Goal 2 Committee Report

Committee Members:
Chair: Josiah Heyman - Associate Professor: Social Sciences
Co-Chair: David Sikarskie - Professor: Mechanical Engineering/Engineering Mechanics
Jacqueline Huntoon - Associate Professor: Geological Engineering and Sciences
Neil Hutzler - Professor and Associate Dean: Engineering
William Kennedy - Director: Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development
Willie Melton - Associate Professor: Social Sciences
J. Bruce Rafert - Professor and Department Chair: Physics
William Sewell - Associate Professor: Humanities

Charge

Faculty are central to Michigan Technological University’s (MTU) mission in teaching and research, and they bear major roles in governance and service. Attracting, sustaining, and developing faculty is a process that occurs over time. Elements in that process include recruitment and hiring, faculty orientation, faculty development, promotion and tenure, and the faculty reward structure. The process as a whole should promote and sustain excellent teaching, research, and service that are the three criteria for promotion and tenure at MTU. The ways in which MTU values the teaching, research, and service contributions of its faculty are the subject of our self study. Because "faculty excellence" represents a composite of teaching, research, and service, University practices and procedures should be in place to strengthen and develop these areas. See Attachment 1 for a more detailed explanation of this committee’s charge and responsibilities.

Patterns of Evidence—Criterion 1: Purposes

The goal of "attracting, retaining, supporting, and developing excellent faculty" comes from the Strategic Planning document 1998 and Beyond [2.1D2]. It should be read in the context of MTU’s major public statements, the University Mission, the Interpretation of the Mission, the Ten Expectations presented by President Tompkins, and the Vision Statement of the University Direction and Planning Committee [2.1D2]. Those documents characterize MTU as an institution that values the simultaneous pursuit of excellence in teaching and research. The Ten Expectations calls for MTU to be a "model of research and teaching excellence." Clearly, the University’s Mission and Vision demands unified excellence in undergraduate and graduate teaching and research.

These expectations are clear and available to the faculty. Every academic department has a charter [3.4]. These charters include departmental mission statements that echo the institutional focus on undergraduate and graduate teaching and research. For example, the Metallurgical and Materials Sciences Department, clearly a strong research department, starts its mission by stating that "the primary mission of the Department...is to provide quality educational programs for MTU students at both the undergraduate and graduate level." Later in its mission, that unit says that "research and service are important secondary missions of our Department" [3.4A]. Some units, such as the School of Technology, have missions that emphasize teaching over research, for appropriate reasons [3.4E]. The charters also all include, as appendices, criteria for promotion and tenure, which are vitally important and widely known by faculty. Departmental promotion and tenure language consistently requires a balanced combination of teaching excellence and scholarship (or, in some cases, an emphasis on teaching), which is supported by service to the department and the University.

Based on the preceding evidence, the committee feels that MTU puts forth its goals for faculty excellence adequately and consistently, and those goals are consistent with the institution’s major public statements such as its public Mission and Vision representations. However, we are concerned that the public outside the University may not have access to the goals and information needed to understand the work of our faculty. MTU should actively project to the stakeholders of the University, including the people of the state of Michigan, alumni, and students, the goals of excellence for which MTU faculty are hired, paid, and tenured. In particular, we should emphasize our expectation that research can successfully combine with excellence in teaching.

Patterns of Evidence—Criterion 2: Resources

General

The question of organization for MTU’s educational purposes fundamentally asks whether the faculty evaluation, feedback, and reward structure coherently promotes excellence in teaching and research. MTU is improving its organization of feedback and evaluation, but it should make it more systematic.

Because the tenure-track involves annual reviews, biennial contract renewals, and documentary requirements and evaluations for tenure application, departments and colleges engage in an evaluative process for pre-tenure faculty. Feedback to junior faculty is inconsistent among units, however [1.2A, Tenure, Promotion, and Reappointment; 3.4; and J. Huntoon, interviews]. (Additionally, the formal tenure language is less coherent that the typical real departmental procedures, a disparity discussed under Criterion 5.)

The organization of evaluation and feedback is weaker for post-tenure faculty. Inspection of Attachments 2 and 3 shows that departments and colleges keep current curricula vitae for faculty, but several other records (notably supervisor’s evaluations) are kept inconsistently between units and between ranks. The University has no institution-wide evaluation process or form, other than the annual curriculum vitae (CV) update. (Evaluation and record-keeping are also inconsistent for non-tenurable faculty.) The information base for evaluation and feedback on research and publication is adequate; we know what faculty do via the CV updates. Similarly, the CV updates easily document faculty service. However, our information base (the number and size of courses taught; the current five-question student evaluation instrument) for teaching evaluation and feedback is not adequate. Departments do not consistently use peer-evaluations of teaching. MTU is improving teaching information and feedback through the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development (CTLFD); these improvements include a new student evaluation instrument and other teaching feedback initiatives [2.6F1]; (see Criterion 4, below).

The material and intellectual reward structure has both strengths and weaknesses. The merit-pay process for all tenurable faculty is clear; most units have explicit statements of merit-pay criteria that reflect the desired synthesis of teaching and research (or teaching alone, if appropriate) [3.4 and 2.6]. However, criteria for workload are not discussed in most department charters, nor are they linked to a dynamic feedback process (Attachment 3). In addition, a significant portion of the faculty holds a different opinion than their own department charters and formal University goals about the relative rewards for research and teaching. In the 1996 Faculty Survey [6.2B4, Item 64], two-thirds (67%) of respondents felt that research was moderately or heavily rewarded more than teaching. The University’s pattern of tenure and promotion decisions under the current administration [J. Heyman, interview with F. Dobney] does not support this perception. Yet faculty may discern hidden research biases in either the University’s or their own departmental and collegial judgements. We can only speculate on the causes of this disparity, but it merits public discussion among faculty and administration so that we can strive toward our ideal of balanced teaching and research, and put our best face forward in public arenas that emphasize the teaching mission of universities.

