in existence for more than 15 years, is designed to address the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields in academe. Much of the ADVANCE program’s work has occurred through its IT grants, designed “to catalyze change that will transform academic environments in ways that enhance participation and advancement of women in science and engineering” (NSF, 2001). Through multiyear grants awarded to institutions through a competitive funding process, ADVANCE IT projects focus on increasing the recruitment, retention, and success of academic women in STEM fields. The ADVANCE IT program is not oriented to a deficit model of “fixing women,” but rather seeks to address the embedded systemic issues that create gendered biases in institutional contexts and thus thwart the inclusion, advancement, and success of women scholars. The ADVANCE program—as well as our research about strategies to create more inclusive academic environments—draws on extensive organizational theory and research. Key premises are that higher education institutions

Baker.indb 222

19-09-2019 15:20:45

faculty development for mid-career women in stem  

223

are complex organizations and that efforts to effect significant change require a systemic and analytical approach (Kezar, 2001, 2014; Laursen, Austin, Soto, & Martinez, 2015). That is, effective approaches to organizational change require first carefully examining the institution as a system, including its structures, culture, and climate, to determine what aspects of the organization must change, and only then designing and implementing targeted interventions and change strategies. Systemic change plans must take into account the levels of trust, collegiality, and hierarchy within the institution; who is involved in decision-making, in what ways, and to what extent; the values woven into institutional life; and the geographic and political context of the institution. Furthermore, a systemic and analytical approach to improving the recruitment, retention, and success of women scholars in STEM fields must take into account such factors as the extent and expression of implicit bias about the capabilities of women academics; the opportunities or constraints for women’s visibility, mobility, and leadership within their disciplines and work units; and the policies and structures that enable or impede academics’ ability to manage both personal and professional responsibilities. Given the complexities of institutional contexts, successful approaches to change require using multiple levers to address the full range of institutional factors that influence the environment within which women scholars seek to succeed. Typically, addressing just one or two elements of the culture within a higher education institution is insufficient for advancing significant change (Laursen et al., 2015).

Our Study of Organizational Change and Gender Equity Recognizing the importance of such systemic approaches, our research examines how universities can most effectively create environments that support the success of women STEM scholars. In our multiyear study, we took a cross-institutional, analytical approach to learn about specific organizational strategies that foster such change goals. We also sought to learn how the choice and impact of various interventions are related to organizational context. Our study involved document analysis, interviews, and selected case studies at 19 institutions funded in the first two rounds of ADVANCE IT awards (2001–2004), with additional data from IT institutions funded more recently. Outcomes of our work have included traditional publications and the StratEGIC Toolkit (Laursen & Austin, 2014), a web-based resource for institutional leaders, faculty members, and scholars interested in approaches to institutional change to create more inclusive academic workplaces.

Baker.indb 223

19-09-2019 15:20:45

224  

scholarly development

The StratEGIC Toolkit provides descriptive and analytical briefs about 13 frequently used interventions for effecting organizational change, institutional case studies showing how change interventions can be used in strategic combinations within specific institutional contexts, and video statements offering insights about the processes of engaging in institutional change. The analysis presented in this chapter draws on this study and our experience as researchers and evaluators connected to NSF-funded ADVANCE IT projects across the United States. The major source of data is that gathered for the organizational change study described previously, comprising the following: 1. About 150 documents (e.g., grant proposals, reports) from 19 IT institutions funded in the early years of ADVANCE (2001–2003) 2. 19 interviews with project leaders from these institutions 3. 115 interviews and focus groups with 171 individuals, gathered from on-campus case studies of 5 institutions to understand these projects in depth and the processes by which they were developed, coordinated, and sustained 4. Similar documents and interviews with leaders of an additional 11 ADVANCE IT projects funded later (2005–2012)

Our research team engaged in systematic content analysis of these data, using rubrics to guide document analysis, structured content coding of interviews, and attention to issues of consistency and interrater reliability. To aid our analytical process, we used the qualitative analysis software package NVivo 10 to categorize data and identify themes. From these data sets, we extract both “supply side” perspectives on the design, rationale, implementation, and refinement of various mid-career faculty development programs and “demand side” perspectives on the outcomes of these programs for participating faculty. This chapter is also informed by our (separate) experiences as evaluators for ADVANCE IT projects at institutions other than those in our study. Based on these data sources, we discuss strengths and limitations of the different models and of different design choices within these models.

Rationales for Mid-Career Faculty Development Programs for STEM Women Leaders of ADVANCE projects offered two main types of reasons for including faculty development in their IT portfolios. One set of reasons addressed

Baker.indb 224

19-09-2019 15:20:45

faculty development for mid-career women in stem  

225

the needs and opportunities of individual STEM women to take agency and thrive in their careers. For the academy to become more representative of society as a whole, it must ensure that women have the skills and capacities to succeed at the institution. Some of these skills and capacities are not taught formally but rather learned through informal socialization in networks from which women may be excluded (Fox, 2008). Particularly in work environments where women are in the minority, faculty development can help women make formal and informal connections across their institutions that offer support, mentoring, and sponsorship. In addition, some faculty development strategies address work-life circumstances that more commonly challenge women simply because they are more likely to hold caregiver roles alongside their professional roles (Laursen & Rocque, 2009). Some of these arguments apply equally well to women at all career stages, and many ADVANCE institutions did offer faculty development to pretenure STEM women as part of their change efforts. But many also discovered specific gender discrepancies for mid- and late-career faculty within their institutional data. On average, women spent longer at the associate professor rank and were less likely to advance to full professor at all (Misra, Lundquist, Holmes, & Agiomavritis, 2011). Women ages 50 to 59 were more likely to leave the academy than their male peers (Marschke, Laursen, Nielsen, & Rankin, 2007). In such a context, encouraging and enabling mid-career faculty was seen as a strategy to reduce inequities in opportunity and to help women plan beyond the tenure timeline for the full arc of a long and rewarding faculty career, and overall, to encourage women to take the agency needed to achieve their long-term goals. Other rationales emphasized benefits to the institution as a whole. Because the faculty is the heart of the institution, developing a more effective and satisfied faculty improves the quality of workplace interactions for everyone, in turn improving the institution’s effectiveness as a whole (Laursen & Rocque, 2009). Such “rising tide” theories often led institutions to pilot and refine faculty development programs for STEM women under ADVANCE, and later expand them to women and men across disciplines. Moreover, although women are underrepresented on STEM faculties as a whole, they are least well represented at senior levels (NCES, 2017) and in academic leadership roles for which seniority and institutional experience are prerequisite: department heads, chairs of major committees, deans, and directors (Niemeier & González, 2004). Because implicit bias shapes ideas of who is a leader, senior women may not be selected for these roles or attracted to them (Dominici, Fried, & Zeger, 2009). Thus, women represent a pool of untapped leadership talent. Nurturing their leadership ambitions and talents benefits the institution when well-prepared women step into formal

Baker.indb 225

19-09-2019 15:20:46

226  

scholarly development

leadership roles. Enlightened leadership may in turn help the institution to achieve other transformative goals, such as improving climate within departments, fostering inclusion, or building better systems for faculty rewards, recognition, and work-life balance (Laursen & Rocque, 2009). Finally, providing opportunities for leadership may also help the institution retain senior women. Many of the concerns about failures to foster the career advancement and leadership potential of women also apply to other groups underrepresented on STEM faculties, including faculty of color; faculty with disabilities; and lesbian, gay, and transgender faculty members. In working with STEM women, some ADVANCE teams learned about the complex and context-sensitive challenges for those who were members of multiple marginalized groups. In their analysis of how ADVANCE IT projects supported STEM women from underrepresented groups by race, ethnicity, disability status, or sexual orientation, Armstrong and Jovanovic (2015, 2016) argue for an intersectional approach to establishing inclusive institutional environments. This approach acknowledges that people have multiple, intersecting identities, and therefore a person’s comprehensive social location must be taken into account when seeking to foster her full participation in the institution or profession. For instance, when institutional programs are intentional and strategic in taking “both race and gender into account as a complexly integrated experience, women of color are more likely to experience a sense of institutional relevancy and to professionally flourish” (Armstrong & Jovanovic, 2016, p. 4). These authors acknowledge the difficulties of designing such programs; however, they identify faculty development initiatives as one area where ADVANCE institutions had made some progress in offering intersectionally aware programs, and highlight intersectional enabling factors useful to those seeking to make their programs fully inclusive.

Program Types: Advancing Women, Developing Leaders As noted, two broad types of rationales predominated among the reasons offered for providing faculty development to mid-career STEM women as part of ADVANCE IT projects. In practice, we observed two broad types of programs, roughly aligned with these rationales. Faculty development programs with a focus on women’s advancement tended to focus on supporting individuals to advance in their careers, addressing one or both crucial career transitions for post-tenure faculty: the period immediately post-tenure and the promotion to full professor. In a study of faculty professional development needs (Laursen & Rocque,

Baker.indb 226

19-09-2019 15:20:46

faculty development for mid-career women in stem  

227

2006), post-tenure faculty often expressed a sense of accomplishment and freedom to take risks or make changes in their career paths, but they also felt a sense of letdown after achieving the goal of tenure. Faculty were interested to hear from others who had made that transition and to think through their options for changes—for example, distributing their workload among research, teaching, and service; managing greater service or leadership expectations; or mentoring younger colleagues (while still wanting career advice themselves). These decisions also influence the timing and nature of the case that a faculty member will later be able to make for promotion to full professor. Women found promotion a vague and somewhat fraught process (Fox, 2015; Laursen & Rocque, 2006). As one interviewee put it: I would probably be agitating for full promotion except that . . . I don’t play the game quite the same way as my male colleagues do, I think. And maybe it’s not necessarily fair to [assume that has] a gender basis, but . . . I don’t publish as many papers as I think they think everyone should. I’m . . . interested in having a balanced life and not . . . making myself a slave to science. So, as a result, I don’t bring in as many dollars as they do; I don’t publish as many papers as they do.

Thus, faculty development addressing career advancement of mid-career women may address women’s broad questions about career trajectory, encourage them to pursue promotion, and offer information about the process for advancement to full professor. Faculty development with an explicit focus on leadership development tended to be more directly framed in terms of the benefits to the institution at large. These programs recognized the crucial role of chairs and deans in setting a tone, establishing a positive climate, and nurturing faculty across career stages. Some programs sought to improve the effectiveness and awareness of people already holding leadership roles, whereas others sought to foster interest and identify talent among women who were not yet considering such roles. As the descriptions show, these two program types are not mutually exclusive. Women’s personal career goals may include stepping into institutional leadership roles, and institutions can accommodate individual career goals as they support women who take on formal leadership. Leadership development thus overlaps with, but does not replace or subsume, faculty development for mid-career faculty. Moreover, both program types seek to enhance women’s agency in supporting them to reflect on their careers, define their next set of career goals, and take personal action to achieve these goals, in a career stage when the

Baker.indb 227

19-09-2019 15:20:46

228  

scholarly development

“next steps” are less obvious and women are least satisfied with their situations (Baldwin, Lunceford, & Vanderlinden, 2005; Terosky, O’Meara, & Campbell, 2014). As O’Meara (2015) notes, development or adoption of such agency-taking perspectives, through internal conversation and reflexive deliberation, may be as important for career success as concrete actions for women who are operating in gendered organizational contexts that constrain their real and perceived opportunities for career advancement (Acker, 2006). As we describe specific program models in the next two sections, we are alert to how these models provide opportunities for women to listen, reflect, and brainstorm with others, thereby enabling them to develop new views of their own situation, lessen isolation, give and receive validation, and identify new strategies for action—to “see choices . . . and create choices” (O’Meara, 2015, p. 349). In these ways, workshops, mentoring, and networking programs, and similar strategies can develop mid-career women’s sense of agency around their own career advancement (O’Meara, 2015; O’Meara & Stromquist, 2015; Terosky et al., 2014). Such experiences may also help women “translate awareness into action” to become effective advocates for others (DeJonghe, Hacker, & Nemiro, 2015, p. 396), thus expanding their individual agency to benefit others.

Program Models: Career Advancement In this section we describe some faculty development models that focus on mid-career advancement. Compared to programs for early career faculty, these models tend to be more individualized in a variety of interesting ways. The needs of early career faculty tend to be well-studied challenges of learning the job and making wise choices about their time and priorities (Austin, Sorcinelli, & McDaniels, 2007). Although less is known about the needs of mid-career faculty, those needs that are documented focus on customizing a career path and overcoming challenges that may sap career vitality (Baldwin, DeZure, Shaw, & Moretto, 2008). Research also suggests that the path to full professor is understood less well than the expectations for tenure. Women in particular may wait to pursue promotion until they get a clear signal from colleagues, which may not be forthcoming (Fox & Colatrella, 2006; Gardner & Blackstone, 2013). Consequently, faculty development for mid-career women typically emphasizes setting individualized career goals and supplying the collegial and financial resources needed to achieve those goals. We highlight here the ways in which different models have provided that customization.

Baker.indb 228

19-09-2019 15:20:46

faculty development for mid-career women in stem  

229

Individualized Resources Small grants are the basis of one model for mid-career faculty support, providing faculty grantees with the resources needed to reenergize their scholarship and teaching interests at mid-career. The University of Colorado Boulder’s ADVANCE IT project, known as Leadership Education for Advancement and Promotion (LEAP, n.d.), began with an emphasis on faculty development programs for early career faculty. Although LEAP’s program for pretenure faculty was effective, a needs-assessment study identified many unmet needs of tenured faculty (Laursen & Rocque, 2006). In response, LEAP chose small grants to individual faculty as a way to support mid-career faculty members seeking to expand their career horizons, change research directions, strengthen diversity, or enhance work-life balance. These “Individual Growth” awards targeted faculty making career transitions, beginning new scholarly or creative activities, or restarting scholarly work after a period of substantial university service, such as chairing a department or running an undergraduate program. Most grants, typically $1,500 to $10,000, were awarded to associate professors who used the funding to acquire a course release; travel to exhibits, libraries, conferences, or field sites; purchase equipment, books, or research materials; or pay for student assistants. Qualitative analysis of grantees’ reports (Laursen, 2008) showed that the program addressed the stated needs and generated a high level of scholarly and creative activity. Over 90% of grantees produced manuscripts, presentations, or performances, and over 60% wrote new grant proposals. Participants reported many professional benefits to their research, teaching, leadership skills, and scholarly networks, and described positive impacts on their confidence, morale, and motivation to pursue further scholarly work. In the stereotypically dispassionate world of academe, these affective benefits stood out, demonstrating the importance to faculty of feeling valued by the institution and supported and energized to do their professional work. One grantee wrote: There are many uncertainties that come with a major shift in research focus and practice, including the fear that one is making an enormous mistake! For me, the LEAP grant provided a tremendous boost to my confidence that I am on the right path. The grant signifies that my colleagues appreciate the difficulty of significantly changing course and that there is institutional support for such career development. (p. 5)

As a result, the university chose to continue this program after the ADVANCE award ended, seeing this as a low-cost, high-return investment in mid-career faculty development (LEAP, n.d.). The program is supported

Baker.indb 229

19-09-2019 15:20:46

230  

scholarly development

by the provost’s office and represents increased institutional support for faculty career development as an outcome of the ADVANCE project. Running the grant program requires no elaborate infrastructure, and the mechanism of competitive grants is consistent with faculty culture at this and other institutions.

Individualized Mentoring Mentoring is another model for individual career development. At Kansas State University (K-State), ADVANCE leaders developed the Career Advancement Program (CAP) for senior women, which combined the small grant approach with active, formalized mentoring. The program emerged from evidence that women remained longer at the associate professor rank than their male colleagues and from data cataloguing women’s feelings of frustration due to high service burdens, perceptions of male colleagues that women lacked ability or commitment, and values they did not see as shared by their departments. CAP sought to help tenured women advance to full professor or leadership roles. Each woman wrote a proposal to define her career goals and selected mentors on or off campus who could help her achieve these goals; this relationship was formalized through a letter signed by both parties, committing their time and attention to the relationship. As on-campus mentors, recipients chose distinguished scholars or skilled administrators who could help them advance their research or investigate potential professional paths. Their off-campus mentors were often people with whom they wished to establish a research collaboration. For example, one interviewee described visiting her off-campus mentor’s laboratory to give a talk, check out the laboratory environment, and interact with the mentor before developing a collaborative project to pursue on her sabbatical. In addition to the mentoring relationships, each CAP awardee received $20,000 in funds to support professional activities, such as lab technician assistance or research travel. Because the number of STEM women eligible for CAP was small, a sizable fraction of K-State women were supported by the program. The project documented outcomes such as promotion to full professor and successful competition for administrative roles on campus. One interviewee described the link between her CAP award and her promotion: I went up [for full professor] while I was expecting our daughter. I’m not sure I could’ve done that without the funding and the support from the CAP award. . . . For me, the timing was really just very critical. . . . Instead of, you know, stalling, I was able to keep some important things going during those few months when my daughter was really young, and at the end

Baker.indb 230

19-09-2019 15:20:46

faculty development for mid-career women in stem  

231

of my pregnancy. [I was] able to hire a really capable person [in the lab], and if I hadn’t had that, things would’ve just kind of come to a halt and [I’d have had to] come back maybe a half a year or a year later and rebuild.