It also bears mentioning that University service is an afterthought in merit pay, workload, and promotion. This is a future weakness for, as we enter an era that emphasizes learning assessment (especially decentralized to a departmental level) and participation in self study and strategic planning, faculty will need realistic workloads and realistic rewards for these services.

MTU has a serious weakness in its financial support for faculty excellence because the University lags in faculty salaries. In the 1995–1996 Faculty Salary Survey [8.4A, the Oklahoma State Survey], the University is 11.3% behind the regional reference group. MTU has made increasing faculty salaries to the Oklahoma State Survey average a high-priority budget item (Attachment 4). The MTU/reference group gap narrowed from 13.3% to 11.3% over four years. MTU’s benefits package mixes strengths and weaknesses. The medical benefits are extensive, including doctor, hospital, dental, pharmaceutical, and vision plans. However, MTU contributes only 10.55% of salary to TIAA-CREF, which is below the 15% generally accepted as savings required to provide income replacement at retirement. The Provost’s recent initiative to increase the University contribution to retirement funds should be brought to completion near the 15% figure. The impact of faculty salaries and benefits on MTU attraction and retention (see Criterion 2) is discussed below.

MTU’s faculty is qualified for its duties of teaching and research and continues to improve. Nationally, in 1987, 29.2% of faculty in Doctoral institutions was non-tenurable [Digest of Education Statistics , U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990.] . In March 1988, 84% of tenurable MTU faculty had doctorates; in May 1995, 90% did (calculated from MTU Catalog 1988/90; 1995–97 Undergraduate Catalog). In 1996, 79% of MTU faculty was tenurable and 21% non-tenurable. Faculty transcripts and proof of relevant degree completion are kept on file in the Provost’s office (Attachment 2). In 1995, MTU rationalized and clarified its system of faculty titles for both tenurable and non-tenurable faculty. For example, titles such as non-tenure track Assistant or Associate Professor can no longer be used [1.2A]. The University now has a set of faculty titles that is appropriate to its role as a Doctoral-level institution.

The official faculty is the actual teaching faculty. MTU does not rely heavily on adjuncts or graduate students to meet classes. In 1995–96, tenurable faculty taught 67% of MTU’s total undergraduate (000–400 level) credit hours. As Table 1, below, indicates, tenurable faculty teach 80% of MTU’s main classes (lectures and recitations). This figure excludes labs (which are small sections supervised by graduate students but linked to main lecture courses).

TABLE 1. Student Credit Hours at MTU, Academic Year 1995–96, by Rank of Instructor—Courses 000–400 Levels Only (approximately equal to undergraduate courses).

	Laboratories	Lectures	Recitations	Research, Special Topics
Tenurable	652.12	420.00	4122.04	794.78
Instructor/ Lecturer	319.81	76.00	693.00	91.84
GTA/UGTA	889.45	3.00	593.80	55.50
Other	144.66	6.00	130.50	50.20
Total	2010.04	505.00	5486.34	992.32
Percentage Taught by Tenurable Faculty	32.44%	83.17%	79.84%	80.10%

Grand Total Credit Hours	Grand Total Credit Hours Taught by Tenurable Faculty	Percentage of Grand Total Taught by Tenurable Faculty
8993.70	5988.94	66.59%

Source: Institutional Analysis, copy of original data in files of J. Heyman.

The percentage of classes led by tenurable faculty is higher than at comparable universities (see Table 1). Clarkson University, a benchmark institution (with fewer graduate programs than MTU), meets 62% of its undergraduate credit hours with tenurable faculty (Attachment 5). In the 1996 State of Michigan Performance Survey [6.2B1], MTU’s 12.6% of credit hours taught by graduate students is the lowest in the State’s Research/Doctoral institutions, while its percentage taught by ranked faculty is among the highest. Overall, MTU is serving the students and the public by placing its most qualified faculty in the undergraduate classroom.

Attraction

The process of attraction includes searching for and hiring faculty. Department Charters [3.4] show that most departments have specified search procedures for new faculty, including chairs (see "Departmental Governance", Criterion 5, below). Typically, this process begins with the authorization of a new faculty hire through the strategic planning process and involves goal setting by the department, the Dean, and then the Provost. This system, which started at MTU in 1993, puts faculty hiring in a broader strategic context. Once given the "go ahead," the Chair or a faculty committee formulates the actual search. It has multiple stages that permit faculty input [1.5B1]. The department self studies [2.6] show no dissatisfaction with the basic idea of strategic allocation of new hires, but most departments naturally do make cases for their own particular needs.

The self studies are also satisfied with the quality and size of pools of applicants for jobs. In part, this reflects MTU’s opportunities in highly saturated faculty job markets. The self studies show that hiring units are using both standard (ads in national disciplinary journals) and innovative (electronic diffusion; personal contacts, etc.) methods for job searches. The 1996 Faculty Survey [6.2B4, question 61] helps evaluate MTU’s processes for publicizing the institution to potential faculty: 35.9% of current MTU faculty initially became aware of MTU through job ads, but 44.2% did through personal contacts and 19.9% through other means. This shows the effectiveness of non-traditional methods for faculty attraction.

MTU has strong, but imperfect, organizational and financial processes to support the hiring of faculty. (The relative success of hiring itself is discussed in "Retention", Criterion 3.) The 1996 Faculty Survey [6.2B4] shows that broad intellectual and teaching ideals, such as excellent undergraduates and the reputation of colleagues and the University, attract new hires to Michigan Tech. In spite of MTU’s lackluster performance on salaries and benefits, the tenure-track respondents (de facto, recent hires) said that in their decision to come to MTU, salary was a negative factor in only 26.0% of the cases and benefits only in 7.7% of cases. Similarly, departmental self studies do not show patterns of failure to attract high-quality faculty with the starting salaries now offered. However, given that MTU lags significantly in faculty salaries in the competitive national job markets for scientists, engineers, and other scholars, MTU’s salary and benefit structure may become a potential weakness in attraction.

MTU departments and colleges have been creative in recent years in hiring dual-faculty couples, but the University does not have a spousal hiring policy for professional (but non-faculty) spouses. This is a weakness in current job markets, especially when faculty compare their situations with MTU’s hiring of spouses of administrators (see Criterion 5).

Start-up support (funds, release time, and space) is adequate according to the departmental self studies [2.6; also see 6.2B4, question 12], though particular units have concerns over space, etc. Some departments make release time available to new faculty (e.g., Mechanical Engineering/Engineering Mechanics). This strength in both attraction and early retention might be emulated across campus if funding support can be provided to departments. The University has no institution-wide model for start-up funding; the department, Dean, and the Vice-Provost for Research put together each package individually. The Vice-Provost for Research has a $200,000 start-up pool [2.6F6]. The Research Excellence Fund (see "Development", Criterion 2) also supports new and junior faculty.

Faculty judge MTU’s research facilities as average for attraction, with substantial positive and negative outliers, while respondents view MTU’s general facilities positively [6.2B4, questions 13 and 14]. However, the Library is a very strongly negative incentive for attracting and retaining faculty at MTU. Library collections had the worst average on the Faculty Survey for new (tenure-track) faculty, and for faculty in general. This institutional weakness must be addressed if we are to attract the faculty for the sophisticated combination of teaching and research we require.

The University is committed to increase the diversity of its faculty. Organizationally, since 1992, the budget/strategic-planning process has had a specific awareness of, and encouragement for, the recruitment and retention of minority and female faculty (Attachment 4). This process has increased the number of women faculty but not underrepresented minority faculty (evidence is discussed in "Retention", Criterion 3). Improving MTU’s child-care programs will help the University both attract and retain male and female faculty with young children; we urge that the University follow through on the recommendations of the report Child Care Needs and Implications for MTU [5.6C].

Retention

In this section, we focus on retaining recently hired faculty, especially at the junior ranks. MTU has an excellent record in this regard, as discussed in Retention, Criterion 3. The University has significantly improved its organization for retention. Since 1995, MTU has had a new-faculty orientation, which includes an initial presentation upon arriving at MTU, and a follow-up series of teaching seminars during the Fall and Winter terms of the school year.

The orientation materials address both short-term and long-term faculty needs. In particular, the orientation materials address the question of simultaneously pursuing teaching and research excellence. The orientation and the teaching seminars cover teaching strategies, and the orientation provides an important introduction to the tenure process and categories of evaluation (the F-10 form, etc.). The new-faculty orientation and seminars were well attended—averaging over 34 faculty in Fall 1996, almost 10% of total university faculty, though attendance by Winter term dropped to 4–5 (J. Heyman interview with P. Cho and W. Kennedy). In the 1997–98 year, the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development will house the orientation, so that it will have enduring institutional support.

Departmental self studies rarely mention mentoring of junior faculty [2.6]. Formal mentoring and monitoring should be done consistently by departments, or (better yet) existing patterns of informal mentoring should be recognized, rewarded, and encouraged. Several department self studies indicate that successful mentoring (informal and formal) requires a constructive attitude on the part of senior faculty.

MTU has not denied anyone tenure in recent years simply because the school lacked the financial resources to do so. Likewise, lack of resources (other than library collections, see above) is not a strong negative factor in the "stay at MTU" section of the 1996 Faculty Survey [6.2B4].

The most serious flaw is the failure on the part of senior faculty and department chairs in some units to provide consistent and timely feedback about expectations and performance appropriate to the career path of the individual junior scholar. One reason for this failure is that while the Faculty Handbook [1.2A] schedules reappointment reviews, it does not identify what constitutes an interim or major review. Thus the quality of reviews varies because of the lack of a unifying document. This is not a consistent flaw—many units do this very well—but it should not happen at all.

Development

MTU has the typical set of programs and resources to support faculty development. The actual execution is uneven, but in the last two years Michigan Tech has demonstrated a commitment to improving faculty development. In 1995, C. Walck wrote the report Enhancing Faculty Development at Michigan Technological University [5.2A]. The thrust of this report is that MTU needed greater integration of fractured development activities. In response to this report, the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development was established in 1996, with a full-time Director and Assistant Director [see 2.6F1 for activities]. In 1997, the University will create a Vice-Provost for Instruction to coordinate and advance the cause of various administrative units related to the University’s instructional mission. Although these organizations are new, they promise to bring to MTU what has been missing in faculty development until now: a clear mechanism for linking assessment, feedback to faculty, consultation, and improvement, especially in the area of teaching.

MTU’s strongest commitment to development is one, delimited research program, the Research Excellence Fund (REF). Annually, it provides between $1 and $1.4 million in research funds. It often combines new and established faculty on research projects. However, because of the legislative language that authorizes the REF, it does not include many research fields on campus. The much smaller Scholarship Improvement Grants (total program $70,000 per year), operating out of the office of the Vice-Provost, provides for projects and fields that the REF does not support. The Scholarship program is very new, but evaluation of its first year points to success [2.6F6]. Unfortunately, the disparate funding level compared to the REF causes unequal intra-campus research opportunities for different faculty. The 1988 NCA Accreditation Visit Report commented on the negative effects of the cancellation of faculty seed research and creativity grants [6.1A, p. 74]. MTU has addressed this weakness, and we advocate expanding the funding for this valuable program. MTU also has a Faculty Development Grant program of $11,000 annually, which brings outside scholars and similar visitors to campus. Because these are the only grants for teaching improvement, curricular reform, and faculty development beyond traditional research and writing projects, the funds are inadequate and do not support the "dual mission" of MTU faculty.