Examples like this speak to the need for support that can be customized to the specific circumstances of mid-career faculty, enabling them to pursue the professional goals that both make sense to them and benefit the institution. Lehigh University used the language of leadership to offer individualized career development. Like K-State’s CAP, Lehigh’s program combined an individual mentoring plan with financial support for its implementation; the awards were smaller—$3,000 per year for up to two years. The program was based on evidence that women remained longer at the associate professor rank, and thus it targeted recently tenured STEM women. The program’s design explicitly acknowledged data showing that Lehigh’s STEM women “do not equate the achievement of leadership solely with assuming a university administrative position. Rather, they subscribe to a broader interpretation of leadership that includes the attainment of prominence in research, scholarship, teaching and service within their professional disciplines” (Lehigh University ADVANCE, 2017). Proving popular at Lehigh, the program was expanded to a regional consortium through a later ADVANCE award, which included a research study to examine the program’s outcomes and adaptation to different contexts. The consortial program, known as MAPWISEly (Mentor Associate Professors Wisely) also included peer mentoring among women across institutions in order to reduce isolation, offer outside perspectives, encourage collaboration, and establish accountability to one another. Together, these examples from a public research institution, a much smaller private university, and diverse consortial partners suggest that this model is adaptable to a variety of institutional contexts.

Collective Support for Individualized Work Jackson State University’s (JSU) ADVANCE IT project developed a summer writing retreat that sought to strengthen the publishing and grant-writing productivity of women faculty in STEM and social and behavioral science disciplines. The program originated in institutional data showing that the university’s women faculty were concentrated at the associate professor rank. Recognizing that mentoring, writing, and collegial connections were central activities of JSU’s most successful male full professors, JSU ADVANCE leaders sought to offer women faculty opportunities to develop the same skills and relationships that had led male senior faculty to success. The program was strategic in supporting JSU’s ongoing evolution into a research institution in a manner consistent

Baker.indb 231

19-09-2019 15:20:46

232  

scholarly development

with its commitments as a historically Black institution. As ADVANCE director Loretta Moore put it, “The balancing act for faculty, for administrators, for the institution, is to staying true to the mission of serving those who have been underserved in our communities, while at the same time advancing our institution with a strong focus on research” (Laursen & Austin, 2015). The summer writing retreat was open to both tenured and pre-tenure faculty, but it targeted associate professors, seeking to help them strengthen their publication records and grant success in preparation for promotion. Many women faculty were isolated in their departments, so the program also sought to build collegial networks. Participants focused on their writing during a week-long retreat in a relaxing rural setting, away from the pressure of everyday campus, family, and personal life. They shared work with each other, reported weekly on their writing progress following the retreat, and committed to produce an article, book chapter, or grant proposal by the end of the program. In this way, the retreat “encouraged a cohesive community of scholarly writers and promoted the self-discipline of daily writing” (JSU ADVANCE, n.d.). Building on local success, JSU now leads a multicampus network to expand this model to other historically Black colleges and universities and Hispanic-serving institutions. The network supports writing retreats and builds professional connections among faculty women of color. The model has also been extended to scholars across the JSU campus. The Academy for Research and Scholarly Engagement is a year-long program to increase faculty effort and competitiveness in obtaining extramural funding for their scholarly work. It seeks to build grant-writing skills, increase understanding of foundations and federal agencies, and foster connections that may lead to multidisciplinary collaboration. About 20 Academy Scholars each year take part in face-to-face workshops, self-paced instruction, coaching and review of drafts by experienced principal investigators, and interactions with program officers from private and federal funders. Formal opening and closing celebrations elevate faculty grant-writing efforts as adding value to the institution, and scholars present their work to each other at year-end, helping to build a cross-disciplinary culture of scholarly excellence. The institution has documented at least $1.2 million in new grant awards obtained by the first cohorts of Academy Scholars. The institution also offers a variety of other supports for scholarly writers, including accountability groups, peer-review teams, virtual writing circles, and writing workshops.

Program Models: Leadership Development Within the ADVANCE projects we studied, leadership development was seen in part as a means to foster career success of individual women in

Baker.indb 232

19-09-2019 15:20:46

faculty development for mid-career women in stem  

233

STEM fields, like the career advancement programs discussed previously. But it was also one of several essential tools to change the culture of the institution (Kezar, 2014). Both female and male leaders must understand the importance of inclusive environments, recognize the barriers to creating and sustaining such environments, and know how to guide change processes to the benefit of all. Because women are underrepresented in the leadership of many higher education institutions (Niemeier & González, 2004), women’s advancement into these roles can demonstrate the benefits of a diverse leadership group and enable them to serve as examples for others. The program models we observed reflect different mixes of encouraging women into leadership roles and enhancing existing leaders’ effectiveness.

Bolstering Current and Emerging Leaders One model for leadership development comes from the University of Washington’s (UW) ADVANCE project. Recognizing the crucial role of departments in widespread institutional change and the crucial role of chairs in guiding change at the department level, ADVANCE leaders sought to help chairs become more effective in running their departments and in creating better departmental climates for all faculty. Current chairs and emerging leaders—women and men—were invited to what became known as “chair school,” a quarterly series of half-day workshops. A hallmark of these workshops was the use of peer presenters who reflected on and shared their own experiences and who became resources for other participants. ADVANCE leaders felt this model encouraged participants to consider real-world applications and alternative approaches; hearing from peers in one’s own institutional context gave the information credibility. Diversity was woven into all workshop topics where it was natural—for instance, when discussing chairs’ roles in recruiting new faculty, evaluating faculty for tenure and promotion, or implementing family-friendly policies. The model was popular with UW chairs in the STEM departments—average attendance was 75% of invited chairs—and it was extended by the provost to include department chairs from other schools. Many practical details about the workshops are offered by Yen, Lange, Denton, and Riskin (2004). Although UW leaders initially developed the workshops to enhance leadership on their campus, they extended this nationally via two models. The Leadership Excellence for Academic Diversity workshops offered tools and strategies for improving departmental and institutional cultures to department chairs, deans, and emerging leaders (LEAD, 2011). Using speakers, discussions, and role-play scenarios, the two-day, in-person workshop addressed areas of chairs’ leadership responsibilities, such as faculty

Baker.indb 233

19-09-2019 15:20:46

234  

scholarly development

development, recruitment, evaluation, mentorship, work-life balance, and leadership skills such as strategic planning and communication. Some 60 to 70 participants attended each year for three years. To share their long experience with leadership training even more widely, UW leaders developed an online resource called Lead-it-Yourself!, capturing their materials and insights in an online toolkit. Institutional leaders can use the Lead-it-Yourself! content resources and planning tools to prepare their own local workshops to advance STEM faculty diversity and inclusion (ADVANCE Center for Institutional Change, n.d.). As of 2017, UW was working with five institutions to pilot the toolkit.

Connecting and Inspiring Future Leaders A different leadership development strategy focused on increasing women’s interest in leadership. In addition to its workshops for current chairs, UW ADVANCE hosted a monthly lunch series for experienced women faculty called Mentoring for Leadership. The lunches were designed to expose women to a variety of career leadership paths and help women envision themselves in leadership roles. A featured speaker offered a short talk highlighting personal stories of career decision-making, career obstacles and successes, or balancing strategies. Although most speakers held formal institutional leadership roles, others represented research leadership or informal leadership. Speakers appreciated the chance to reflect on their accomplishments and consider how gender influenced their successes. In turn, participants learned what it was like to hold a particular leadership position and what strategies other women leaders used to navigate their responsibilities, perhaps inspiring them to consider being leaders themselves. Designed with what leaders described as the feel of a dinner party, these events connected women across departments to reduce their sense of isolation and increase their sense of belonging. Evaluation results showed that the group mentoring model was effective for most of the women who attended; in providing multiple models of leadership, the lunches made leadership roles seem “more accessible” to participants (Yen, Quinn, Carrigan, Litzler, & Riskin, 2007). At least a quarter of participants reported they had taken on new responsibilities in their department, the university, or their professional society since they had attended one or more lunches.

Trying on the Role Another model of leadership development seen in ADVANCE projects took UW’s models a step further by recruiting and preparing women for formal institutional leadership through direct experience of an administrative role.

Baker.indb 234

19-09-2019 15:20:46

faculty development for mid-career women in stem  

235

These “internship” programs allowed faculty to step temporarily into a parttime administrative role, typically at the level of associate dean or special faculty assistant to a provost or vice chancellor. In this way, such programs enabled tenured faculty to try out an administrative leadership role for a year without losing the option to return to their current faculty work (Laursen & Rocque, 2006). As one interviewee put it: I’m excited about experimenting with some kind of administrative job. . . . And maybe I’ll try it and it’ll be awful, and I’ll just want to go back to teaching and doing research. But I guess I’m optimistic that it’ll go well. And maybe I’ll end up as a dean or a vice chancellor or something—that would be interesting, I think.

Working in an administrative office, women could participate in its every­day work and obtain advice from experienced administrators on how to do the work and how to make choices that would prepare them for this possible career change. Often the faculty participant also undertook a special project for her host office. For the institution, these programs helped to increase the visibility of women among administrative leaders and to change mental models of who can be an administrator. Programs that enable women to try out administrative roles can have some shortcomings, such as unclear expectations and inadequate opportunities for the faculty member to develop deep and meaningful relationships with experienced but busy administrators (Laursen & Rocque, 2006). The ADVANCE Center at Texas A&M University-College Station (TAMU-CS) solved some of these problems in its year-long Administrative Fellow Program. One key improvement was articulating and formalizing expectations on both sides up front. Senior leaders from academic and research administration submitted a position description specifying the fellow’s duties and responsibilities; the areas where she would have budgetary, management, or decision-making responsibility; and planned mentoring mechanisms. Tenured faculty from STEM departments could apply, with the explicit support of their departments; if selected, they remained involved in research, teaching, and service in their home departments but negotiated specific changes to their teaching and service duties to accommodate the administrative work. The ADVANCE Center coordinated positions and applications and provided a course buy-out that gave fellows time to take part. Fellows committed to one year, with the option to continue for a second year by mutual agreement. TAMU ADVANCE also fostered specific networking and professional development activities for their administrative fellows, bringing them together with participants in a similar leadership development program offered through the university’s athletic conference,

Baker.indb 235

19-09-2019 15:20:46

236  

scholarly development

and with current administrators. The program has been successful in moving women into formal leadership in the campus administration (Jean, Walker, & Bergman, 2015), and several TAMU-CS offices planned to continue hosting an administrative fellow after ADVANCE funding ended.

Coaching Women Leaders Case Western Reserve University emphasized leadership in its ADVANCE project entitled Academic Careers in Engineering and Science (ACES). ACES programs focused on strengthening the skills and effectiveness of current leaders rather than on recruiting new women into leadership roles. Based on data showing that chairs were key influencers of the academic climate experienced by faculty women, ACES offered “executive coaching” to STEM deans and chairs, both women and men, who were instrumental in leading faculty development and cultural change efforts (Bilimoria, Hopkins, O’Neil, & Perry, 2007). Executive coaching was also offered to STEM women faculty. Here we focus on the coaching of deans and chairs. An executive coach provides performance- and career-related advice, helping the participant to specify his or her career and leadership vision, goals, and plans and offering advice, resources, and feedback on how to best accomplish that vision. Compared to mentoring, coaching is less mutually developmental and more one-way; it is “targeted, finite, and focused on improving current performance and thinking strategically for the long term” (Bilimoria et al., 2007). For ACES, the goals were both individual and institutional: enhance the leader’s self-awareness, confidence, and sense of empowerment; assist strategic thinking about career development, both for short-term effectiveness and long-term contributions; and develop leaders who can catalyze constructive institutional change. This combination resulted in what one interviewee called “a big payoff to the individuals as well as the institution.” Chairs and deans took part in 8 to 10 coaching meetings that were individually driven but guided by a sequence of recommended topics, starting with identifying the leader’s vision and goals. At other sessions, a leadercoach pair might discuss critical competencies of emotionally intelligent leadership, strategies for increasing leadership impact, or ways to build a broader repertoire of interpersonal skills. Participants completed preparatory and follow-up assignments: reading, reflection, and data collection and analysis. Leaders were encouraged to administer a 360-degree assessment to gather feedback from supervisors, peers, and subordinates, and then discuss the feedback with the coach—a process not for the faint of heart. Evaluation of the executive coaching program showed very positive responses and growth in measures of self-efficacy, confidence, and agency.

Baker.indb 236

19-09-2019 15:20:46

faculty development for mid-career women in stem  

237

We heard many stories about how chairs had applied what they had gained from coaching, as in this example from a chair: One of the things that I learned about leadership styles . . . is the hazards of avoidance behavior. In earlier years I would have avoided the conflict with the retired chair, and he has an avoidance style himself, and it would have just perpetuated for years. But instead I handled [the incident] very directly, and it did not in any way disrupt our relationship because it was done in a cordial way: “These are the patterns, and this is the consequence, and it’s a problem that we both have.”

Across the ADVANCE IT projects, structured mentoring and coaching programs had mixed success; the ACES executive coaching program was one of the more effective ones we observed. Skilled, well-trained coaches were crucial, as was careful messaging to dispel the impression that coaching was a form of remediation. A few leaders were immediately receptive, seeing the coaching as a signal of higher-level support, but others were initially reluctant: When I was assigned a coach, I didn’t take to it very well to begin with. . . . It’s like, you know, “I’m not the problem, I don’t need to be fixed. It’s everything around me that’s a problem.” . . . But as I met with my coach, I began to realize the value. . . . I think my department chair also felt that way . . . was like, you know, “I’ve been a department chair for ten years, what am I gonna learn from this kinda thing?”

She went on to point out, however, the chair’s eventual positive reaction and resulting benefits for the department, as that chair gained “perspective on not just women and minorities in the workplace, but how one should interact with people.” Another leader articulated how executive coaching benefited the institution more broadly, including “giving people the tools and the confidence, and making it okay to have [important] conversation” and to “step out in a constructive way . . . to solve problems and to recognize problems.” In this way, the interview data provided evidence to support ACES’s hypothesis that strengthening individual chairs would lead to institution-wide benefits.

Implications Our analysis of mid-career faculty development programs from ADVANCE IT projects shows several lessons. Although some of these lessons may echo those stated in other chapters in this volume, we focus here on how programs

Baker.indb 237

19-09-2019 15:20:46

238  

scholarly development

targeting mid-career women can be effective in realizing institutional goals for diversity and inclusion by supporting the retention and advancement of tenured women faculty, while also advancing other institutional goals such as leadership development. Such dual-purpose approaches may also benefit members of other groups who are underrepresented in senior faculty and leadership roles. First, individualizing programs is important, even essential, in order to be well received by mid-career and senior faculty. Many of the programs we studied began and remained focused on individuals’ career goals and the varied paths by which people might pursue them. Even programs directed toward groups, such as UW’s workshops for chairs, were customized by using peers as local experts. Furthermore, effective programs often included active learning methods such as discussion and role-playing and offered ample opportunity for cross-department networking. Second, individualization works best when balanced by accountability. Multiple work demands on tenured faculty—high service loads, expectations to maintain established research programs, changing family expectations from maturing children or aging parents—are often exacerbated for women. This means that mentoring, networking, and learning from peers should not be left to chance or to good intent; the burden should not be placed solely on busy women to better themselves. The most successful programs offered modest organizational support to coordinate, communicate, and schedule, and they formalized roles and expectations so that all involved took their participation seriously. Third, programs were most effective when they were custom-built not only for the individual but also for the local context; that is, when they were grounded in local data on the specific issues experienced by women at midcareer and in specific institutional needs, traditions, and values. Indeed, some ADVANCE institutions’ programs for mid-career STEM women emerged only after initial efforts had failed, or after leaders discovered gaps in their offerings. Programs were strengthened when leaders listened to participants, incorporated feedback, and made iterative adjustments. Continuity of support for productive careers was enhanced when these programs for mid-career women were situated within a broader faculty development portfolio that covered the full career span, not as stand-alone efforts. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the strongest programs were keenly strategic in offering value to both individuals and the institution. Institutional investment in faculty development will be most impactful and sustainable when the institution’s interests overlap well with those of the faculty themselves. In the examples we studied, institutional investment in

Baker.indb 238

19-09-2019 15:20:46

faculty development for mid-career women in stem  

239

faculty development was specifically intended to enhance gender equity; in this way, institutional priorities around inclusivity coincided with support for career advancement for individual faculty women. To identify such areas of mutual benefit, strategic planning and data gathering are needed to ensure that design decisions about programs address individual and institutional interests. From this perspective, faculty development serves as one of several strategically implemented interventions for supporting faculty; other strategies may address cultural issues such as climate and collegiality or the structures for evaluating and rewarding faculty. This kind of thoughtful assessment and planning optimizes the use of faculty development as a strategic choice to advance both individual and institutional priorities. Even as we have presented evidence of ways to use faculty development as a powerful and strategic lever for supporting women at mid-career and advancing institutional priorities, we also recognize the need for more research on the mid-career experience. The research in this area is not extensive and is even more modest for women in STEM in particular. Important questions pertain to the experiences of faculty in handling diverse responsibilities at mid-career, the evolution of their identities as scholars and leaders, and the particularities of the challenges faced by faculty in underrepresented groups. Research is particularly needed on the gendered issues for mid-career faculty and the relationship of disciplinary context to those issues. Efforts to support individual opportunity and institutional goals, informed by thorough research findings and wise assessment of the local context, enhance the careers of women faculty and support the talent needed to address national priorities and attract the next generation of talented scholars.

References Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes, gender, class and race in organizations. Gender and Society, 20(4), 441–464. ADVANCE Center for Institutional Change. (n.d.). Lead-it-Yourself! Retrieved from http://advance.washington.edu/liy Armstrong, M. A., & Jovanovic, J. (2015). Starting at the crossroads: Intersectional approaches to institutionally supporting underrepresented minority women STEM faculty. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 21(2), 141–157. Armstrong, M. A., & Jovanovic, J. (2016). The intersectional matrix: Rethinking institutional change for URM women in STEM. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 9(3), 1–4. Austin, A. E., Sorcinelli, M. D., & McDaniels, M. (2007). Understanding new faculty: Background, aspirations, challenges, and growth. In P. Perry & J. Smart

Baker.indb 239

19-09-2019 15:20:46

240  

scholarly development

(Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidencebased perspective (pp. 39–89). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Baldwin, R., DeZure, D., Shaw, A., and Moretto, K. (2008). Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university: Implications for faculty and academic leaders. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(5), 46–55. Baldwin, R. G., Lunceford, C. J., & Vanderlinden, K. E. (2005). Faculty in the middle years: Illuminating an overlooked phase of academic life. The Review of Higher Education, 29(1), 97–118. Bilimoria, D., Hopkins, M. M., O’Neil, D. A., & Perry, S. (2007). Executive coaching: An effective strategy for faculty development. In A. J. Stewart, J. Malley, & D. LaVaque-Manty (Eds.), Transforming science and engineering: Advancing academic women (pp. 187–203). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. DeJonghe, E., Hacker, B. E., & Nemiro, J. E. (2015). The ADVANCE Associates program: An intervention for retaining women faculty members in STEM. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 7(3), 393–400. De Welde, K., & Laursen, S. (2011). The glass obstacle course: Informal and formal barriers for women Ph.D. students in STEM fields. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 3(3), 571–595. Dominici, F., Fried, L. P., & Zeger, S. L. (2009, July/August). So few women leaders. Academe. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/article/so-few-women-leaders#.WMhWOxDe100 Fox, M. F. (2008). Institutional transformation and the advancement of women faculty: The case of academic science and engineering. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 23, pp. 73–103). London, UK: Springer. Fox, M. F. (2015). Gender and clarity of evaluation among academic scientists in research universities. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(4), 487–515. Fox, M. F., & Colatrella, C. (2006). Participation, performance, and advancement of women in academic science and engineering. What is at issue and why. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(3), 377–386. Gardner, S. K., & Blackstone, A. (2013). “Putting in your time”: Faculty experiences in the process of promotion to professor. Innovative Higher Education, 38, 1–15. Jean, V. A., Walker, J. M., & Bergman, M. E. (2015, April 23–25). The work-worklife balance of STEM women in academic leadership. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, PA. JSU ADVANCE. (n.d.). Summer writing retreat. Retrieved from http://www.jsums.edu/jsuadvance/programs/summer-writing-retreats/ Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, vol. 28, no. 4). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kezar, A. (2014). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change. New York, NY: Routledge.

Baker.indb 240

19-09-2019 15:20:46

faculty development for mid-career women in stem  

241

Laursen, S. (2008). Outcomes of LEAP Individual Growth and Department Enhancement Grants, FY 2007 (Report to the LEAP project). Boulder, CO: University of Colorado at Boulder, Ethnography & Evaluation Research. Laursen, S. L., & Austin, A. E. (2014). StratEGIC Toolkit: Strategies for Effecting Gender Equity and Institutional Change. Boulder, CO, and East Lansing, MI. www.strategictoolkit.org Laursen, S. L., Austin, A. E., Soto, M., & Martinez, D. (2015). ADVANCing the agenda for gender equity: Tools for strategic institutional change. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 47(4), 16–24. Laursen, S. L., & Austin, A. E. (2015). StratEGIC Toolkit program perspectives. Interview with Loretta Moore, Jackson State University. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoSuDcWxQhg Laursen, S., & Rocque, B. (2006). An assessment of faculty development needs at the University of Colorado at Boulder (Report to the LEAP project). Boulder, CO: University of Colorado at Boulder, Ethnography & Evaluation Research. Laursen, S. L., & Rocque, B. (2009). Faculty development for institutional change: Lessons from an ADVANCE project. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 41(2), 18–26. Leadership Education for Advancement and Promotion (LEAP). (n.d.). Growth grants, purpose and description. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/leap/ growth-grants Leadership Excellence for Academic Diversity (LEAD). (2011). Retrieved from http://www.engr.washington.edu/lead/ Lehigh University ADVANCE (2017). Leadership. Retrieved from https://advance.cc.lehigh.edu/leadership Marschke, R., Laursen, S., Nielsen, J., & Rankin, P. (2007). Demographic inertia revisited: An immodest proposal to achieve equitable gender representation among faculty in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 1–26. Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., Holmes, E., & Agiomavritis, S. (2011). The ivory ceiling of service work. Academe, 97(1), 300–323. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCES). (2017). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2017 (Special Report, NSF 17-310). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/ National Science Foundation (NSF). (2001). ADVANCE: Increasing the participation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers (Program announcement, NSF 0169). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2001/ nsf0169/nsf0169.htm Nielsen, M. W., Alegria, S., Börjeson, L., Etzkowitz, H., Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., Joshi, A., . . . Schiebinger, L. (2017). Gender diversity leads to better science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(8), 1740–1742.

Baker.indb 241

19-09-2019 15:20:46

242  

scholarly development

Niemeier, D. A., & González, C. (2004). Breaking into the guildmasters’ club: What we know about women science and engineering department chairs at AAU universities. NWSA Journal, 16(1), 157–171. O’Meara, K. (2015). A career with a view: Agentic perspectives of women faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(3), 331–359. O’Meara, K., & Stromquist, N. P. (2015). Faculty peer networks: Role and relevance in advancing agency and gender equity. Gender and Education, 27(3), 338–358. Sonnert, G., Fox, M. F., & Adkins, K. (2007). Undergraduate women in science and engineering: Effects of faculty, fields, and institutions over time. Social Science Quarterly, 88(5), 1333–1356. Terosky, A. L., O’Meara, K., & Campbell, C. M. (2014). Enabling possibility: Women associate professors’ sense of agency in career advancement. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(1), 58. Valian, V. (2004). Beyond gender schemas: Improving the advancement of women in academia. NWSA Journal, 16(1), 207–220. Van Ummersen, C. A. (2005). No talent left behind: Attracting and retaining a diverse faculty. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 37(6), 27–31. Yen, J. W., Lange, S. E., Denton, D. D., & Riskin, E. A. (2004, June 6–9). Leadership development workshops for department chairs. Paper presented at the WEPAN 2004 National Conference, Albuquerque, NM. Retrieved from https://journals.psu.edu/wepan/article/view/58342/58030 Yen, J. W., Quinn, K., Carrigan, C., Litzler, E., & Riskin, E. A. (2007). The ADVANCE mentoring-for-leadership lunch series for women faculty in STEM at the University of Washington. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 14(3), 191–206.

Baker.indb 242

19-09-2019 15:20:46

PA RT F O U R S P E C I A L TO P I C S Meghan J. Pifer

I

n this volume, we have offered a range of approaches to understanding and supporting the experiences of mid-career faculty members in colleges and universities. Like any such effort, there are those noteworthy sources of information and ideas that do not necessarily fit neatly into any one section, yet warrant our attention nonetheless. This section highlights three such approaches. In fact, these approaches are important specifically because they do not focus on the typical areas of teaching, research, and service. According to a recent survey of faculty professional developers in the Professional and Organizational Development Network, 75% of respondents indicated that creating or sustaining a culture of teaching excellence and 57% of respondents indicated that advancing new initiatives in teaching and learning were their top two priorities. Only 29% of faculty developers identified the goal of supporting and responding to individual faculty members’ goals for professional development, which may be a kind of catch-all category for the types of faculty-centered and holistic support described in this section’s chapters. In that same survey, mid-career faculty development was one of the services most frequently cited as an area of needed expansion by faculty professional developers (Beach, Sorcinelli, Austin, & Rivard, 2016). Faculty workloads and performance expectations are increasing (Finkelstein, Conley, & Schuster, 2016; O’Meara, Terosky, & Neumann, 2008), yet faculty satisfaction is decreasing (O’Meara et al., 2008). Research suggests that within careers, faculty satisfaction decreases over time (Mathews, 2014). Indeed, Neumann (2006, 2009) has brought attention to the importance of scholarly passion and learning in sustaining post-tenure careers. 243

Baker.indb 243

19-09-2019 15:20:46

244  

special topics

More approaches—and more innovative approaches—to supporting faculty at mid-career are needed (Finkelstein et al., 2016; Neumann, 2009). When it comes to supporting all aspects of faculty development, success, and satisfaction, as well as promoting faculty agency at mid-career, we have more to learn about what approaches have been taken, what works, and where to go from here. The chapters in part four are important contributions toward meeting that need. They share the origins, goals, and outcomes of three initiatives to support mid-career faculty members. In chapter 12, Williams and Case describe their efforts to build informal networks within their institutions, other institutions in Texas, and their disciplines in order to create spaces to learn and do more to support mid-career faculty. The narrative of progressive action described in the chapter from reflection to conversations to programming around supporting women at mid-career, and the interweaving of the authors’ personal journeys in their description of the interventions they developed, allow the reader access to their challenges, perceptions, and responses toward change. In chapter 13, Mathews and Benson provide insight into the origins of the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) at Harvard University and its role in shaping mid-career faculty development nationally. Mathews and Benson share the example of COACHE as a research-practice partnership with national scope and describe an evidencebased and person-centered approach to improving faculty work and experiences at mid-career. In chapter 14, Lennartz and O’Meara present findings from their analysis of gender differences in associate professors’ sense of agency and advancement to the rank of full professor—including perceptions of work environment that may be contributing factors—at a large university in the northeastern United States. In considering the “stubbornly low” rates of female full professors at universities, Lennartz and O’Meara invite the reader to consider how institutional climates around women’s perceptions of the promotion process may affect their agency in seeking promotion to the rank of full professor. They share their efforts to understand this better in one institution, offering a tool for others to apply within their own institutional contexts. This part of the book includes themes in these approaches to supporting mid-career faculty. These programs were built on big ideas and existing resources, with an eye toward knowing more and doing better through academic work that is creative, independent, data-driven, well supported, and focused on positive change. They illustrate models of programming that are intuitive, innovative, and supportive in fostering agency. First, these programs are intuitive. Williams and Case describe faculty development efforts that are rooted in their personal experiences. In her reflections within the chapter, Case observes a shift in faculty perceptions

Baker.indb 244

19-09-2019 15:20:46

special topics  

245

and a possible mission creep from a teaching-focused institution to expectations for excellence in both teaching and research. The authors identified a need in their own careers and explore the possibility that there may be others like them who would benefit from greater support. Mathews and Benson describe the careful evolution of a complex survey instrument that is based in a nuanced and intuitive view of academic work and experiences. Through their subsequent collection and analysis of data about academic work, they observed that mid-career faculty experience challenges related to departmental collegiality and support as well as workload and performance expectations, among others. Those who began and continue to develop COACHE have also observed that what may be interpreted by administrators or others as disengagement on the part of the mid-career professor may in fact be decreased agency attributed to organizational factors. Thus, COACHE has brought a much-needed perspective to the issue of improving mid-career faculty experiences. Lennartz and O’Meara observed what the literature suggests in terms of the influence of institutional support on faculty satisfaction and promotion. From there, they began an investigation of gender-based differences in perceptions and experiences among mid-career professors. They draw on their expertise to offer a new way of thinking about mid-career work, through the application of the idea of foggy climates around expectations, norms, and rewards for faculty performance. Second, the programs described in this part of the book are innovative. In chapter 12, Williams identifies that professional development programming at her institution was readily available for pre-tenure faculty, but the programming was not comprehensive in its approach and failed to provide supports for mid-career faculty. That realization sparked her collaborative and productive effort with Case to make positive change for mid-career faculty members, as described throughout the chapter. Mathews and Benson point out an innovative aspect of the COACHE collaborative—it found a place for itself in the conversation about faculty work that was not bound by or representative of any one stakeholder. In their words: As neither administration nor faculty, COACHE has earned a perspective regarding what both parties can do differently to support or succeed as mid-career faculty. Its approach as an RPP [research-practice partnership] helps faculty gain a deeper understanding of their broader institutional narratives—the first step required to change them. (p. 280, this volume)

The authors demonstrate that COACHE changes administrators’ minds about mid-career faculty by equipping them with the information needed to promote inquiry, discourse, and action on campuses.

Baker.indb 245

19-09-2019 15:20:47

246  

special topics

Lennartz and O’Meara show innovation in their integration of existing resources toward the development of new solutions. Through drawing from extant literature and the programming and scholarship made possible through the National Science Foundation (NSF) ADVANCE program, they cast a bright and focused light onto the socio-organizational challenges to success and satisfaction among female associate professors, and they challenge the reader to be a part of expanding that innovation toward positive change. Finally, we return to the idea of agency. These chapters describe work for mid-career change. The sense of agency illustrated in these chapters is threefold: The contributors took proactive approaches to enacting change, and they have invested in programming that encourages mid-career faculty members and their institutions to act with agency as well. For example, Williams and Case begin with their own questions and responsive acts of agency, including attending a conference, reaching out to request support, conducting a literature review, planning a conference for others, and ultimately being successfully promoted to the rank of full professor. Case recalls the importance of her network in providing what she describes as a “mentoring miracle” and her resultant agency, both on her own behalf and as she sought to pay it forward to other mid-career faculty. Williams also shares her emergent sense of agency and her reliance on her network. In particular, she calls attention to the feeling of being “completely safe” with a trusted colleague to explore and act upon her concerns about her career. Mathews and Benson make sense of the development of COACHE through a lens of both individual agency and institutional strategy. They draw from organizational theories about employee engagement, satisfaction, and thriving to situate the efforts of COACHE as a way of promoting individual agency through improved organizational environments, as developed by better data collection and analysis about faculty work. Mathews and Benson position COACHE as a resource for enabling agency among those who are responsible for creating the conditions for faculty success. The authors also provide a compelling case for the strategic agency of the organization itself in terms of careful survey design. They describe the survey instrument as a Trojan horse that was able to collect meaningful data about faculty experiences: “Diversity” became a headline because the data led campuses to acknowledge the real gaps in job satisfaction. The headline became strategy because it was backed by reliable evidence. The strategy led to actions to increase the opportunities faculty have to succeed on the tenure track. (p. 267, this volume)

Baker.indb 246

19-09-2019 15:20:47

special topics  

247

Lennartz and O’Meara provide an example of how research, including instrument design, about mid-career faculty might be driven by agency theory explicitly. They share the experiences of female associate professors in their own words, also providing the reader with insights into the organizational factors that can decrease individual agency. For example, they find that reduced agency in decision-making about how work time is spent may contribute to increased time to advancement to the rank of full professor and may be more pronounced for female academics. Lennartz and O’Meara adeptly present evidence-based findings about a hard-to-capture phenomenon and turn an amorphous problem into an opportunity for specific actions and responses, again contributing to improved organizational strategy and individual agency. Together, the chapters in this section provide examples of new ways to address the challenges faced by organizations and individual faculty members when it comes to the mid-career stage. They equip the reader with a fresh set of perspectives, data, and examples of action to be considered and, hopefully, employed by those who are positioned to improve the likelihood of success—and satisfaction—after tenure.

References Beach, A. L., Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., & Rivard, J. K. (2016). Faculty development in the age of evidence: Current practices, future imperatives. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Finkelstein, M. J., Conley, V. M., & Schuster, J. H. (2016). The faculty factor: Reassessing the American academy in a turbulent era. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mathews, K. R. (2014). Perspectives on midcareer faculty and advice for supporting them. Cambridge, MA: Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education. Neumann, A. (2006). Professing passion: Emotion in the scholarship of professors at research universities. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 381–424. Neumann, A. (2009). Professing to learn: Creating tenured lives and careers in the American research university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. O’Meara, K., Terosky, A., & Neumann, A. (2008). Faculty careers and work lives: A professional growth perspective (ASHE Higher Education Report, vol. 34, no. 3). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Baker.indb 247

19-09-2019 15:20:47

Baker.indb 248

19-09-2019 15:20:47

12 “WHERE DID ALL THE MENTORING GO?” Exploring Undefined Mid-Career Paths Through Informal Peer-Mentoring Networks Jeannetta G. Williams and Kim Case

T

his chapter follows the mid-career journeys of two associate professors at teaching-intensive institutions who have demonstrated agency (Neumann, Terosky, & Schell, 2006) in their professional development. Building on research that examines the “inner conversations” (O’Meara, 2015, p. 332) that precede strategic thinking about one’s career, we begin the chapter with narrative reflections to situate our individual mid-career experiences. These reflections reveal our initial worries and misconceptions about post-tenure professional growth—specifically, attaining promotion to full professor—and also describe the impact of a unique academic conference on our agency as faculty members. By debriefing this conference and exploring the literature on mid-career faculty development programs, we were inspired to create an informal faculty peer-mentoring retreat to address our professional development goals. We provide a brief overview of that initiative, from building the reading list (see Appendix 12A) to identifying discussants, and then detail our subsequent personal and professional outcomes. The chapter concludes with recommendations for informal mid-career peer-mentoring programs and organizational implementation of other career development initiatives.

Facing the Mid-Career Stage: Reflections as Newly Tenured Women Faculty Research about the professional growth of tenured faculty members defines agency as “strategic and intentional views or actions toward goals that matter 249

Baker.indb 249

19-09-2019 15:20:47

250  

special topics

to the professor” (Terosky, O’Meara, & Campbell, 2014, p. 61). The agency framework includes the distinct but related components of perspectives and actions, rather than a narrow focus on the attainment of goals (O’Meara, Campbell, & Terosky, 2011). Agency is facilitated by a strategic mind-set that can be learned (Terosky et al., 2014) and that precedes specific actions (O’Meara, 2015). Further, faculty agency is idiosyncratic. That is, the degree of strategic thinking and action may differ by career stage, area (e.g., worklife balance, scholarship, service), and other institutional factors (O’Meara, 2015). Thus, the barriers to and opportunities for professional growth are highly individualized. The following sections illustrate our individual needs as two tenured women faculty at teaching-intensive institutions via a narrative approach. We offer information about our institutions and pre-tenure careers to contextualize our subsequent perspectives and actions. We also share one of the authors’ participation in a pivotal academic conference that strongly influenced the creation of our peer-mentoring retreat. We also share our peermentoring retreat program, which was designed as a brief intervention to address specific concerns—particularly whether to apply for promotion to full professor.