The MTU sabbatical program is adequate in its basic format, but is underutilized. Data from 1990–95 show that a total of 67 faculty members took sabbaticals, an average of 3–4% of eligible faculty per year. Of those who took sabbaticals, a slight majority take less than the full academic year’s leave. The most prevalent reasons for not taking sabbaticals are financial constraints, managing the arrangements associated with a new affiliation, and relocating to another worksite. After recognizing that sabbaticals are underutilized, MTU is studying how to improve its performance in this area [1.2A, MTU Sabbatical Leave Policy; 5.2B, Senate Sabbatical Leave Policy Task Force Report and Provost’s Survey on Sabbatical Leave; and data from Institutional Analysis (transmitted to W. Melton)].

As with attraction and retention, the departmental self studies and the 1996 Faculty Survey [6.2B4] report that the MTU Library is a significant weakness for faculty development. Some faculty in the survey were also dissatisfied with the lack of instructional technology available to support their instructional roles. Decentralization of instructional support has resulted in uneven availability of resources.

In terms of regular faculty support (not specific development initiatives but routine faculty teaching and scholarship), departmental self studies fairly consistently report financial weaknesses (e.g., travel funds, staff support, copying expenses, etc.). While it is easy to imagine that every professor and every department could insatiably want more of such support, MTU should avoid departmental financial constraints that really hamper the accomplishment of regular faculty duties. In spring 1997, the Provost announced an increase of 4% in departmental supplies, services, and equipment budgets.

Overall, the 1995 Enhancing Faculty Development report gathered the critical information, identified the key processes, and made important recommendations. MTU has begun to follow this report, but we need to sustain those initiatives and to follow additional recommendations (such as those about departments playing key roles in development) made in that report.

Patterns of Evidence—Criterion 3: Accomplishments

General

Michigan Tech has a good faculty in both teaching and research. Its institutional processes, outlined above, are currently attracting, retaining, and developing the excellent faculty required for its educational purposes.

The evidence for excellence in teaching is weak because until this year MTU has not collected adequate sources of information. The current student evaluation form, though highly flawed [6.2B1], does suggest that students are reasonably satisfied with MTU faculty because the campus-wide average course evaluation is 4.1 on a 1 to 5 scale, with 5 as the highest score. Learning outcome assessment is being implemented in the 1996–1997 and 1997–1998 years, and will give us many better indicators about learning; also, in 1997–1998, MTU will introduce to students a nationally normed course-evaluation instrument.

MTU’s faculty have steadily improved research and publications. The Goal Committee 4 Report table of MTU faculty and staff publications (Table 4) shows a 21% growth in archival publications and a 37% growth in total publications from 1988/90 to 1994 [6.2B6]. The Goal 4 Report (Tables 2 and 3) shows a 100% non-inflation adjusted increase in research expenditures from 1987/88 to 1996. In the 1988–1996 period, MTU has moved from a Comprehensive to a Doctoral II classification (and has now passed the threshold of requirements for Doctoral I) [6.2B6]. MTU’s increase in research has taken place during a period of stasis and retreat in federal research funding, and thus shows meaningful progress.

MTU’s faculty are demonstrably active in service duties. Faculty in each department and a faculty-assessment council have done assessment planning and implementation, rather than shunting these responsibilities to a specialized office of assessment. The current NCA accreditation process involves a participatory set of faculty-staff-student committees that will look into each of MTU’s strategic goals. These committees involve 44 tenurable faculty members.

The MTU Senate has been strengthened since the 1988 accreditation; the Senate is mostly covered under Criterion 5, but it merits noting here that senators and alternates all serve on one main Senate committee, thus it includes 42 tenurable faculty members in that University governance process. Because of departmental service, administrative duties (e.g., department chairs), and other significant University-wide committees, many additional faculty have meaningful service obligations, as well.

MTU can be proud of these general indicators of faculty excellence, especially because our commitment to simultaneous excellence in teaching undergraduates and research/teaching graduate students, and our moderate size, means that we do not operate with the large faculty and specialized division of labor that facilitates faculty concentration on either research, administration, or teaching in larger institutions.

Attraction

MTU is attracting excellent new faculty. Since 1986, MTU has hired 198 new tenurable faculty (Attachment 6). 160 of these faculty are still here (an impressive 44.9% of MTU’s total faculty has arrived in the last ten years). MTU has taken full advantage, in both quantity and quality, of the opportunity presented by the oversupply in academic job markets. The departmental self studies do not report that the University has had problems in obtaining faculty to hire (a few administrative positions have proven hard to fill). The departments are also very satisfied with the new faculty members they get. The 1996 Faculty Survey [6.2B4, question 59] provides corroboration for these departmental opinions. 58.8% of respondents had at least one other job offer when they took the MTU job, and over 27% had three or more offers. This is significant objective evidence of MTU faculty quality.