Jeannetta’s Path: Mid-Career at a Private Liberal Arts University I teach at a medium-sized liberal arts university, which is designated as a Hispanic serving institution. As a predominantly undergraduate institution, faculty collaborate with a diverse body of students regularly and maintain heavy teaching, advising, and service loads. High-quality scholarship is also encouraged. Because teaching excellence is preeminent, professional development opportunities focus primarily on pedagogy and assessment. A unique aspect of the university is that there is not an “up-or-out” promotion system for faculty. That is, applying for promotion and tenure is optional. This system relaxes the pressure on new faculty to attain tenure but also tends to reduce motivation for post-tenure career growth. To my knowledge, in the seven years before I applied for tenure there were no institutional programs targeting mid-career faculty growth specifically. The university offered numerous tenure-focused programs for new faculty, but none were comprehensive in their approach to career development. In my own career, I felt strongly supported by colleagues on campus on my way to tenure. However, once I attained tenure, I was quite unsure how to proceed. Since joining the university, I knew only two colleagues who had been promoted to the rank of full professor, both of whom moved to administrative positions. I was impressed, and also daunted, by their seemingly

Baker.indb 250

19-09-2019 15:20:47

“where did all the mentoring go?”   251

inherent career-management skills. These were skills that I somehow lacked. Being tenured without a career plan seemed contradictory, but I soon discovered that I was not alone. The following inner conversation (O’Meara, 2015), which occurred upon my return from our peer-mentoring retreat, depicts the negative emotions, self-defeating beliefs, and lack of information that limited my career planning, but also the importance of our professional networks in enabling agency. Per the sage advice of a former dean, I “worked like a dog” to attain tenure and never considered what would come next. I considered it foolish and arrogant to even ask what could come next. I was naively unaware that significant career decisions were waiting for me as soon as I became a tenured faculty member. I was completely unprepared to make these decisions. The notification of my tenure decision was still in my mailbox when anxiety, confusion, and fear reared their heads. I thought that being tenured meant I would have my “act together” as an academic. It was humiliating to admit that it was far from true. Fortunately, I pushed aside my humiliation long enough to reach out to a colleague, Kim Case. We had collaborated previously on career development programs for new faculty through a professional association, and I felt completely safe to share my concerns with her. This narrative reflects the ruminative, negative worries concerning my post-tenure career. My immediate concern was how to make a solid decision about applying for full professor, but I also worried about building and sustaining a satisfying career in the long term.

Kim’s Path: Mid-Career at a Public Teaching-Intensive University I teach at a master’s-level comprehensive state university that serves mostly students from the immediate region. Until 2014, we taught only juniorand senior-level undergraduate transfer students and master’s students. Since then, the university has added first- and second-year students and now delivers the full four-year bachelor’s degree along with master’s programs and three doctoral programs (two in education, one in psychology). Like Jeannetta Williams’s institution, mine is recognized as a Hispanic serving institution and enrolls a high proportion of nontraditional and returning students. A large percentage of the students I work with are also first generation and juggling full-time employment with being a full-time student, including our graduate students. Promotion to tenure requires very good or excellent teaching as well as an excellent rating in either research or service. However, junior faculty often express feeling that the expectations for research have increased over the last seven years. The promotion path to the rank of full professor is less clear to faculty but is perceived to be much more focused on research and

Baker.indb 251

19-09-2019 15:20:47

252  

special topics

one’s national scholarly reputation. When I arrived in 2005, faculty often heard administrators refer to the university as a teaching institution, but that phrase seems less common in recent years with a more equal emphasis on both teaching and research. Even with this apparent shift, faculty development remains heavily focused on teaching. The ­teaching-centered culture of the institution influenced my decision to accept the position due to my own professional goals of teaching and mentoring students. Next, I reflect on my tenure-track years working toward a clear goal in contrast to post-tenure lack of clarity about my possible career pathways. As a tenure-track faculty member, I worked seven days a week with few breaks during the five years leading up to submission of my promotion and tenure binders. During that time, of course, my focus and that of my mentors was to work toward the prize of a secure, lifelong position. I not only participated in but also facilitated faculty development programs focused on teaching and learning. My mentors offered valuable advice on everything from how to address incivility in the classroom (and in faculty meetings) to how many publications I would need to earn tenure. Grading assignments, mentoring students, prepping courses, serving on committees, gathering data, writing manuscripts, and presenting at conferences were among a long list of other faculty activities dominating my brain. In other words, there was no room to consider what came next. Similar to Jeannetta’s experience, I hit a wall of confusion with the arrival of my tenure letter. I remember thinking, “So now what?” As a junior faculty member, tenured colleagues tended to describe their reactions to earning tenure as a sense of relief, feeling free, and even being anticlimactic. Although they often warned tenure would come with even greater service responsibilities, which I found impossible to believe, conversations about what career paths would come next rarely occurred. In fact, I felt the active community of support that came with life as an assistant professor almost completely disappeared when my title changed to associate professor. The year following my promotion to associate professor and becoming a mid-career academic, a mentoring miracle happened. I spotted an e-mail announcing that the first Institute for Academic Feminist Psychologists1 (IAFP) would take place in San Antonio, Texas, in early 2012. This was a short drive from my Houston location, but I would have traveled anywhere to receive mentoring at that point in my career confusion. The timing could not have been better, given that I had just earned tenure and there were no resources for mid-career faculty at my institution. The IAFP hosted 42 pretenure and mid-career psychology academics to gain support and mentoring from not only senior experts but also our peer groups. We benefited from keynote addresses about difficult colleagues, publishing strategies, work-life

Baker.indb 252

19-09-2019 15:20:47

“where did all the mentoring go?”   253

balance, mentoring networks, career development paths, and much more, such as poster presentations. Participants were encouraged to present a poster focused on a project currently in process and seek feedback from the IAFP mentors and peer attendees. I can only describe the IAFP experience as transformative for me. As a participant, I utilized my poster presentation to introduce my book proposal and get feedback from senior scholars on how to secure my first book contract. With the generous and experienced advice I received at IAFP, Routledge published my book (Case, 2013). My IAFP miracle was a small taste of what I had been searching for to fuel my next steps in career planning, but I needed a way to build on this brief mid-career mentoring experience. To that end, Jeannetta and I brainstormed ways to capitalize on the IAFP model in a local context.

Exploring the Mid-Career Professional Development Landscape By comparing our experiences, we identified common concerns as mid-career academics. Motivated by Kim’s positive experience at the IAFP and our discussions, we turned to the literature on mid-career faculty development to learn more. We were particularly interested in brief interventions that focused on the area of career advancement for women faculty at ­teaching-intensive institutions. We began by exploring research about the experiences of tenured faculty. In short, we discovered that the needs of mid-career faculty are diverse and compelling, and that a small, but growing, number of professional growth initiatives aim to address these needs. Research about career satisfaction and advancement, which has largely focused on the experiences of faculty at large research universities, presents a dismal picture for tenured professors (June, 2009). Professional growth at this career stage may be negatively affected by both institutional and personal factors (Terosky et al., 2014). Newly tenured faculty may face new or additional administrative and service responsibilities that undermine scholarly activity and stall advancement to full professor (Mills, 2000; Neumann & Terosky, 2007; Terosky et al., 2014). This situation may be compounded for women faculty by institutional practices, such as restrictive parental leave policies, that exacerbate gender inequities in career advancement (O’Meara & Stromquist, 2015). As faculty members at teaching-intensive universities, we believed that we were immune to many of the professional development pressures (e.g., “publish or perish” expectations for publishing in top-tier journals, obtaining multiyear federal grants) that confront our colleagues at larger, researchintensive institutions. We also had the benefit of having already earned tenure to promote our agency (O’Meara, 2015), given our heavy teaching

Baker.indb 253

19-09-2019 15:20:47

254  

special topics

and advising loads and substantial service activities. Yet the prospect of tenure as an obstacle to career growth was still frightening. With the deadline to apply for promotion to full professor rapidly approaching, we were highly motivated to prepare for the next stage in our careers. Building on Kim’s IAFP experience, we focused our literature exploration on the effectiveness of peer mentoring on mid-career faculty agency. We discovered that diverse types of mentoring networks, across ranks and by topic (e.g., work-life balance, teaching excellence), are effective, but constraints such as time, resources, and costs are important considerations. For example, an in-depth analysis of a National Science Foundation ADVANCE program at a large research university found that peer networks benefited the agency of individual women faculty at all ranks (O’Meara & Stromquist, 2015). These peer networks for women faculty offer supportive spaces for women outside the typical work environment in which to share common concerns, to identify role models, and to tackle structural barriers to their professional growth collectively. The benefits of long-term, comprehensive faculty development initiatives, such as peer networks, are substantial, but these programs can also be costly in terms of faculty time and resources (O’Meara & Terosky, 2010). Considering these constraints, we looked to our professional associations for formal peer-mentoring programs. Other than the IAFP, which would not be offered again for several years, we could not identify a program that would meet our specific needs. Undaunted, we took on a strategic approach to address our professional development gaps (O’Meara & Terosky, 2010) by creating a low-resource, informal peer mentoring retreat.

Developing and Facilitating the Peer-Mentoring Retreat Due to cost and time constraints, we designed our informal peer-mentoring program as a two-day intervention. We planned the program components during the summer and scheduled the program for the fall, based on the availability of the participants. We targeted mid-career faculty from several disciplines at three regional institutions (two teaching-intensive liberal arts universities; one master’s-level comprehensive university). Participants comprised recently tenured faculty in addition to full professors whom we, as facilitators, could meet with and ask questions about their paths to promotion. During this two-day retreat, discussions were held at meal times, and at the end of each day, we debriefed at Kim’s residence. To prepare for the retreat, we shared a packet of readings with participants (see Appendix 12A). We selected readings that initially generated our concerns and interests in post-tenure professional growth and tailored the discussion topics to those readings. Topics included (a) service expectations;

Baker.indb 254

19-09-2019 15:20:47

“where did all the mentoring go?”   255

(b) ways to maintain research productivity; (c) feelings of being stuck and related emotions; (d) influences of gender and race on career advancement; (e) strategies for renewing teaching passions; (f ) possible career pathways (e.g., national service, department chair, other administrative roles, community partnerships); and, most urgently, (g) barriers to applying for promotion to full professor (e.g., vague expectations, less structured timelines). To understand how other faculty developed and enacted agency in their careers, we asked the full professors to share their mid-career experiences. We, and the program participants, were eager to learn how and why they had made the decision to apply for promotion to full professor. Some had made the professorship a goal from day one; others had struggled with the choice as we had. Overall, their advice was both pragmatic and inspiring. They coupled broad career advice with intentional strategies for continued professional growth. The professors recommended that, as much as possible, we tailor our workloads to our passions and interests and turn down everything else; to identify the aspects of our jobs that are most energizing, inspiring, and productive; and to get comfortable saying “no” to others who demand our time and expertise. In a sense, it was time to be selfish in our career development. They also encouraged us to collaborate with colleagues and interact regularly with others who shared expertise, who stimulated creativity, who fueled courage, and who kept us accountable to our scholarly endeavors. This sound advice resonated with us as newly tenured professors by prompting us to take the reins of our career development, with strategic actions that we could adapt to our individual needs. An important outcome from the retreat is that all of the participants successfully applied for promotion to full professor within two years.

Personal and Professional Outcomes of the Peer-Mentoring Retreat Because we view our agency as highly individualized, we will briefly describe our personal outcomes from the retreat and then examine our professional outcomes more fully. The retreat enabled agency in our career development (O’Meara, 2015); it empowered us to perceive ourselves as future full professors and to take effective actions toward that goal. Our changed perspectives point to the malleability of faculty agency beliefs (Terosky et al., 2014) and were followed by strategic actions, such as gaining advice about the promotion application process from senior colleagues, soliciting feedback on our promotion portfolio materials, and creating timelines for completing service activities and scholarship. Following the retreat experience, we each earned promotion to full professor and we have intentionally directed our careers

Baker.indb 255

19-09-2019 15:20:47

256  

special topics

toward our interests and talents. Kim published a second book, Intersectional Pedagogy (Case, 2017), expanding contributions to social justice activism and pedagogy, and participated in a professional leadership conference for women. Jeannetta has deepened service responsibilities on campus in the areas of faculty development as well as diversity and inclusion. Although we have followed disparate paths, there is one important commonality in our efforts—to foster agency among our mid-career colleagues, primarily in the areas of career development and pedagogy. We have endeavored to meet this goal through initiatives at our respective institutions and our professional associations. The next section provides examples of three initiatives: 1. Developing a joint professional conference workshop 2. Jeannetta’s outreach: Campus-based peer mentoring networks 3. Kim’s outreach: National and International Faculty Development

Joint Professional Conference Workshop at the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues We shared our peer-mentoring retreat experiences with colleagues at a national psychology conference, the 2014 Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI) Biennial Convention. We viewed this action as a strategic response to institutionalize mid-career faculty development programming within our own professional association (Neumann et al., 2006). As an engaged SPSSI member, Kim had previously chaired the Early Career Scholars Committee and the Teaching and Mentoring Committee, served as an elected council member, and chaired the convention program committee. These leadership positions provided the opportunity to direct our previous agency in developing the peer-mentoring retreat toward benefiting our association colleagues. In marketing our 70-minute interactive SPSSI conference workshop, we invited attendees to consider their mid-career pathways. We modeled the session on our own initial conversations regarding mid-career professional growth, with handouts from our previous peer-mentoring retreat. Prior to the SPSSI workshop, we compiled a list of potential discussion topics based on our literature review and experience at the mid-career peermentoring retreat, such as the mid-career shift in faculty expectations, unique challenges, a broad range of opportunities, work-life balance, new leadership roles and options, as well as how to invigorate teaching, rethink scholarship agendas, and navigate the path to full professor. The SPSSI workshop attendance was low (fewer than 10 individuals) and the attendees were all approaching tenure. Although we had hoped for a large group

Baker.indb 256

19-09-2019 15:20:47

“where did all the mentoring go?”   257

of participants, the smaller size allowed for robust, deep conversations. We sparked conversation first by asking participants to complete an adapted handout on mid-career emotions (Rockquemore, 2012). We concluded the workshop by sharing contact information to form a continuing supportive network for the participants. The feedback from the SPSSI workshop participants was generally positive and we have maintained connections with them since the conference. In assessing the workshop, we believe that a formal presentation on midcareer faculty development concerns held prior to the workshop may have generated a higher number of participants. In terms of our efforts to institutionalize mid-career faculty agency into the professional association, we are thrilled that the current SPSSI convention includes more programming specifically targeting mid-career professional growth.

Jeannetta’s Outreach: Campus-Based Peer-Mentoring Networks I participated in an informal peer-mentoring network on my campus via a grants proposal project and joined an interdisciplinary group of women faculty to develop a competitive grant proposal for the National Science Foundation ADVANCE program. The aim of ADVANCE is to build programs to recruit and advance women and minority faculty members in STEM disciplines. Our group of five included pre-tenure and recently tenured faculty. We designed a mid-career peer-mentoring network for women faculty across four institutions in central Texas. As we worked collaboratively to prepare the grant proposal, the group organically evolved into an informal peer-mentoring team. This outcome highlights the benefits of womenonly spaces for professional growth (O’Meara & Stromquist, 2015). With each topic that we explored for the grant proposal (e.g., work-life balance, family-friendly work policies, service expectations, leadership opportunities and training, formal mentoring programs), we discussed our personal career development experiences. We shared our fears and worries freely, as well as our resources, advice, and encouragement. As a result, I felt supported to apply for a semester of sabbatical and for promotion to full professor. Other team members also attained tenure and promotion, tackled new leadership roles on campus, and secured internal grant funding. We did not explicitly plan for our grant team to transform into a successful mentoring network, yet it did. Our work was indeed transformative. Although not required for a successful peer-mentoring program, a specific project such as a comprehensive grant proposal, collaborative teaching activity, or an interdisciplinary journal article may help to unify a diverse group of faculty and facilitate discussions of individual experiences.

Baker.indb 257

19-09-2019 15:20:47

258  

special topics

Kim’s Outreach: National and International Faculty Development I have broadly extended my peer-mentoring roles in several ways within professional associations and via my faculty development consulting services. For example, the organizers of the second IAFP (in 2016) invited me to give a keynote address on intersectional pedagogy. This role also included facilitating small group sessions focused on social justice scholarship, teaching challenges and opportunities, high service commitments, and mid-career pathways and options (e.g., moving to an administrative role or a new university). My international faculty development consulting includes customized workshops on diversity and inclusion, supporting student engagement in social justice action, privilege studies pedagogy, and intersectional pedagogy. These sessions serve the needs of early career, mid-career, and even late-career professors in attendance with an emphasis on establishing support across all faculty ranks and career stages. I also created and maintain a website and Facebook page devoted to faculty development related to diversity and inclusive teaching.2 This work is rewarding for me because it combines my passions for inclusive pedagogy and faculty development and allows me to share my resources openly with others. As a full professor, these outlets provide a concrete way for me to channel my passions, harness my energy, and give back while supporting midcareer faculty as well as those at other stages. My national service as a peer mentor, my international consulting in faculty development, and my website resources and blog are the solutions to my previous “now what?” struggles. I advise mid-career associate and full professors to identify avenues for pursuit of passions both within and outside one’s current university setting. These activities demonstrate the individualized nature of faculty agency. Whereas some faculty may intentionally direct their professional growth to pedagogy and consulting, others may focus on research and scholarship. Agency at the mid-career stage is contextualized by the opportunities and barriers that each faculty member faces (O’Meara, 2015).

Our Recommendations for Building Successful Mid-Career Faculty Development Initiatives Best practices in faculty development promote establishing the trust of faculty with a learner-centered approach, one that also values faculty voices and attunes to their “pain points” (Rockquemore, 2016). Effective organizational programs must be based on the actual needs and preferences of the faculty; otherwise, they will miss their targets. For example, a mentoring committee at Kim’s institution received a suggestion to assign full professor mentors to

Baker.indb 258

19-09-2019 15:20:47

“where did all the mentoring go?”   259

each associate professor. In addition, the committee suggested a formalized review for associate-level faculty members in their ninth year to plan for promotion to professor. When surveyed, neither of these ideas appealed to the associate professors. Listen carefully to faculty to avoid developing programs and initiatives that fall flat, waste resources, and fail to meet their needs. For mentoring programs specifically, it is critical to weave institutional context into programming to best address the needs of faculty. For example, at Kim’s institution, a keynote speaker presented at a teaching conference where the majority of the audience worked in teaching-focused institutions with research support ranging from none to very little. The keynote speaker, from an elite private research-intensive university, talked extensively about the research perks she enjoyed and the benefits of doctoral students. Although it all sounded wonderful, these perks were unavailable to the audience and, thus, did not apply to their needs. At Jeannetta’s institution, there are eligibility requirements in order to apply for promotion and tenure, but it is not an “up-or-out” system. Thus, a faculty development program based upon a traditional “tenure clock” model would be largely irrelevant. In summary, programs that are not tailored to the institutional context may be completely ineffective. Consideration of context also requires attention to social forces and institutional oppression as well as marginalization of faculty. Mid-career mentoring should include topics relevant to intersectional experiences addressing how faculty members’ social identities (e.g., ability, race, gender, social class, sexuality) disproportionately impact academic realities. There are several quality volumes addressing faculty experiences of women and minority faculty (Cooper & Cooper, 2002), Black faculty (Rockquemore & Laszloffy, 2008), working-class academics (Dews, 1995), and class and race intersections for women faculty (Muhs, Niemann, González, & Harris, 2012). Additionally, we recommend exploring volumes pertaining to intersectionality and social identity within teaching contexts as a resource for mid-career discussions (Case, 2017; Pliner & Banks, 2012).

Conclusion The goal of this chapter has been to offer an insider’s perspective on the professional growth issues faced by two associate professors at teaching-intensive institutions. We have articulated the development of an informal peermentoring retreat to demonstrate faculty agency at the mid-career stage. With an emphasis on attaining promotion to full professor, the retreat inspired new strategic perspectives and actions. The retreat positively affected our personal outcomes and led to a number of efforts to institutionalize mid-career

Baker.indb 259

19-09-2019 15:20:47

260  

special topics

faculty agency in our professional associations and at our home campuses. We shared these outcomes to inspire our colleagues to not only enact agency in their own career development but also expand organizational initiatives devoted to the professional growth of faculty at all ranks.

Notes 1. Organized by Isis Settles and Kate Richmond as a result of Stephanie Shield’s initiative as president of the Society for the Psychology of Women, APA Division 35. 2. Visit the website and Facebook page at www.drkimcase.com and www .facebook.com/drcasepedagogy

References Case, K. (Ed.). (2013). Deconstructing privilege: Teaching and learning as allies in the classroom. New York, NY: Routledge. Case, K. (Ed.). (2017). Intersectional pedagogy: Complicating identity and social justice. New York, NY: Routledge. Cooper, J. E., & Cooper, D. D. (Eds.). (2002). Tenure in the sacred grove: Issues and strategies for women and minority faculty. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Dews, C. L. (1995). This fine place so far from home: Voices of academics from the working class. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. June, A. W. (2009, April 27). Not moving on up: Why women get stuck at associate professor. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Not-Moving-On-Up-Why-Women/47213 Mills, N. (2000). Now that I’m tenured, where do I go from here? The vitality of mid-career faculty. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 20, 181–183. Muhs, G. G., Niemann, Y. F., González, C. G., & Harris, A. P. (2012). Presumed incompetent: The intersections of race and class for women in academia. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. Neumann, A., & Terosky, A. L. (2007). To give and to receive: Recently tenured professors’ experiences of service in major research universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 282–310. Neumann, A., Terosky, A., & Schell, J. (2006). Agents of learning: Strategies for assuming agency, for learning, in tenured faculty careers. In S. Bracken, J. Allen, & D. Dean (Eds.), The balancing act: Gendered perspectives in faculty roles and work lives (pp. 91–120). Sterling, VA: Stylus. O’Meara, K. (2015). A career with a view: Agentic perspectives of women faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 86(3), 331–359. O’Meara, K. A., Campbell, C. M., & Terosky, A. (2011, November). Living agency in the Academy: A conceptual framework for research and action. Paper presented

Baker.indb 260

19-09-2019 15:20:47

“where did all the mentoring go?”   261 at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Charlotte, NC. O’Meara, K., & Stromquist, N. P. (2015). Faculty peer networks: Role and relevance in advancing agency and gender equity. Gender and Education, 27(3), 338–358. O’Meara, K., & Terosky, A. L. (2010). Engendering faculty professional growth. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(6), 44–51. Pliner, S. M., & Banks, C. A. (Eds.). (2012). Teaching, learning and intersecting identities in higher education. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Rockquemore, K. (2012, July 2). Mid-career emotional spectrum. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2012/07/02/essay-howmid-career-academics-can-find-their-place-emotional-spectrum Rockquemore, K. (2016, October 12). How to create an effective mentoring p ­ rogram on your campus. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.­insidehighered .com/advice/2016/10/12/how-create-effective-mentoring-program-your-­ campus-essay Rockquemore, K. A., & Laszloffy, T. (2008). The Black academic’s guide to winning tenure without losing your soul. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publications. Terosky, A., O’Meara, K., & Campbell, C. (2014). Enabling possibility: Women associate professors’ sense of agency in career advancement. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(1), 58–76.

Appendix 12A Peer-Mentoring Retreat Advanced Readings The following reading list was provided to retreat participants in advance to promote discussions. Baldwin, R., DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Moretto, K. (2008). Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university: Implications for faculty and academic leaders. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(5), 46–55. Buch, K., Huett, Y., Rorrer, A., & Roberson, L. (2011). Removing the barriers to full professor: A mentoring program for associate professors. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43, 38–45. DeAngelis, T. (2008). Mentoring for mid-career women: Tips for securing and maximizing mentors for life. Monitor on Psychology, 39. Retrieved from http://www. apa.org/monitor/2008/11/mentoring.aspx McCaul, K. (2012, January). Promotion to-professor and work/life balance session tip sheet. Retrieved from https://www.ndsu.edu/fileadmin/forward/mid_career_ mentoring/20120117_PTP_Work-Life_Balance_Tip_Sheet_updated.pdf Mills, N. (2000). Now that I’m tenured, where do I go from here? The vitality of mid-career faculty. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 20, 181–183.

Baker.indb 261

19-09-2019 15:20:47

262  

special topics

Neumann, A., & Terosky, A. L. (2007). To give and to receive: Recently tenured professors’ experiences of service in major research universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 282–310. Rockquemore, K. (2011, November 28). Mid-career mentoring. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2011/11/28/essay-needtenured-faculty-members-have-mentoring Rockquemore, K. (2012, June 25). Post-tenure pathways. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2012/06/25/essay-howfaculty-members-can-chart-meaningful-post-tenure-career Rockquemore, K. (2012, July 16). Jump-start your productivity. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2012/07/09/essay-midcareer-productivity-issues Rockquemore, K. (2012, July 2). Mid-career emotional spectrum. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2012/07/02/essay-howmid-career-academics-can-find-their-place-emotional-spectrum Rockquemore, K. (2012, July 16). Rebrand yourself. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2012/07/16/essay-how-midcareer-faculty-members-can-rebrand-themselves Rockquemore, K. (2012, July 23). Saying “no” at mid-career. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2012/07/23/essay-needmid-career-faculty-members-turn-down-service-requests Romano, J., Hoesing, R., O’Donovan, K., & Weinsheimer, J. (2004). Faculty at mid-career: A program to enhance teaching and learning. Innovative Higher Education, 29, 21–48. Weimer, M. (2010, May 18). Mid-career faculty: Staying challenged and enthused. Faculty Focus. Retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teachingcareers/mid-career-faculty-staying-challenged-and-enthused/ Wheeler, D. W. (1997). Mid-career and senior faculty: Maintaining vitality and productivity. HortScience, 32, 44–45.

Baker.indb 262

19-09-2019 15:20:47

13 E V I D E N C E - B A S E D F A C U LT Y DEVELOPMENT The COACHE Research-Practice Partnership Kiernan Mathews and R. Todd Benson

P

hilanthropic foundations are showing an increasing awareness of and support for sustained, collaborative efforts mounted by scholars and educational leaders to improve outcomes for students (Spencer Foundation, n.d.; William T. Grant Foundation, n.d.). With their groundbreaking work in 2013, scholars at the William T. Grant Foundation identified these new organizations as “long-term, mutualistic collaborations between practitioners and researchers that are intentionally organized to investigate problems of practice and solutions for improving outcomes” (Coburn, Penuel, & Geil, 2013, p. 2). Most of these research-practice partnerships (RPPs) support K–12 initiatives, although some in the postsecondary sector are using RPP guidelines to focus diverse stakeholders on improving student outcomes (National Network of Education ResearchPractice Partnerships, n.d.). In efforts to improve college faculty outcomes, however, the RPP model is not widely known. Potential barriers may be found at the institutional, administrative, and faculty levels. First, universities make it difficult to share data about their professors, for whom they openly (even famously) compete in faculty recruitment pools. Rules from the Association of American Universities, for example, circumscribe the exchange and reporting of faculty salary and survey data in ways as or even more carefully elaborated than they do for FERPA-protected student data (AAUDE, 2015). Their documentation explicitly warns members that “response-level survey data from other schools may not, under any circumstances, be used for individual recruiting purposes” (Association of American Universities Data Exchange, 2011, p. 2). 263

Baker.indb 263

19-09-2019 15:20:47

264  

special topics

Second, collaboration may be inhibited by a lack of professional exchange among senior faculty affairs administrators across postsecondary markets. Fund-raisers, institutional researchers, student affairs administrators, and business officers all have their professional associations in higher education. At their meetings and through other association channels, relationships are forged across institutions and higher education sectors. However, if an administrator’s title is vice provost for faculty, associate provost for faculty affairs, dean of faculty, or similar position, that person does not have an analogous center of gravity for collaboration. A third obstacle—or at least a high bar—to a third party organizing to improve faculty working conditions is that faculty are highly professionalized employees and critical consumers of data, working in settings where “fluid participation with amateur decision makers who wander in and out” (Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker, & Riley, 1978, p. 9) of decision processes is the norm. Faculty representative bodies expect to be involved in data-collecting and policy-making decisions that shape their community (American Association of University Professors, 1994). Therefore, any data-driven, faculty-focused RPP will pass muster only if it can navigate the gauntlet of faculty expectations and deliberative processes. This chapter introduces an RPP that has achieved some success in overcoming these challenges of collaboration on mid-career faculty outcomes. Present at the creation, subsequent evolution, and current iteration, we trace the history of this initiative from its origins through development, and we enact five essential qualities of an effective RPP, which we discuss in more detail later: established with the long view in mind, focused on practical problems, beneficial both to researchers and educators, emphasizing original analyses, and attentive to relationships. Several key lessons from this model are described in terms of their implications for institutional strategy as well as individual agency, with examples from many of the colleges and universities partnering with this organization. We conclude by advancing the RPP as a promising tool for engaging faculty in understanding and in creating the conditions in which they do their best work.

Strategy and Agency: Start by Leveraging Institutional Self-Interest and Faculty Motivations Well before most colleges and universities began coordinated and systematic efforts to understand mid-career faculty, the Study of New Scholars (SNS) was responding to and building on numerous studies indicating that junior—that is, pre-tenure—faculty members experienced significant stress and dissatisfaction. Women and minority professors, in particular, were more

Baker.indb 264

19-09-2019 15:20:47

evidence-based faculty development  

265

likely to meet with “social isolation, subtle and occasionally overt prejudice, a lack of mentors and ambiguous expectations” (Chait & Trower, 2001, p. A27). Observing that the internal market to reform academic work-life had been weak and uneven, SNS cofounders Richard Chait and Cathy Trower posited that a constructive competition among top-tier institutions to earn a reputation as a great place to work would bring market forces to bear in the academy as similar surveys had done in law and business (Chait & Trower, 2002). “Empirical research and the disclosure of results,” they believed, “would cultivate an enlightened self-interest in modifying rigid policies and practices toward greater career flexibility for everyone on the tenure track, but especially for women and racial and ethnic minorities” (n.p.). The proverbial rising tide would lift all faculty boats. Their three-year, $1-million study funded by the Ford Foundation and the Atlantic Philanthropies had two purposes: develop the academy into a more equitable and appealing place for new faculty to work so academic institutions would attract the best and brightest scholars and teachers; and increase the recruitment, retention, status, success, and satisfaction of women and minority faculty members (Trower & Bleak, 2004a). Led from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, SNS involved focus group research, design and implementation of a survey instrument, analysis of the survey data, and publication of findings about pre-tenure faculty at six research universities and six liberal arts colleges. The chief academic officers (CAOs) of these campuses served on an advisory committee to guide the work and to assist in the dissemination of findings through conferences, workshops, web development, and publications. The pilot study brought to light key differences—by race, gender, and institutional type—in the support received and success attained by early career faculty (Trower & Bleak, 2004a, 2004b). These goals rested on theories, well established by scholars such as McGregor (1960) and Herzberg (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman 1959), that organizations succeed when employees are engaged, satisfied, and thriving. The present volume’s endorsement of individual agency owes its origins, as does much of the last half-century’s management scholarship, to McGregor’s “Theory Y,” the idea that employees are more productive in nonhierarchical, self-directed environments (McGregor, 1960). Herzberg’s hygiene-motivator theory, which underlies much of the literature on faculty satisfaction, staked out the relatively high importance of the motivating factors of meaningful, challenging work and feelings of recognition and achievement, compared to hygiene factors such as salary (Herzberg, 1966; Herzberg et al., 1959).

Baker.indb 265

19-09-2019 15:20:47

266  

special topics

Such beliefs about the factors that motivate faculty work are widely espoused by higher education stakeholders, but they are often at odds with the commitment of serious resources. Even self-professed learning organizations like colleges and universities tend to revert to the hygiene factors as their primary tools of management. Sentiment about the motivating factors, really the domain of faculty developers, among college leadership is captured in the (probably) apocryphal exchange once reported at a meeting of a college board of trustees. The board complained to the president, “What if we do as you say, spend all of this money on faculty development, and then they leave?” The president responded, “But what if we don’t, and they stay?”

Sustainable Funding and Research Design: Establishing COACHE With the Long View in Mind At the encouragement of the advisory committee, Chait and Trower sought and received continuation funds from the Ford Foundation to take the project to scale on an earned-income model. In exchange for research participation fees to support survey administration and reporting, college and university leaders would receive diagnostic reports of their pre-tenure faculty’s workplace satisfaction compared to that of faculty at peer institutions. Envisioning an expansion of scope beyond new scholars and of impact beyond a study, the now three-person team at SNS founded the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE). Like its predecessor, COACHE intends to improve the faculty workplace, especially for women and faculty of color, and the collaborative’s researchers described the instrument to faculty as an omnibus “job satisfaction” or “workplace” survey that would be salient—and inviting—to all. The inclination toward broad topic salience in order to yield higher response rates was supported by research on survey nonresponse, and has so far borne fruit (Groves, Singer, & Corning, 2000). Differences in the experiences of historically underrepresented faculty were not provoked by the wording of questions but, instead, were revealed in the data analysis. Importantly for COACHE’s stated mission, these latent functions made the Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey a Trojan horse: Under the cloak of a broad work/life survey, differences emerged between humanists and scientists, women and men, White faculty and faculty of color, and the disparities could not be dismissed on account of any agenda or bias in the instrumentation language. Results from several COACHE statistical reports of aggregate analyses and from subsequent scholarly investigations confirmed that, across the survey themes, differences in the faculty experience were pervasive under

Baker.indb 266

19-09-2019 15:20:48

evidence-based faculty development  

267

scrutiny by gender, race and ethnicity, academic area, and institutional type and control (COACHE, 2008; Ponjuan, Conley, & Trower, 2011; Trower & Mathews, 2006, 2007, 2010). “Diversity” became a headline because the data led campuses to acknowledge the real gaps in job satisfaction. The headline became strategy because it was backed by reliable evidence. The strategy led to actions to increase the opportunities faculty have to succeed on the tenure track.