The 1996 Faculty Survey [6.2B4] shows that the qualities that draw faculty to MTU are consistent with our educational purposes. The strong positive attractors are undergraduate-student quality, regional lifestyle and personal factors, collegial fellow faculty, the University’s reputation, departmental reputation, departmental specialty, and benefits. What can we make of this? MTU faculty hold the school in high regard: the reputations of its students and its scholars are quite positive. MTU faculty are very interested in undergraduate education: it is the single strongest attractor. (Consistent with this, Michigan Tech faculty do not come with an attitude of avoiding undergraduate teaching. In fact, "undergraduate load" elicited relatively few negative responses although MTU faculty carry substantial teaching loads in comparison to other research universities.) The quality of outdoor recreational activities and small-town lifestyle offered by the Keweenaw strongly appeal to the faculty who have chosen to come and stay here. We consider it a strength for faculty recruitment.

Importantly, MTU faculty in the survey care most deeply about the broad intellectual climate for learning and scholarship, as reflected not only in teaching but also categories such as university and unit reputation and collegial faculty. Note that direct material rewards (e.g., salary or start-up funds) as attractors are not ranked particularly highly. Although it would be incorrect to present this portrait of the faculty to justify salary or unattractive support conditions (that would drive off even dedicated people), it is important that we articulate to our stakeholders (students, the Board, the legislature, and the citizens of the State of Michigan) that University faculty are committed to high ideals of teaching and learning.

Retention

Attachment 6 shows that MTU succeeds at retaining its faculty. Of 198 tenurable faculty hired since 1986, 160 (81%) have stayed at the University. If we look at the faculty who departed since 1986, we find that MTU loses few through the review and tenure process (25 were given terminal contracts, including only 7 who were denied tenure). The University tenure process is highly successful (see Attachments 6 and 7).

The Faculty Survey included a set of questions on why faculty stay at MTU. The positive retention factors are very similar to the attraction qualities discussed above (positive collegiality and student quality are especially prominent), and Michigan Tech has few strong negatives, except the Library collection. Only 21% of respondents report plans to seek jobs elsewhere [6.2B4, question 63].

When we break down the new hires to look at the attraction and retention of women, we see similarly positive results. Thirty seven women have joined the faculty since 1986, and 35 of them are still here. As of 1995, 15.7% of tenurable MTU faculty are women, up from 10.3% in 1986 (Attachment 6). However, MTU’s utilization analysis shows that the University has room to increase the representation of women in the faculty [2.5D]. Particular areas of concern do remain, as indicated in the 1994 Study of the Climate for Women [5.5C]. MTU is also committed to increasing underrepresented minority faculty. However, MTU does not have a strong record in attracting and retaining underrepresented minority faculty. The total of African-, Hispanic-, and Native-American faculty at MTU has changed from 11 in 1989 to 10 in 1996 [2.5D]. MTU faces a difficult task in attracting underrepresented minority faculty because of the relative lack of qualified individuals from these groups in the engineering and science fields that dominate the University faculty. Attachment 6 shows evidence that women or minorities are not failing to obtain tenure or resigning at a disproportionate rate.

Making a general assessment of this data, we see that

• MTU has had a dramatic period of bringing in new faculty—47% of all current tenurable faculty has joined the institution in the last 10 years;
• it has succeeded in retaining these new faculty; and thus
• Michigan Tech’s faculty can be characterized, in large part, as promising, new, and quite satisfied with the institution.

Development

Unfortunately, the institution does not presently have the detailed data required to assess the development of faculty over time. We do not know, for example, what are the patterns of growth in teaching skills or learning outcomes for faculty who have been with the University for different amounts of time. Similarly, we have aggregate publication data, but it is not broken down by length of time in the University or by profession.

The commonly expressed concerns with development reflect concern with experienced faculty becoming stale and ineffective over time. In this regard, departmental initiatives (an indirect source of evidence) shows that experienced faculty are launching creative programs, courses, research directions, etc. Departmental self studies [2.6] do show widespread development by experienced faculty and/or well-established departments (which often then leads to hiring of vibrant new scholars). These activities include the extensive cross-disciplinary Initiative for the Environment in Civil and Environmental Engineering, Geological Sciences, Biology, Forestry, Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and the Social Sciences. It also includes the School of Technology’s addition of a Bachelor of Engineering Technology degree program, the core general-education courses in Social Sciences, the chemical process and safety courses in Chemical Engineering, and a host of other programs too numerous to recite here. In each of these initiatives, key roles were taken by long-term MTU faculty as well as senior and junior faculty new to MTU. Section 2.4 will emphasize the need to get a better overall grasp on faculty development results and how potential stultification can be rectified.

Patterns of Evidence—Criterion 4: Continuous Improvement

General

In this section, we synthesize the recent historical evolution of the MTU faculty, based on especially on the Hiring and Retention data (Attachment 6), in order to project the major future challenges to the University. We then look at the strengths and weaknesses of our existing strategic plans and institutional processes in terms of their ability to recognize and respond to these trends.

For twenty years now, the MTU faculty has undergone reorientation from only teaching undergraduate students to a simultaneous emphasis on undergraduate teaching and research excellence. By now, the majority of faculty has entered service under these expectations. The complications of the transformation period are gradually declining, but we enter a period when the demands on faculty are almost superhuman: to do heavy teaching compared to benchmark institutions [2.6A and 2.6A1–8], to obtain significant external research funding and refereed publications, and to carry a service load that includes learning-outcomes assessment (among other duties). How is the institution poised to support its faculty in coping with these high expectations?