Adaptation to Change: Focusing on the Practical Problems of Mid-Career Faculty After seven years of surveying and reporting about pre-tenure faculty, COACHE and its partners found their discussions (often at annual workshops hosted by COACHE) about policy and practice interventions for pretenure faculty often turned to the engagement of tenured faculty in their junior colleagues’ workplace satisfaction and career outcomes. Research and media accounts emerging after 2005, when SNS was recast as COACHE, confirmed the important role senior faculty play in facilitating intellectual exchange and building collegiality within their respective departments and across institutions. Students rely on their breadth of knowledge and professional contacts; junior faculty members benefit from their mentoring and research and teaching collaborations; and senior administrators depend on their institutional memory, leadership, and capacity to effect change (Baldwin & Chang, 2006; Baldwin, DeZure, Shaw, & Moretto, 2008; Baldwin, Lunceford, & Vanderlinden, 2005; Huston, Norman, & Ambrose, 2007). Amplifying these signals in the emerging scholarship, CAOs were sounding an alarm to COACHE as early as 2009 to expand its scope to include tenured faculty. It had been 15 years since a mandatory retirement age for faculty had been declared unconstitutional; increased life expectancy combined with guaranteed lifetime employment for tenured faculty resulted in speculation that many professors would work longer and delay retirement (Weinberg & Scott, 2013). Likewise, the overall market instability aggravated by the economic downturn in 2008 may have caused a disproportionate number of senior faculty members to postpone retirement indefinitely, as they rebuilt their retirement savings (Jaschik, 2009). The “graying and staying” of faculty on campus would, some worried, limit the ability of colleges and universities to attract top-notch students, maintain a relevant curriculum, recruit a diverse faculty, and preserve a stable balance of faculty governance (June, 2012; Larsen & Diaz, 2012; Selingo, 2013).

Baker.indb 267

19-09-2019 15:20:48

268  

special topics

Among the tenured ranks, associate professors were COACHE partners’ primary concern. Problems with departmental collegiality and with support for research, teaching, and service, for example, were not exclusive to assistant professors, and many of the structural and cultural issues that affect junior faculty in their early years persisted into the tenured ranks. Although the challenges continue throughout the career span, often the supports and protections for faculty decrease after they earn tenure. Newly tenured associate professors shift from being recipients of mentoring to being mentors, with demands for service potentially increasing as well. These sudden shifts can stall a promising career trajectory (Jaeger & Thornton, 2006; Neumann & Terosky, 2007; O’Meara, 2002; Ward, 2003). COACHE began with a pilot phase, which included focus groups with more than 70 tenured professors at 6 public research universities in 3 states. The results of those focus groups are highlighted in an analysis by Russell (2010). COACHE designed and deployed a job satisfaction survey for tenured faculty to measure their levels of engagement in the teaching, research, and service enterprise at their institutions, and to determine how supported and satisfied faculty were with the terms and conditions of their employment. Survey items reflected the focus group findings about tenured faculty experiences. Focus group themes confirmed the importance of studying faculty populations separately—in this instance, pre-tenure and tenured faculty—when designing a survey instrument about what is important to the professoriate. COACHE researchers identified new themes that had not emerged in SNS or COACHE findings on pre-tenure faculty. These included interdisciplinary work and collaboration; appreciation and recognition; and, naturally, promotion to full professor. More prevalent than for pre-tenure faculty, too, was the role administrative leadership played in the workplace aspirations and attitudes of tenured faculty (Trower, 2011). New themes meant a new path through the survey, which underwent cognitive testing and field testing across several universities. Data from the pilot study were analyzed for response patterns and factor analysis was used to ensure that items within each theme could be aggregated into principal components. Beyond the intent of building a survey to collect and to diagnose, COACHE would use the data to identify institutional qualities, policies, and practices that produce the most satisfied employees and facilitate faculty engagement.

Mutual Benefits: Using Disconfirming Data to Change Attitudes About Mid-Career Faculty To change institutional strategies about faculty, COACHE acted on its new data to demonstrate the distance between academic leaders’ perceptions and

Baker.indb 268

19-09-2019 15:20:48

evidence-based faculty development  

269

mid-career faculty members’ reality. Many assumptions held by provosts and presidents relied, after all, on their own experiences formed on the tenure track many years, even decades, earlier. Such assumptions about their institutions, faculty, and personal biases amount to what Baldwin and colleagues (2008) called “contested topics” (p. 54), including the question of whether tenure-track faculty are hired and promoted with the expectation of a lifelong career at the same institution. We posed this question at a meeting of over 50 land-grant university provosts in 2014, where everyone was in agreement that associate professors upon receiving tenure should be expected to come up for promotion to full professor. COACHE results, they were told, show that departmental cultures do not reflect these expectations. At public research universities, for example, nearly 45% of senior associates (associate professors in that rank for six or more years) disagree that there is a culture of promotion in their departments. Among recently tenured associates, only about three in five agree that a culture of promotion exists. Nearly two out of three senior associates say they have never received formal feedback on their progress toward promotion. In fact, senior associates are more than two times likelier than recently tenured associates to report that they have no plans to submit their dossier for promotion. Nearly 20% say they intend never to come up for full professor (Mathews, 2014). Since the inclusion of tenured faculty, COACHE surveys rebut the notion that tenured faculty are the happiest faculty. In fact, with rare exceptions across survey themes (e.g., appreciation and recognition, institutional support, workload and balance), associate professors rate their satisfaction lower than assistant and full professors (Mamiseishvili, Miller, & Lee, 2016; Mathews, 2014). Studies further examining COACHE data by time-in-rank have demonstrated that, within the associate rank, senior associates are a distinct population, generally less satisfied than newly tenured associates about the workplace, including dimensions of mentoring, promotion, appreciation, and recognition (Mathews, 2013, 2014; Russell, 2013). An examination of a COACHE analytic sample of public research university faculty in the ladder ranks (i.e., assistant, associate, and full professors) suggested that, overall, faculty satisfaction with their institutions as places to work is slightly U-shaped relative to age (Mathews, 2014), which is a phenomenon for employees in other industries, as well (Clark, Oswald, & Warr, 1996). The interactions of age, rank, and time-in-rank are more complex. Controlling for rank and time-in-rank, associate professors who are in their first years after tenure are more satisfied with their institutions than are assistant professors in the later years of their rank. Likewise, recently promoted full professors are, on average, more satisfied with their institutions than professors at any year in

Baker.indb 269

19-09-2019 15:20:48

270  

special topics

the associate rank, perhaps because they have received the ultimate reward in rank for their life’s work. On the other hand, after controlling for the U-shaped trend in satisfaction by age, long-term associate professors are by and large less satisfied with their institution and department than recently tenured professors (Mathews, 2014). The multivariate reasons for this “mid-career malaise” are enumerated elsewhere in this volume and are being explored further by scholars with access to COACHE data (e.g., Mamiseishvili et al., 2016). What we are learning is that too much time spent as an associate professor is, for many, correlated with disappointment. Organizational and structural factors intervene in professors’ feelings of agency. As research has shown for some, this possibly leads to “bias avoidance,” or an unwillingness to subject themselves to unnecessary psychological pain (Drago et al., 2006; O’Meara & Campbell, 2013). To observers, such avoidance could be interpreted as disengagement, confirming the stereotype of the “aging, unproductive professor” (Fischman, 2012). In a 2014 COACHE workshop, faculty leaders and senior administrators were asked to envision a disengaged faculty member whom they knew and then to write a word or phrase that would describe that professor. They submitted their responses anonymously, which were redistributed and read aloud, one at a time. One participant observed that it was as if the air had been taken out of the room; another said, “This was like a walk through the graveyard.” There were two distinct categories of descriptions: the judgmental (e.g., “angry,” “no-show,” “longing for the good ole days”) and the developmental (e.g., “misunderstood,” “marginalized,” “isolated,” “stymied career”). The productive discussion that followed identified the many ways that institutions fail their tenured faculty, but discussed the many proven and promising solutions, too. These leaders—like the land-grant CAOs before them—came to appreciate that they along with faculty can take action to prevent these outcomes when institutional strategies are made transparent.

Authors of Their Narrative: Attending to Relationships in the Engagement of Faculty Data Created by the intersection of research and practice, “disconfirming moments” like those we have described are pregnant with opportunity for building shared narratives through a social act of sensemaking. Weick (1976) equated sensemaking to cartography with an infinite number of possible ways to capture the same geography. Collective sensemaking assures the institution that many audiences will be able to navigate using the same map. It also emphasizes the reality that no map is perfect, as is no sensemaking exercise.

Baker.indb 270

19-09-2019 15:20:48

evidence-based faculty development  

271

However, inviting the community to engage in the process helps everyone develop an appreciation for the choices made even if they do not agree with them (Weick, 1976). Because faculty are both the subject of and necessary to enact the results from studies about faculty, they must be engaged authentically throughout the process from deliberation and planning, to data collection and dissemination, to analysis and recommendation, to implementation and behavior change. Data, however, have no impact if left in a format that is inaccessible or inscrutable to audiences. As one provost on its advisory board put it to COACHE: “We’re drowning in data; what we need is more meaning.” The COACHE survey, for example, contains between 175 and 225 discrete items depending upon the adaptive branching triggered by faculty completing the instrument. Although each has its rationale for existing, these are too many individual variables to start a productive dialogue. To invite audiences of provosts, deans, chairs, and faculty into the findings rather than overwhelm them, COACHE reports are sequenced data visualizations, offering only what information is necessary at each layer. They are organized thematically, leading with 20 to 25 factors (“benchmarks”) derived from the principal components that capture the most common themes of the faculty experience. By following Tufte’s (1983) concept of small multiples, a single page synthesizes results with comparisons of the same institution against nearest peer institutions and also against a larger cohort of like institutions. This visualization also disaggregates by rank, tenure status, gender, and race with comparisons internally (“Are associate professors at my institution more or less satisfied than their full counterparts at my institution?”) and externally (“Are associate professors at my institution more or less satisfied than associates elsewhere?”). The report gives equal attention to subgroups as it does to the dominant population. Shared in this way, the results direct the reader to note the distinctions between groups. In moments, the reader understands the survey themes and faculty subgroups most worthy of his or her next five minutes. The next data display brings the reader to a deeper level of detail, and so on. To keep audiences close to the experiences of faculty in their own words, COACHE analysts code open-ended responses to match the survey themes, and then link these comments to their respective sections of the report. This guided storytelling with the data helps the reader understand the narrative thematically as well as demographically, encouraging the reader to consider that there is no singular faculty experience but, instead, many experiences. In the aggregate, data can cloud the stories of subgroups like mid-career faculty, but presented as COACHE does, they validate those

Baker.indb 271

19-09-2019 15:20:48

272  

special topics

experiences and empower those voiceless or disenfranchised faculty, no longer hidden, to speak out about their experiences. The most pivotal work is not the report, however, but what is built on its foundation: the collective sensemaking with faculty. Principles of dissemination and communication should be agreed on before any new data-­collection effort is undertaken. There is a spectrum of engagement on this front (International Association for Public Participation, 2014). COACHE is not prescriptive as to which principles must be abided by, so long as they are agreed upon by faculty and administrators. The report design and dissemination strategy do not push results out (like a lecture-based course), but draw faculty into generative dialogues (like a discussion-based seminar) about the data—that is, about faculty themselves. The exercise of engagement helps to refine the issues. A broad, normed report of a national survey’s results cannot provide the granularity necessary for a complex organization to know itself. The COACHE report, on the other hand, eschews hasty solutions in favor of cultivating more thoughtful questions and ideas for further understanding of the results. This approach helps faculty gain a deeper understanding of the broader institutional narrative. Faculty often work in routines that limit their experiences to a department or discipline, forming “separated and isolated conclaves” (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 7). Data engaged in this manner not only represent faculty to administrators but also play a valuable role in representing faculty—especially those who are otherwise overlooked in the campus community writ large—to themselves. Once teased out, the differences in faculty members’ experiences can be quite stark (Benson & Mathews, 2014; Trower & Mathews, 2010). A deliberate process of dissemination also allows faculty communities in concert with administrators to better refine and understand the issues at hand, to contextualize and prioritize results, and to reaffirm to faculty that institutional leadership is listening. Collective engagement in these data is a form of active listening, which conveys to faculty that they matter. When institutions take this longer path to understanding, they are more intentional about their practice and more likely to produce policies that address the real concerns of faculty. At the University of Central Florida, for example, the provost paired faculty and administrators in teams first tasked with prioritizing COACHE survey results. After connecting them to other institutional data and strategic priorities, they were then tasked with pitching strategies for action in a collegial competition. The entire process was communicated transparently to faculty on the COACHE-branded page of the university’s website (University of Central Florida, n.d.). Their focus on data, process, and relationships broadcasts a genuine commitment to faculty as authors of their own environments.

Baker.indb 272

19-09-2019 15:20:48

evidence-based faculty development  

273

When it works, this cartography leads faculty and administrators to reconsider their relationship. Administrators do not seek faculty buy-in but work with faculty to decide what to buy. Academic leaders and faculty using this approach treat each other as intelligent partners in problem-solving, not as problems to solve. Ultimately, attention to relationships and trust between faculty and administrators positions the institution to carry out strategy better in the face of organizational stressors (Kezar, 2004).

The Five Qualities of the RPP: A Revelation of Organizational Identity Having gained so much from the growing and increasingly sophisticated literatures produced by scholars who study faculty, COACHE staked its mission on bringing that and its own research to practice. This practice is the management of the faculty enterprise; the practitioners are the senior academic administrators and faculty leaders responsible for creating the conditions in which faculty do their best work. COACHE’s engagement of these practitioners asks, in return, for a commitment to follow its road map for impact. Based on comparisons to survey-only outfits, however, early perceptions of COACHE held by the uninitiated captured neither the full extent nor the reciprocity of these expectations. A chief academic officer, institutional research officer, or faculty leader would expect benchmarking data from COACHE but might not understand or fulfill COACHE’s expectations to follow its road map for local impact and to engage fully in its community of practice. Without a better organizational classification, COACHE was often treated (or ignored) as a mere study or vendor. Not until 2013 did the William T. Grant Foundation mount a systematic effort to reify and support models like COACHE’s of mutual engagement as the RPP. Recognizing itself for the first time, COACHE looked back and realized that the five essential qualities of the RPP were, in fact, what had sustained its success across a decade of evolution (Coburn et al., 2013). Established With the Long View in Mind There are no quick fixes that will peremptorily make the academy a more equitable and appealing place for faculty to work. Once the concept was proven under SNS, COACHE’s long-term mission and earned-revenue basis for sustainability were linked. The project could continue as long as it served the competitive self-interest of colleges and universities in their markets for the best and brightest faculty. Longevity for project partners included an expectation of renewal in COACHE every three or four years. By 2017, 142

Baker.indb 273

19-09-2019 15:20:48

274  

special topics

colleges and universities had administered the Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey at least twice at intervals of three years or more. Focused on Practical Problems Since 2005, COACHE has described the value proposition of its research as not simply interesting to scholars but as actionable by practitioners to improve working environments for faculty. A commitment to brevity, salience, and impact led the instrument developers to make some sacrifices in the design in exchange for an instrument more likely to be completed, diagnostic reports more likely to be understood, and the findings more likely to be acted upon. To continue this commitment to usefulness, the researchers hold themselves accountable to a national council of CAOs serving in advisory roles. At periodic convenings, partner representatives work with COACHE researchers to tackle the persistent thorns of practice. Importantly, COACHE includes among its practical problems not only the themes of its surveys (e.g., interdisciplinary work and collaboration, tenure and promotion, departmental leadership) but also the challenges of data dissemination, engagement in the work of continuous improvement, and the machinery of change in higher education. Beneficial to Both Researchers and Educators There are other examples of survey-based research organizations whose data serve the needs of a higher education community. Similarly, COACHE delivers diagnostic reports to college administrators and faculty leaders to aid in the assessment and management of the faculty enterprise. Their institutions, in return, fund COACHE’s survey operations. However, the material support from COACHE’s partners extends much further: These resources sustain a faculty-focused research agenda, including policy analysis and the identification of evidence-based practices in faculty affairs. These findings are subsequently disseminated back to partners. This mutually beneficial exchange at the nexus of research, policy, and practice keeps practitioners close to scholarship and scholars close to practice. Emphasis on Original Analyses Researchers and graduate students employed by COACHE receive the benefit of data access to over 200,000 survey responses as of 2017. They conduct and disseminate research in a variety of forms, including technical data releases, reports of practices at exemplary institutions, results of interviews, white papers analyzing results for selected subgroups, and presentations at the annual meetings of associations serving scholars and college leaders. Since its founding, COACHE has also made its database available at no cost

Baker.indb 274

19-09-2019 15:20:48

evidence-based faculty development  

275

to qualified researchers around the world. By leveraging the self-interest of scholars who study faculty and their graduate students to be productive in research, COACHE has enabled the agency and advanced the careers of dozens of scholars while multiplying the reach and impact of COACHE’s work. In the longtime absence of congressional support for the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, which has not been funded since 2004, this data dissemination service has become more popular and urgent. Attentive to Relationships In The Questions of Tenure, Trower and Honan (2002) share the views of one provost, who said, “Data don’t just get up and walk around by themselves. . . . Data are impotent, and they only become potent when somebody in charge wants something to happen” (p. 278). That observation—indeed, the entire chapter (“How Might Data Be Used?”)— captured the essence of COACHE’s theory of change: Data do not change organizations; people do. Therefore, COACHE attends to its partner liaisons through a high-touch sequence of timely interventions and professional development, even support for career advancement. The project’s staff cannot be on every campus, so making people’s jobs easier, making them look better, and making them actually better at their jobs are integral to sustaining improvement efforts at the local level. COACHE’s road map and community of practice are pillars of this local impact. COACHE fulfills these five characteristics, and by defining itself in the RPP category, COACHE is now aligned in a class of education sector interventions that others can understand; model; and, from time to time, use to garner philanthropic support.