First, let us look at tenure-track faculty. Currently, as they enter, they start with an orientation that outlines teaching and research expectations. Generally, the annual-review/tenure process provides a thorough evaluation. An annual-review document that constrains each evaluated faculty member to ask questions and each department chair/committee to reply in a constructive manner can correct for any variation in the depth and quality of feedback. It will require attention to the distinct plans and accomplishments of individual junior faculty, so evaluative algorithms may be useful but are not sufficient. It is also important that MTU departments make use of the opportunity provided by a newly strengthened Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development and improved methods of learning-outcomes assessment and student evaluation of instruction. If we envision these new faculty as entering the University with a mixture of weaknesses and strengths in personal teaching styles and also facing pressure to do research and publish, we see that some will not reach their greatest potential as teachers unless they have personal diagnosis and consulting. These are areas that can be heightened for department and college/school planning in the forthcoming documents soliciting strategic plans.

MTU will continue to hire some new scholars, but the retention data show that most new faculty will stay at the University and will get tenure. Consequently, the University cannot count on achieving research and teaching excellence simply by periodic infusions of new academics. The large 1986–1996 cohort, and previously hired faculty, will need to sustain their high energy and creativity in teaching and research as they move from early to mid-career, an opportunity that is particularly apparent as we examine the age composition of the MTU faculty. The median age for faculty has increased from 42 (1989) to 47 (1996) (age data supplied by institutional analysis to W. Melton). Based on national statistics published in 1989, this faculty is probably 4–5 years younger than faculty at 4-year public colleges nationally [estimated from 8.5A1]. In 1989, 54% of MTU faculty had been tenured for more than seven years compared to 70% for a national sample of 4-year public colleges.

As it ages, the faculty at MTU in 1997 will typically be in mid-career. Given the composition of this faculty, the University needs to focus more on programs that address the needs of mid-career faculty. In her report to the Provost, C. Walck states, "Mid-career faculty may face plateauing and burnout, and need opportunities to reconsider their choice of career. They are probably also more able than new faculty to engage in personal development activities, and these will improve their teaching effectiveness" [5.2A, p. 15].

The evaluation and development of mid-career faculty thus are an important opportunity (or, if we fail it, a potential weakness as the faculty age and stagnate). Let us envision the demands that MTU will be putting on mid-career faculty. As experienced scholars in their fields, major research initiatives will often fall on their shoulders. For the same reason, they will be responsible for supervising many graduate students in MTU’s expanding graduate programs. Because departments usually try to reduce the service burdens on junior faculty, it is likely that mid-career faculty will undertake most of the service roles required to make MTU’s assessment programs work, as well as other important departmental service duties. They will be mentors to, and evaluators of, junior faculty. At the same time, the mid-career faculty will be the main stock of the teaching faculty. In this regard, we propose that experienced mid-career teaching faculty who get reasonable results in the classroom (e.g., on student evaluations) can easily plateau when most of them could improve, grow, and innovate in teaching. Does MTU have the institutional structures, resources, and interest to take full advantage of its mid-career faculty?

The strategic-planning process generally does recognize these needs. In Goal 2, we find the subgoal "retain and nurture faculty," including enhancing pedagogy and supporting professional development [2.1D2]. When we examine particular departmental responses in the 1995–96 version of the strategic-planning document and the departmental self studies, we find a variety of initiatives, each helpful in itself. But they do not include every department and, importantly, are not holistic in addressing the challenge of mid-career faculty development. They are not part of a total strategic approach. This can be rectified.

MTU needs a systematic approach to post-tenure faculty evaluation and feedback that is applied evenly and with consistent standards of documentation. It should not be punitive and cannot interfere with tenure, but it can build on the reward structure as currently applied in the merit-pay review process. It needs to be constructive and developmental as well as purely evaluative (see the comments on tenure-track documentation, in this section above). It should then encourage greater use of underutilized faculty-development opportunities, such as sabbatical leave. It must rest on a more adequate set of indicators about faculty performance.

We have reasonable indicators in CV updates for research funding and publication, but we now need to improve our indicators of teaching effectiveness. Appropriate indicators should be integrated to the learning-outcome assessment system, in order to properly reward faculty for developing from feedback (not to penalize faculty based on raw outcome assessment results). In this process, the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development is especially important. This center provides department chairs a valuable new opportunity for integrated planning, review, and consultation on development, and the administration should reward departments that use it. If teaching at MTU is adequately measured beyond numbers of classes and numbers of students, then truly excellent heavy teaching/low research faculty can be given appropriate workloads and be recognized and rewarded, while simple heavy teaching loads will fade as a measure of "teaching faculty."

MTU faces future weaknesses and threats. Our faculty salaries continue to lag behind national standards. We are at risk of losing our better faculty, thus adding to the burdens of the faculty as a whole. We should redouble the effort to reach the national norms. We also need to ensure adequate routine faculty support to all departments. Finally, we need to bolster library collections to attract and retain good faculty. The amelioration of all these weaknesses depends on adequate financial resources. That, in turn, depends on issues of enrollment, legislated budgets, and University advancement which are covered in the Goal 8 Committee report.

We do emphasize that legislative and public misunderstanding of the work of faculty is a significant threat. For example, we need to hold ourselves to high post-tenure standards if we are to continue to make a reasonable case for the tenure system. We must be committed to self-evaluation, improvement, assessment of our educational outcomes, and shared faculty ideals of simultaneous excellence in teaching and research as we face the public that supports us.

Patterns of Evidence—Criterion 5: Integrity

Administration-Faculty Communications

Lack of communication between administration and faculty (and staff) was a major criticism in the 1988 NCA Accreditation Report. Administration-faculty communication is much better now. The evidence comes from a comparison of Reports (includes questionnaires) from the 1991 Report of the Commission to Evaluate the Upper Administration and the equivalent 1996 Report... [5.3E1 and 5.3E2]. In the 1991 report, over 72% of respondents disagreed with the statement that the higher administration as a whole encouraged dialogue with the faculty and staff, and 75% disagreed with the statement that the higher administration encouraged open discussion and debate when establishing institutional goals and objectives. The 1996 report only asked questions about specific administrators, and the questions are not uniform among them. Only 15% gave President Tompkins a poor rating on "shared governance" (48% gave a good/very good rating, and 28% an OK rating). Provost Dobney also received only a 15% poor rating on shared governance (49% good/very good and 24% OK); and the Provost obtained 60% good/very good communications and 20% OK, with only 13% poor communications. MTU has almost completely reversed the distrust seen in the 1988 NCA Report and the 1991 Commission Report.

Also, the 1994 passage of a policy and procedure for regular faculty evaluation of the upper administration a significant accomplishment, drawing on the one-time example of the 1991 Commission.

Faculty Handbook/Key Procedures

MTU issued a new Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty Handbook in 1996 [1.2A]. This handbook is a sorely needed update of the 1989 Handbook. Its "loose-leaf" binder design will allow it to be a living document that will not go out of date as the previous handbook did. A non-tenure-track faculty handbook has not yet appeared but is scheduled as a project for 1997–98. However, important areas for non-tenure-track faculty are already in place as clear policies and procedures (e.g., definitions of non-tenure-track titles, lengths of appointment, etc.).

The new handbook has policies in the following areas important to integrity:

1. Conflict of Interest (policy approved by Board; procedures not yet approved; using interim procedures.) Previous policy gave minimal guidance with no procedures; the new policy represents a significant strengthening of University integrity. [Implementation is covered in 5.6E]
2. Discrimination/Harassment. Was in previous handbook; updated.
3. Statement on Professional Ethics. This is a major revision, with a much clearer outline of responsibilities to students, staff, colleagues, and the institution; a dated policy was in the previous handbook.
4. Academic Integrity and Honesty. Much clearer policy with definitions and extensive procedures. Previous policy gave minimal guidance with no procedures.
5. Patent, Research, and Proprietary Rights. Was in old handbook.
6. Scientific Misconduct. Entirely new policy/procedures; a significant contribution to creating a climate of integrity in a research university.
7. Grievance. Entirely new policy/procedures. The University had no faculty grievance procedure in the past. These procedures are so recent that they have not been tested in action.
8. Definition of Academic Titles/Ranks. This was in old Handbook; it has been entirely rewritten to ensure consistency and integrity in the issuance of academic titles (see "General", Criterion 2).
9. Promotion and Tenure Policy and Procedures. Same policy and procedures as in 1989 Handbook (see below).
10. Separation. The old policy, with its minimal language, was retained. Revision will be studied in 1997–98.
11. Academic Freedom. The handbook uses the existing statement from the 1989 Handbook [1.1, policy 16.1, Part 2]. Revisions are in process in University Senate at the time of writing.

Departmental Governance

Previously, departments had written policies on diverse topics, but no central document guided departmental governance. Charters set out the basics of governance for each department: selection, appointment, evaluation, and reappointment of department chairs; promotion and tenure; grievance; committee structure; and internal governance. The Senate proposal that authorized Charters passed in the 1992–93 academic year. Every department now has an approved charter.

Notably, along with the Charters came a shift from "Department Heads" to "Department Chairs." While just a change in names, this does show an inclination to treat department chairs as accountable to the faculty rather than as top-down administrators accountable to the administration.

A related important accomplishment is the establishment of new, written procedures for selecting/reappointing department chairs (and school deans). Interviews with former department heads and other experienced faculty say that in the past Michigan Tech had no formal provisions for faculty involvement in appointment (from above) of department heads; only informal procedures existed for soliciting opinions under some administrators. The majority of department chairs have been appointed or reappointed under the new procedures, and several searches under these provisions are underway. The procedures are working.

A perusal of the Department Charters shows that they are very inconsistent between departments in what topics and policies are covered. While the University may not want to micro-manage the specific content of Charters, it should review them to see if it can recommend policies that all Departments should have in them, some of which are not included or are incomplete in the existing documents.

Selection, Appointment, Evaluation, and Reappointment of Deans and University Administrators

Senate Proposal 12-95, approved in 1995, established clear and regular means for faculty participation (and also staff and other constituencies, depending on the position to be filled) in these important searches. This process was initiated in Fall 1991, and has been applied in various forms since 1992; the final 1995 procedures reflect the learning that took place in those searches. This is the first time that MTU faculty and these other constituencies have had a clear and well-defined role in these searches/evaluations. The Deans of Forestry and Sciences & Arts were reappointed under the new conditions. Similar patterns of participation took place in the previous search/selections of President Tompkins and Provost Dobney.

University Senate

The University Senate has increased and clarified its role in University governance. It has also shifted from a Senate dominated by faculty with minor staff participation to a Senate that more equally represents faculty and all non-union staff.

A comparison of the "old" Senate constitution (1966) with the "new" Senate constitution (1993) also shows significant change. Specifically, the detailed list of areas in which the Senate has policy-making and advising powers in the new constitution contrast sharply with the very thin clause "suitable recommendations on academic policy and performance" in the old constitution. Also, the new constitution has a clear system for when and how the Senate submits proposals upwards, and what has to be done with them by the administration, thus ensuring responsiveness and avoiding "pocket vetoes." A third addition is clear procedures for conducting direct referenda of the faculty. More detail and a discussion of the issues surrounding governance can be found in the Senate self study [2.6I3].

Evaluation of University Integrity with Regard to Faculty

The University, on the whole, currently does not have any apparent major integrity problems. This Committee is unaware of any substantive problems with Academic Freedom on campus. Similarly, this Committee can find no evidence of barriers to or problems with freedom of inquiry at MTU. An unusual event that has caused conflict over integrity is the University administration’s hiring spouses of administrators into tenurable jobs (see University Senate files on Proposal 32-96). In its correspondence with the Senate, the current administration holds the position that it retains ultimate discretion about giving tenurable faculty positions with or without departmental agreement. Although the administration position is clear and unlikely to change, we hold that the awarding of tenurable faculty positions must have the consent of the affected faculty.