Institutional Strategies for Faculty Agency: Lessons From COACHE Partners The epiphany of COACHE as an RPP clarifies the most important lessons that the collaborative has to offer other organizations attempting to improve faculty outcomes across colleges and universities. Institutional strategies and individual faculty agency should not exist only as parallel processes. Rather, institutional strategies must themselves foster faculty self-efficacy. As scholars, administrators, and faculty leaders have identified and implemented successful career supports for faculty at the associate rank through COACHE, they have provided us with many examples of mid-career faculty development strategies that unleash and leverage faculty autonomy, rather than diminish or avoid it.

Baker.indb 275

19-09-2019 15:20:48

276  

special topics

Distributing Leadership to Empower and Legitimize When its focus was on data collection and reporting, COACHE responsibilities were at times delegated to an office of institutional research. When led by the CAO, however, processes of sensemaking and changes in practice proved to be more likely to gain traction. Even then, sustained and measurable impact with COACHE data depended on an individual with many competing priorities—someone who might even be promoted or recruited before the work could take hold. With a healthy skepticism of positional authority as the sole source of power in the academy, COACHE pins the success of its mission to models of distributed leadership in teams (Ancona, Malone, Orlikowski, & Senge, 2007). The campuses most successful at supporting their faculty in COACHE are doing so by building faculty-administrator teams that consider organizational roles as well as balance individual capabilities. Team structures vary from one institution to the next, but at minimum, they include a senior representative of the chief academic officer, a senior institutional research or effectiveness officer, and representation from faculty leaders and developing leaders across disciplines, ranks, and demographic groups. More creative arrangements also include ex-chairs and emeriti faculty in advisory or confidant roles. Team-driven initiatives on behalf of improving faculty outcomes do more than simply distribute the work. Early on, multifaceted teams establish credibility, accountability, and expectation of transparency for the project or program. They are more effective at compelling participation from others, too. Appeals to participate in an activity like a survey or professional development program are more likely to succeed when attributes influencing the intended audience’s valence (e.g., the person making the appeal) alternate from invitation to invitation (Groves et al., 2000).

Engaging All Faculties: Who and Where They Are The effective practice of faculty affairs is a labor of retail, not wholesale. Decades of research confirm that disciplines, tenure status, appointment types, and campus geographies are just a few of the characteristics around which faculty organize themselves (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Stoecker, 1993). The adept academic leader embraces such loose coupling between organizational units as an opportunity (Weick, 1976). For example, at Virginia Tech, the provost and 2 associate provosts met with every academic department in 65 meetings over 2 years. After a short introductory speech from the provost, usually about the priorities faced by the university at the time, the meeting was directed by faculty with extensive question-and-answer

Baker.indb 276

19-09-2019 15:20:48

evidence-based faculty development  

277

time. The provost’s team compiled and summarized notes around common themes, which became the faculty-driven underpinning for a new agenda in academic affairs. At West Virginia University, the provost targeted women at mid-career with a women’s leadership institute to engage, invigorate, and empower women—particularly at the associate rank—through leadership coaching, with faculty and former faculty comprising the steering committee.

Using Multiple Leadership Frames to Reengage Mid-Career Faculty in Their Own Development Interventions embedded in multiple frames are poised to have a more lasting impact than single-minded programs (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Structural changes, like a new office of faculty development, a change to the faculty handbook, or limiting reviews of promotion to full to a five-year “lookback,” might be necessary, but insufficient. Taking what Bolman and Deal (2013) describe as a human resource (developmental) perspective, some campuses (e.g., University at Albany, James Madison University, University of Missouri–Kansas City, Iowa State University) use mid-career visioning exercises with annual updates in which faculty reconsider and refresh their passionate interests and identify what excites them about being faculty members, and then build these discoveries into their own career plans. A dean or provost puts in place the structures to recognize and reward these reimagined goals. Other campuses might wield political authority by withholding tenure lines from units with persistent inequities in rates of promotion. Symbolic strategies are useful too, like appointing a provost’s fellow from the ranks of tenured faculty for mid-career leadership development and using a stump speech to repeat, time and again, a sustained commitment to supporting faculty at every career stage.

Inviting Faculty to Be Their Own Research Subjects COACHE encourages faculty to engage the study of themselves as a researchable proposition. Most colleges already have valuable data about their midcareer faculty in their administrative personnel records. Before surveys or focus groups are called for, academic leaders or faculty can pull from those databases to view the numbers of associates and their time in rank by department, by gender, and by race/ethnicity. They can then examine the institution’s available transactional data, such as research productivity, teaching loads (courses and enrollments), and service loads. The results may reveal associate professors who are already qualified, or nearly so, to come up for full professor. An analysis may find that women and faculty of color are spending disproportionately more time at the associate level, or that they are bearing

Baker.indb 277

19-09-2019 15:20:48

278  

special topics

disproportionate service or teaching loads. The contexts for mid-career faculty will vary by department; COACHE encourages its institutional partners to use variance as an opportunity to publicly recognize the high-performing units whose behaviors others should model (i.e., the pedestal) and fix the problematic units privately (i.e., not the pillory).

Flipping Faculty Orientations to Set Career-Long Goals and Expectations If the psychological contract between faculty and their institutions is established in the earliest stages of employment, then faculty orientations are a crucial moment in establishing career longevity (O’Meara, Bennett, & Niehaus, 2016). The most empowering curricula for such programming are not desultory but are sustained and cohort-driven. They chart a variety of successful faculty career cycles with full transparency about the challenges after tenure when the contract might be broken. An exemplary model of this work can be found at the Rochester Institute of Technology’s Wallace Center for Faculty Career Development. Providing content and developmental opportunities throughout the career span, the Wallace Center offers support via more traditional opportunities such as a new faculty orientation. However, it goes beyond the first year to include the tenure case review, support for both mentors and mentees, and faculty leadership development (Rochester Institute of Technology, n.d.). One exercise asked faculty what they hope others would say about them at their retirement parties, and then tasked them with working backward to build a plan for getting there. Another “pre-mortem” exercise invited faculty to imagine what is most likely to cause them to fail, and then to set a professional development and mentoring plan to avoid that outcome. Across the country, orientations are appearing for newly tenured faculty, too, where faculty, chairs, and deans discuss the various possibilities of what success looks like at the associate rank. Over a year-long series, some of these associate professors participated in various workshops, such as “Getting to Full,” “Running a Committee,” and “Difficult Conversations.”

Opening New Paths for Faculty Agency by Reforming Tenure and Promotion Criteria If faculty cannot get to the rank of full professor because they have been unable to produce the body of evidence required for promotion, administrators might consider changing the requirements to fit the institutional mission. One university instituted a policy for a five-year look-back period— and no longer—for promotion to full, thereby giving an incentive to reengage faculty sidetracked by service, family commitments, or other obstacles.

Baker.indb 278

19-09-2019 15:20:48

evidence-based faculty development  

279

Land-grant universities such as Virginia Commonwealth University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte revised their tenure and promotion guidelines to make community-engaged teaching and scholarship a recognized criterion of the review process. This reform opened the door to faculty who previously felt it was closed to them. If a visioning exercise like those mentioned previously follows, by intentional design, modifications to tenure and promotion, then faculty who were “stuck” in rank may have an opportunity to pivot toward meaningful work.

Mentor Across All Ranks Among COACHE’s lowest scores for associate professors and its largest observed gap between the tenured ranks is the effectiveness of mentoring for associates. The ratings are low, too, for survey items asking faculty if their institutions provide adequate support for faculty to be good mentors. Yet the highest ratings of all individual mentoring items concern agreement that being a mentor is fulfilling: 80% of tenured faculty say that it is, and 82% say mentoring is important, but among associates, only 16% report that mentoring is effective for them—the same proportion who say they receive adequate support in performing the work of mentoring (Benson, Mathews, & Trower, 2015). The classical, dyad model of mentoring—a single mentor-mentee relationship designed to address every issue—is inadequate for faculty development (Sorcinelli & Yun, 2007). Faculty find themselves not in a paternalistic situation but in one of agency when their institutions’ leaders ask what problems they are trying to solve for which mentoring is the solution. This prompt leads faculty to consider a matrix of mentors and other distributed mentoring models (Sorcinelli & Yun, 2007). The institutions with faculty more satisfied with mentoring require departmental plans for mentoring associates. They present two or three models to fit different-sized departments and ask them either to adopt the best fit or make their own that meets the same goals, provided any variance passes review by a central administrator. When COACHE data suggested that faculty at some universities were least satisfied with the mentoring they received from outside the institution, some wondered what institutional influence they could exert over professors’ choices of outside mentors. The survey results created the opportunity for candid discussions at the campus level about where creative solutions can take root. COACHE data models and engagement methods led to a promising practice at Drexel University, where an internal small-grant program to support travel and other expenses to extramural mentors’ laboratories, field

Baker.indb 279

19-09-2019 15:20:48

280  

special topics

locations, and other sites produced deep participant satisfaction; many coauthored articles; and, in two cases, multimillion-dollar grants.

Conclusion According to the leadership capability inventories COACHE has administered to provosts, vice provosts, deans, and other administrators in faculty development and diversity, people in these roles excel at relating and sensemaking but struggle to find new ways of doing things—that is, at inventing (Ancona et al., 2007). Yet inventing is what faculty are trained to do. Why, then, is their capacity to invent diminished when they become academic administrators? As neither administration nor faculty, COACHE has earned a perspective regarding what both parties can do differently to support and succeed as mid-career faculty. Its approach as an RPP helps faculty gain a deeper understanding of their broader institutional narratives—the first step required to change them. Seeking the data and, importantly, the process for such awareness is necessary for faculty members to build their agency. This focus on sustained, original, and pragmatic research that is mutually beneficial to both the research and practitioner communities is one of the most promising approaches to effecting change in the academic workplace writ large. At the same time, COACHE leverages the capabilities of faculty affairs administrators and develops their growing edge, because both parties lose when academic leaders themselves lack the agency to create the conditions in which faculty thrive. When it comes to offering solutions, COACHE traffics in more comprehensive organizational development strategies inclusive of administrators and faculty. There are opportunities, then, for new RPPs to apply the lessons learned at COACHE to advance missions finer-tuned to serve faculty at the intersections (e.g., the Black associate professor, the woman in a STEM field, the liberal arts college department chair). Given recent calls by disciplinary associations in education for a closer marriage of research and practice, the RPP model holds tremendous promise for impact on both the study and support of faculty members, including but not limited to those at the midcareer stage.

References American Association of University Professors. (1994). On the relationship of faculty governance to academic freedom. Washington DC: AAUP. Retrieved from https:// www.aaup.org/report/relationship-faculty-governance-academic-freedom

Baker.indb 280

19-09-2019 15:20:48

evidence-based faculty development  

281

Ancona, D., Malone, T. W., Orlikowski, W. J., & Senge, P. M. (2007). In praise of the incomplete leader. Harvard Business Review, 85(2), 92–100. Association of American Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE). (2011). AAUDE data sharing rules for response-level survey data. Unpublished internal document, Association of American Universities, Washington DC. Association of American Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE). (2015). AAUDE data sharing guidelines and confidentiality rules. Washington DC: Association of American Universities. Retrieved from http://aaude.org/confidentiality Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G., & Riley, G. L. (1978). Policy making and effective leadership: A national study of academic management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Baldwin, R., & Chang, D. (2006). Reinforcing our “keystone” faculty. Liberal Education, 92(4), 28–35. Baldwin, R., DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Moretto, K. (2008). Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(5), 46–55. Baldwin, R. G., Lunceford, C. J., & Vanderlinden, K. E. (2005). Faculty in the middle years: Illuminating an overlooked phase of academic life. The Review of Higher Education, 29(1), 97–118. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Society for Research Into Higher Education. Benson, R. T., & Mathews, K. R. (2014). COACHE summary tables: Selected dimensions in faculty workplace climate by discipline, race/ethnicity, and gender. Cambridge, MA: Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education. Benson, R. T., Mathews, K. R., & Trower, C. A. (2015). The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education: Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey, 2011– 2015 (Research version) [data file and codebook]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chait, R. P., & Trower, C. A. (2001, September 11). Professors at the color line. New York Times [Op-Ed], p. A27. Chait, R. P., & Trower, C. A. (2002, March–April). Faculty diversity: Too little for too long. Harvard Magazine. Retrieved from http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/03/ faculty-diversity.html. Clark, A., Oswald, A., & Warr, P. (1996). Is job satisfaction U-shaped in age? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 57–81. Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. E. (2013). Research-practice partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation. Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE). (2008). COACHE highlights report 2008. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of

Baker.indb 281

19-09-2019 15:20:48

282  

special topics

Education. Retrieved from http://coache.gse.harvard.edu/news/coache-releasescomprehensive-study-how-satisfaction-differs-among-tenure-track Drago, R., Colbeck, C., Stauffer, K., Pirretti, A., Burkum, K., Fazioli, J., . . . Habasevich, T. (2006). The avoidance of bias against caregiving: The case of academic faculty. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(9), 1222–1247. Fischman, J. (2012, March 18). Exploding the myth of the aging, unproductive professor. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Exploding-the-Myth-of-the/131225 Groves, R., Singer, E., & Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation: Description and an illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 299–308. Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: World. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York, NY: Wiley. Huston, T., Norman, M., & Ambrose, S. (2007). Expanding the discussion of faculty vitality to include productive but disengaged senior faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 78(5), 493–522. International Association for Public Participation. (2014). IAP2’s public participation spectrum. Retrieved from http://www.iap2.org/?page=A5 Jaeger, A. J., & Thornton, C. H. (2006). Neither honor nor compensation: Faculty and public service. Educational Policy, 20, 345–366. Jaschik, S. (2009, May 8). Staying on the job. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/05/08/retire June, A. W. (2012, March 18). Professors are graying and staying creating a faculty bottleneck. The Chronicle for Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Professors-Are-Graying-and/131226 Kezar, A. (2004). What is more important to effective governance: Relationships, trust, and leadership, or structures and formal processes? In W. G. Tierney & V. M. Lechuga (Eds.), Restructuring shared governance in higher education (New Directions for Higher Education, no. 127, pp. 35–46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Larson, R. C., & Diaz, M. G. (2012). Nonfixed retirement age for university professors: Modeling its effects on new faculty hires. Service Science, 4(1), 69–78. Mamiseishvili, K., Miller, M. T., & Lee, D. (2016). Beyond teaching and research: Faculty perceptions of service roles at research universities. Innovative Higher Education, 41(273). Mathews, K. R. (2013). Understanding faculty survey nonrespondents: Their characteristics, organizational citizenship behaviors, workplace attitudes, and reasons for nonparticipation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1436228545) Mathews, K. R. (2014). Perspectives on mid-career faculty and advice for supporting them. Cambridge, MA: Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Baker.indb 282

19-09-2019 15:20:48

evidence-based faculty development  

283

National Network of Education Research-Practice Partnerships (NNERP). (n.d.). NNERP members. Retrieved from http://nnerpp.rice.edu/members Neumann, A., & Terosky, A. (2007). To give and to receive: Recently tenured professors’ experiences of service at major research universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 78, 282–310. O’Meara, K. A. (2002). Uncovering the values in faculty evaluation of service as scholarship. The Review of Higher Education, 26, 57–80. O’Meara, K. A., Bennett, J. C., & Niehaus, E. (2016). Left unsaid: The role of work expectations and psychological contracts in faculty careers and departure. Review of Higher Education, 39(2), 269–297. O’Meara, K. A., & Campbell, C. M. (2013). Faculty agency: Departmental contexts that matter in faculty careers. Research in Higher Education, 54(4), 383–480. Ponjuan, L., Conley, V. M., & Trower, C. (2011). Career stage differences in pretenure track faculty perceptions of professional and personal relationships with colleagues. The Journal of Higher Education, 82, 319–346. Rochester Institute of Technology. (n.d.). The Wallace Center. Retrieved from https://wallacecenter.rit.edu/ Russell, B. C. (2010). Stress in senior faculty careers. New Directions for Higher Education, 2010, 61–70. Russell, B. C. (2013). The workplace satisfaction of newly-tenured faculty members at research universities. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1503847605) Selingo, J. (2013). Aging academe: Retirement trends in higher education. Washington DC: The Chronicle of Higher Education. Sorcinelli, M. D., & Yun, J. H. (2007). From mentors to mentoring networks: Mentoring in the new academy. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(6), 58. Spencer Foundation. (n.d.). Research-practice partnership program. Retrieved from http://www.spencer.org/research-practice-partnership-program Stoecker, J. L. (1993). The Biglan classification revisited. Research in Higher Education, 34(4), 451–464. Trower, C. A. (2011). Senior faculty satisfaction: Perceptions of associate and full professors at seven public research universities. TIAA-CREF Institute Research Dialogue, 101, 1–15. Trower, C. A., & Bleak, J. L. (2004a). Study of new scholars: Gender: Statistical report [Universities]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Trower, C. A., & Bleak, J. L. (2004b). Study of new scholars: Race: Statistical report [Universities]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Trower, C A., & Honan, J. (2002) How are data used? In R. P. Chait (Ed.), The questions of tenure (pp. 273–308). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Trower, C. A., & Mathews, K. R. (2006, September 25). Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education: Highlights [Statistical Report]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved from http://coache.gse.­harvard .edu/news/new-study-indicates-faculty-treatment-matters-more-compensation

Baker.indb 283

19-09-2019 15:20:48

284  

special topics

Trower, C. A., & Mathews, K. R. (2007, August 1). Tenure-Track Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey: Highlights report [Statistical Report]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved from http://coache.gse.harvard.edu/ news/one-two-policy-punch-be-sure-consider-importance-and-effectiveness Trower, C. A., & Mathews, K. R. (2010). The experience of tenure-track faculty at research universities: Analysis of COACHE survey results by academic area and gender. [Statistical Report]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved from http://coache.gse.harvard.edu/news/coache-releases-firststudy-pre-tenure-faculty-satisfaction-discipline-sex Tufte, E. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press. University of Central Florida. (n.d.). Faculty excellence: COACHE. Retrieved from https://facultyexcellence.ucf.edu/coache/ Ward, K. (2003). Faculty service roles and the scholarship of engagement (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, vol. 29, no. 5). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. Weinberg, S. L., & Scott, M. A. (2013). The impact of uncapping of mandatory retirement on postsecondary institutions. Educational Researcher, 42(6), 338–348. William T. Grant Foundation. (n.d.). Research-practice partnerships. Retrieved from http://rpp.wtgrantfoundation.org/

Baker.indb 284

19-09-2019 15:20:48

14 N AV I G AT I N G A F O G G Y C L I M AT E Women Associate Professors’ Sense of Agency and Work Environment Experiences Courtney Lennartz and KerryAnn O’Meara

D

espite progress in women’s overall representation among tenured faculty, the percentage of women full professors, especially in research universities, remains stubbornly low. This chapter examines gender differences among associate professors’ sense of agency and work environment factors that likely contribute to differential progress in associate to full advancement among female and male faculty at one institution. Work environment survey data of a large, very high research activity, public institution in the Northeast reveal common challenges embedded within all associate professors’ career paths. However, we consider the distinct additional challenges faced by female associates versus male associates. We address five areas where female associates noted greater concern and challenges than their male counterparts at the same rank: workload, work-life balance, resources, networks, and agency in career advancement. After considering the facilitators and consequences of challenges faced by female associate professors from the perspective of “foggy climate,” we offer recommendations for associate professor mentoring, career development, and institutional policy and practice. We also address two questions that emerge from the results: (a) Who, if anyone, benefits from the ambiguity female associate professors reported experiencing, and (b) how do implicit bias and gendered logics and norms constrain agency, and thereby advantage male faculty over female faculty in promotion to full professor? We conclude that changes are needed to enhance associate professor agency by reducing the ambiguity that surrounds workload, resources, work-life integration, promotion criteria, and access to 285

Baker.indb 285

19-09-2019 15:20:48

286  

special topics

networks. We acknowledge that such change is difficult because there are those who benefit from the status quo.