On the whole, however, Department Charters have greatly improved the integrity in actual performance of processes such as annual reviews, merit pay, development opportunities (e.g., sabbatical and other leaves), selection of department chairs, faculty search processes, etc. (We defined integrity in evaluating these processes as opportunities for faculty to participate; breadth of constituency in decision-making; and consistency of treatment of faculty with comparable needs, circumstances, and requests).

The single largest integrity problem we identified is the disparity between actual annual review, tenure, and promotion practice, and the current language which governs these matters [1.2A]. Fortunately for MTU, actual practice is better than the language. For example, the current language requires annual reviews of tenure-track faculty (who are also being reviewed for their two-year contracts at this time), but it does not clarify how the review is conducted, by whom, or whether clear written feedback and evaluation must be provided. Most departments do follow clear, written processes for the reviews. Because the present language is not consistent, however, it leaves room for excusing less-than-adequate performance [5.2C].

A solution to this problem is on the horizon. A faculty committee (David Nelson, chair), which has been working closely and cooperatively with the administration and department chairs/deans, has rewritten the tenure and promotion language. This new language does not claim new tenure rights for faculty; it keeps the reasonable tenure provisions we presently have. It does clarify many procedures and resolve the gaps and contradictions that exist in the current language. We strongly recommend that the faculty and the Board of Control pass it. However, in order for this language to be presented to the Board and the public, it is important that the University (administration and faculty, working together) make clear the concomitant expectations for faculty responsibility (including teaching and research) that accompany tenure.

SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats)
Analysis

This section summarizes the goal committee’s analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with the University’s strategic plan with regard to maintaining MTU’s excellent faculty.

Strengths

• Michigan Tech has a young, energetic faculty, with a good record in research and likely to have a good teaching record (we could state this with certainty if we had better measures).
• The faculty is satisfied with being at MTU, and thus is likely to stay and develop.
• The University has good faculty attraction qualities and an excellent retention record.
• New programs in faculty orientation, development, scholarship improvement grants, etc. fill many gaps in MTU institutional processes; this includes vastly improved faculty-administration communications.

Weaknesses

• The University does not currently support consistent evaluation, feedback, and development for post-tenure faculty.
• Michigan Tech has the same problem of inconsistent annual feedback for tenure-track faculty.
• Databases for teaching evaluation and improvement are poor.
• Faculty salaries are below average.
• Library collections are clearly inadequate.

Opportunities

• The transition of MTU’s relatively young faculty into mid-career provides opportunity for development in integrated teaching, research, and service.
• Continuing over-supply in academic job markets, combined with MTU’s attraction qualities, will provide good selections in future job searches.

Threats

• The public lacks an understanding of the work and qualities of University faculty.
• The University suffers from financial squeezes between flattening or declining undergraduate numbers, flattening state allocations, and various budgetary demands on campus [6.2B10].

1. Improve the evaluation of and feedback to tenure-track faculty by establishing a standard annual document with room for meaningful, individual guidance and planning for the following year and obtaining approval of the reformed Tenure and Promotion policy.
2. Implement a standard post-tenure planning, evaluation, and feedback process, set up consistently across departments. It should aim at faculty development, not removal of tenure, so that its implementation among faculty is effective rather than resisted. It should go beyond the current post hoc merit pay review to include planning for future opportunities, goal-setting, and non-stigmatized feedback. A key should be to encourage and enable faculty to seek a longer-term dynamic integration of teaching, research, and service, moving in and out of heavier classroom periods and heavier graduate/research roles in a process that leads to long-term development of both teaching and research.
3. Implement better ways to evaluate and give feedback on teaching, in conjunction with recommendations 1 and 2. A teaching portfolio should have multiple sources of information that includes faculty teaching-development plans (linked to departmental assessment outcomes and plans), an improved student evaluation form, and peer teaching evaluations for all departments on campus.
4. Implement the faculty-development recommendations of the report Enhancing Faculty Development at Michigan Technological University [5.2A], in particular the emphasis on rooting faculty development inside departments. Also, it should add funding for faculty development in Scholarship Improvement Grants and teaching improvement and development (e.g., programs coordinated between units and the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development).
5. Devise and implement a clearer process and open document for departments to assign workload; it should be complex, dynamic, and oriented toward encouraging faculty development.
6. Improve library collections to attract and retain excellent faculty.
7. Increase faculty salary to national norms to retain excellent faculty.
8. Use the 1996 Faculty Survey to inform departments of productive search and recruiting strategies including

   —the important role of personal contacts,

   —the combination of research opportunities and excellent undergraduate students, and

   —the appeal to many applicants of nature and small town life.

9. Improve the understanding in wider publics of the roles and strengths of University faculty, supported by our own real commitment to supporting and rewarding faculty who are hard-working and skillful in both teaching and research.
10. Above all, we cannot forget that MTU’s simultaneous retention of its undergraduate teaching tradition and its growth in research means unusually high demands on faculty. These roles cannot and should not be bypassed or relegated to others. Thus, as we plan, we should consistently ask ourselves if our plans help faculty to combine both roles successfully.
    
    

    ---

    

    ---

    Last Revised: 19 DECEMBER 1997
    http://www.admin.mtu.edu/admin/nca/goals/goal2/goal2.htm
    © 1997. Michigan Technological University. All Rights Reserved.
    Send comments and questions about this page to nca-comments@mtu.edu.