Review of the Literature We begin by reviewing the literature on faculty agency. We use agency theory to consider how ambiguity in tenure and promotion pathways can hinder female associate professor advancement to full professor. We then review the extant literature on women associate professors’ differential time to ­promotion and the factors that shape career paths from associate to full professor. Finally, we draw on the metaphor of foggy climate to illustrate how ambiguity in promotion and tenure criteria can create differential work experiences for women and men, and explain how gendered expectations may be influencing faculty workload in ways that are disadvantageous to female associate professors’ career advancement.

Agency Several studies of faculty careers and professional lives have used agency as a theoretical framework (Colbeck & Wharton-Michael, 2006; Gonzales, 2015; Lester & Sallee, 2009; Neumann, Terosky, & Schell, 2006; O’Meara & Campbell, 2011; O’Meara, Terosky, & Neumann, 2008; Terosky, O’Meara, & Campbell, 2014). Agency theory is particularly useful for uncovering the ways in which faculty navigate, negotiate, and reframe their environment to enact their professional goals (O’Meara & Campbell, 2011). We define agency as perspectives and actions taken to achieve career goals (Campbell & O’Meara, 2014; O’Meara, 2015; O’Meara & Campbell, 2011). Agency perspectives are thought processes that make meaning of situations and contexts in ways that advance personal goals, whereas agency actions are steps that individuals take to pursue their goals (Campbell & O’Meara, 2014; O’Meara & Campbell, 2011). Research has shown significant benefits to feeling agency in work, life, and relationships (Alkire, 2005; Archer, 2003; Marshall, 2005). In academic life specifically, agency has been linked to satisfaction and career advancement (Gonzales, 2015; Neumann et al., 2006; O’Meara, 2015, 2016; Terosky & O’Meara, 2011). However, a lack of clarity around advancement criteria, mentoring, work overload, and work-life constraints can make associate professors, and female associate professors especially, among the least satisfied faculty (Baldwin, Lunceford, & Vanderlinden, 2005; O’Meara, 2015; Terosky et al., 2014) and contribute to women’s differential time to advancement (Barrett & Barrett, 2011; Buckley, Sanders, Shih, Kallar, & Hampton, 2000; O’Meara, 2011; Sax,

Baker.indb 286

19-09-2019 15:20:48

navigating a foggy climate  

287

Hagedorn, Arredondo, & Dicrisi, 2002). Ambiguity removes one’s sense of control and constrains choice and the ability to plan, which can contribute to women being stalled in their advancement (Britton, 2009, 2017; Hart, 2016; Terosky & O’Meara, 2011).

Differential Time to Advancement It is well documented in the literature that female faculty take longer to advance from associate to full professor, or never reach the rank of full professor, during their academic careers in research universities (Allan, 2011; Britton, 2009, 2017; Conley & Leslie, 2002; Geisler, Kaminski, & Berkley, 2007; Misra, Lundquist, Holmes, & Agiomavritis, 2011; Modern Language Association of America, 2009; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2012). A number of explanations have been posed for why this differential progress exists. For example, scholars have examined women leaking out of the academic pipeline and representation of women and minority faculty (Marschke, Laursen, Nielsen, & Dunn-Rankin, 2007; Van Anders, 2004; Wolfinger, Mason, & Goulden, 2008); aspects of chilly climate for women (Allan & Madden, 2006); and isolation as a result of being underrepresented, or a lack of critical mass, in certain fields and at the professor level (Carrigan, Quinn, & Riskin, 2011; Xu, 2008). Instead of a glass ceiling, De Welde and Laursen (2011) argue that female faculty face a “glass obstacle course” (p. 576) of unequal gendered processes in the academy, including exclusion from the “Old Boys’ Club,” sexism, a lack of women role models, and difficult worklife choices (p. 571). These obstacles are considered glass obstacles because they are often “implicit and unanticipated” (p. 571; see also Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995). Another metaphor or explanation that has been gaining traction over the last few years, and which we will use to examine the issue of female associate professor work experiences in this chapter, is the concept of a foggy climate (Banerjee & Pawley, 2013; Beddoes & Pawley, 2014).

Foggy Climate Social and organizational psychologists have long found that implicit bias and gender norms and logics are most likely to emerge and shape behavior when work conditions are ambiguous (Babcock, Laschever, Gelfand, & Small, 2003; Beddoes & Pawley, 2014; Dovidio, 2001; Heilman, 2001). Whether during hiring processes or promotion and tenure evaluation, inequity and biases operate more in environments with ambiguous evaluation criteria, whereas environments with concrete, objective evaluation criteria “mitigate the operation of prejudices” and inequity (Beddoes, Schimpf, & Pawley, 2014, p. 5). Ambiguity in faculty roles, advancement standards, rules

Baker.indb 287

19-09-2019 15:20:49

288  

special topics

of negotiation, and collaboration can create a work environment where gender biases emerge to create different work experiences for women and men faculty. For example, if there are no clear expectations or guidance on how many committees faculty members should serve on, or how many advisees they should have, female faculty especially may serve on more committees and advise more students than necessary. Banerjee and Pawley (2013) and Beddoes and Pawley (2014) describe such faculty work environments, where the standards for tenure and promotion are unclear, as having a “foggy climate.” We draw on their work and the work of prior scholarship on women associate professor advancement naming this problem (Banerjee & Pawley, 2013; Britton, 2009, 2017; Gardner & Veliz, 2014; Hart, 2009, 2016; Wolf-Wendel & Ward, 2003) to frame our analysis of faculty work environment experiences. Through this lens, we can see how female associate professors may find certain aspects of their work environment to be fair, equitable, and gender-neutral and find other aspects to be gendered. One way in which faculty work can be gender-neutral is in the submission of annual faculty reports for merit evaluation. The formatting and categories required in the submission materials (e.g., faculty curriculum vitae) are standardized, so it is impossible for the university system, in any reasonable way, to request men and women to submit these materials differently. However, many more areas of faculty work experience for associate professors are less likely to have as clearly delineated lines. For instance, many departments do not track faculty’s campus service commitments or student advising loads. As a result, female associate professors may be asked or assigned to serve on more committees and pick up more advisees throughout the semester than their male peers because they are perceived, or wish to be perceived, as helpful and accommodating (Basow, 2000; Sprague & Massoni, 2005). Without articulating what is expected of associate professors in terms of workload, gendered expectations among colleagues, students, and even the female associate professors themselves may shape outcomes that are disadvantageous for career advancement. Time is one of the most valuable resources available to faculty. Yet female faculty in research universities repeatedly report not spending enough time on research because of time spent on teaching (Winslow, 2010) and service roles (O’Meara, 2016; O’Meara, Kuvaeva, & Nyunt, 2017). Heavier teaching and service loads have been shown to negatively impact research productivity (Aguirre, 2000; Bellas & Toutkoushian, 1999; Carrigan et al., 2011; Link, Swann, & Bozemann, 2008). This is because teaching and service are often weighted less heavily in local academic reward systems. As a result, time spent on areas outside of research can disadvantage faculty when they go up for promotion and tenure (Aguirre, 2000; Bellas & Toutkoushian,

Baker.indb 288

19-09-2019 15:20:49

navigating a foggy climate  

289

1999; Carrigan et al., 2011; Link et al., 2008). Although assistant professors are typically shielded from heavy teaching loads and time-intensive service commitments to improve their chances of achieving tenure (Fairweather, 1996; O’Meara et al., 2017; Trower, 2012), associate professors tend to be overloaded with such responsibilities (Misra, Lundquist, & Templer, 2012; Neumann & Terosky, 2007; Trower, 2012; Ward, 2003). This is especially evident among female associate professors given their double bind of being both tenured and women in the academy. Researchers have found female faculty are asked more often to serve on committees, volunteer, and engage in less promotable service tasks than their male counterparts (Babcock, Recalde, Vesterlund, & Weingart, 2016; Misra et al., 2011; Mitchell & Hesli, 2013; O’Meara et al., 2017). Furthermore, O’Meara (2016) found female professors reported greater communal orientations toward campus service and men more individualistic orientations, meaning some women will take up institutional housekeeping activities at the expense of their own career advancement in order to keep their departments afloat. The foggier the set of expectations for workload, the greater the likelihood that bias will emerge in what work is assigned, taken up, and recognized in the local academic reward system (O’Meara et al., 2017). The same can be said about resources. Research has shown when circumstances are ambiguous and it is unclear whether it is possible to negotiate, women are less likely to ask for what they want (Leibbrandt & List, 2014). Likewise, Babcock and colleagues (2016) found that when a less preferred task is allocated (e.g., writing a report, serving on a committee, etc.), women either volunteer or are asked to volunteer, and women accept requests to volunteer for such tasks more often than men. These tasks are often unrecognized in promotion and tenure reviews. They also found that women are more likely to say yes to tasks with low promotability. In situations where gender norms seem to be salient (e.g., people expect women to conform to gendered stereotypes), women may give away one of their most important resources—time—in order to enact gendered norms about helpfulness and prevent backlash from their colleagues or students (Heilman, 2001). Research suggests that female faculty also have less access than male faculty to the types of collegial and social networks that convey system knowledge and information helpful for advancement (O’Meara, 2016; Perna, 2001; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). Such mentoring, networks, and knowledge about career advancement is imperative given that formalized standards for promotion to full professor are rare and often intentionally vague (Britton, 2010). Britton (2009) found in one study of associate professor advancement criteria that “there were no statements at all about what is required to achieve promotion, and sometimes tenure, or there were statements that were made

Baker.indb 289

19-09-2019 15:20:49

290  

special topics

deliberatively unclear” (p. 19). Britton (2010) noted this left associate professors scrambling to figure out “unspecified elements” (p. 7) of what it takes to be promoted to full professor at their institution. In addition to unclear and changing promotion standards and limited access to mentoring and knowledge-sharing networks, female faculty often report feeling that they have to meet a higher bar of competence than their male colleagues to be perceived as qualified in their roles (Britton, 2009, 2010, 2017; Fox, 2010; Hart, 2016; O’Meara, 2015). Such ambiguity hurts female faculty members’ sense of agency in career advancement (Terosky & O’Meara, 2011). Removing ambiguous institutional policies and practices, increasing clarity in access to and distribution of resources, and fostering more equitable ways of organizing professional and personal interactions is critical to associate professor advancement (Baldwin & Chang, 2006; Roos & Gatta, 2009). Additionally, scholars have documented negative personal health as well as retention, satisfaction, and productivity consequences of foggy climates for female faculty (Eagan & Garvey, 2015; Stout, Staiger, & Jennings, 2007).

Data and Methods We will refer to the university that these data were collected from as LandGrant University (LGU) in order to preserve anonymity. LGU is a public research university in the Northeast. It is highly selective in terms of admissions, as it serves approximately 40,000 students (roughly 70% undergraduate) and engages in extensive research activity, with over $500 million in research expenditures. In 2015, at the time of the work environment survey that will be discussed later, there were 1,611 tenure-track and tenured faculty employed at LGU. Female faculty made up 32% of tenure-track and tenured faculty overall—roughly 46% of assistant professors, 35% of associate professors, and 23% of full professors. The university also has an active ADVANCE program office, which was initially supported by a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant, but is now supported through campus funds. The ADVANCE program works to support the recruitment, retention, advancement, and professional growth of women and underrepresented minority faculty at LGU in ways that improve the workplace for all faculty. Since the LGU ADVANCE program was initiated seven years ago, LGU has seen greater gender equity in time to advancement from associate to full professor. However, as we discuss later in this chapter, there is still much work to do in order to reach gender equity in the work experiences and time to advancement of female associate professors to full professors at LGU. As part of their annual reporting to NSF, LGU

Baker.indb 290

19-09-2019 15:20:49

navigating a foggy climate  

291

ADVANCE studied associate professor advancement in the 2015–2016 academic year. Institutional researchers found that among those promoted to full professor by 2016, the average time to advancement for women was 1.34 times longer than the average time to advancement for men. In an attempt to better understand reasons male and female associate professors might be advancing at differential rates, we analyzed Faculty Work Environment Survey (FWES) data collected from LGU faculty in 2015. The FWES was administered to all full-time, tenure-track faculty in 2015. The survey was developed using agency theory, and survey items related to agency in promotion and tenure were developed after an extensive review of the literature on agency and factors that may benefit or constrain faculty choices in the promotion and tenure process. The survey was reviewed by content experts, pilot tested, and revised before implementation. It was designed to measure the degree to which faculty perceive and experience their units, colleges, and university to be investing in their professional growth and creating an inclusive work environment. Much social science and educational research has found that supporting faculty professional growth (e.g., through agency, learning, professional networks, and recognition) and creating inclusive work environments (e.g., fair workload, diversity climate, work-life climate) is linked to faculty retention, advancement, and productivity (Campbell & O’Meara, 2014; Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2007; O’Meara et al., 2008). In this chapter, we analyze the results from the 2015 administration of the FWES to better understand differences in experiences of work environment that could be contributing to differential time to advancement among female and male associate professors at LGU. Of the full-time tenure-track or tenured faculty at LGU, 53.3% (N = 854) completed the 2015 FWES. Among the faculty who completed the 2015 FWES, 23.5% were assistant professors (N = 201), 32.4% were associate professors (N = 277), and 44.0% were full professors (N = 376). t-tests for independent means were conducted to quantitatively illustrate gender differences in time to advancement and work experiences that might be contributing to this observed difference. We also analyzed open-ended comments from the same FWES for associate professors by gender. One of the open-ended questions from the survey asked whether faculty had any concerns about their opportunity to advance in their careers at LGU. Of the associate professors who participated in the 2015 FWES, 48.2% (N = 134) indicated a concern for advancement. Of the female associate professors who indicated a concern for advancement at LGU, 28 elaborated on their concern(s) in an open-ended response. We also drew on another open-ended question that asked faculty members whether or not the distribution of campus service work in their department was fair

Baker.indb 291

19-09-2019 15:20:49

292  

special topics

and why or why not. The female associate professor participants were more likely than male associate professor participants to report feeling that the distribution of campus service work in their department was unfair. Among those indicating unfair distribution, 62 female associate professors provided explanations. These open-ended comments from the FWES data source are woven throughout this chapter in order to offer a rich portrait of the foggy climate hindering LGU female associate professors’ advancement to full professor.

Findings Before considering issues of gender in associate professor experiences, it is important to provide additional context related to the overall 2015 FWES results. There were 84 survey items on the FWES covering such areas as workload, learning opportunities, professional networks, mentoring, career advancement opportunities, resources, and work-life balance. There were significant differences (a) between faculty of color and White faculty in 18 of 84 items, (b) between male and female faculty on 44 of 84 items, and (c) among associate professors and other ranks on 77 out of 84 items. Associate professors were significantly less positive than assistant and full professors about work experiences in 77 of the 84 work environment survey items. We began with this context because it is important to note that consistent with previous work (Terosky et al., 2014), there are distinct career challenges faced by associates that cause dissatisfaction, regardless of gender. Given over half of the overall survey items were also significantly less positive by gender, gender clearly played a salient role in LGU work experiences. In the analysis that follows, we present five areas of work environment where all LGU associate professors had concerns that were greater than their assistant and full professor colleagues. However, in these same areas we identified gender differences among male and female associate professors, using t-test analyses for independent means (see Table 14.1) and supplemented by open-ended comments. Given that we are drawing on qualitative comments to further explore these gender differences, and specific challenges articulated by female associate professors, we only shared qualitative quotes from female associate faculty throughout this chapter.

Ambiguity in Service Expectations and Workload Distribution Female associate professors felt less in control over their participation in service activities than male associate professors (t(270) = 2.547, p