Continuous Improvement

Because nearly half of the faculty have been hired during the past decade, when expectations for a balanced program of teaching and research were clearly articulated and research capability was a significant selection criterion, the groundwork for a faculty that can continue to accomplish the University's purposes well into the future has been successfully established. As we improve and learn from our new assessment processes, teaching evaluations, and faculty development programs under the leadership of the new Vice Provost for Instruction and the Director of the CTLFD, we anticipate a strengthened ability to meet our teaching mission. The importance of these internal processes, as well as improved departmental evaluation and feedback, cannot be underestimated. Evidence suggests that a period of faculty expansion has ended, that recently hired faculty will be tenured, and that we therefore cannot depend on future infusions of new faculty to revitalize our teaching and research.

A concern is that the combined demands of new initiatives in undergraduate teaching, expanding graduate programs, a growing research agenda, and increasing service loads required by assessment, involvement in governance and strategic planning, and a possible change to semesters, may outstrip faculty resources. Half of our current faculty are at mid- or late-career, and the new cohort will enter mid-career over the next decade. Mid-career faculty may face plateauing and burnout, yet are probably more able than new faculty to engage in personal development activities which will improve their teaching effectiveness. Faculty in late career are often ready to make a final and significant contribution to research and service [5.2A]. Over the past decade, significant attention has been paid to developing the organizational structure and allocating the resources to support new faculty. The coming decade will require equal attention to developing the structures and allocating the resources to support mid- and late-career faculty.

Systematic and purposeful post-tenure review, improved opportunities for faculty development or utilization of existing opportunities, and a reward structure that recognizes accomplishment could enhance the careers of these faculty, and their contribution to University purposes. These will be a challenge for the CTLFD and departmental governance structures, because they need to be built on a better set of indicators than we currently enjoy. Moreover, the process needs to be constructive and developmental, not punitive or threatening to the institution of tenure. Holding to high standards in post-tenure as well as pre-tenure review will improve public acceptance of tenure.

Integrity

Michigan Tech demonstrates integrity in its practices and relationships with faculty. As noted above in "Purposes," after a lengthy period of development, a new version of the Faculty Handbook [1.2A1] was published in October 1996, which includes many new or significantly revised policies that contribute to integrity in faculty activities. Significant policies include the following:

1. Academic Integrity and Honesty. Expanded, clearer policy with definitions and new, extensive procedures.
2. Academic Freedom. Assured by Board of Control Policy. Revisions in process.
3. Conflict of Interest. New policy approved by the Board in 1995 represents a significant strengthening of University integrity; procedures are not yet approved.
4. Scientific Misconduct. New policy and procedures were established in 1994/95. This is a significant contribution to creating a climate of integrity in a research university.
5. Statement on Professional Ethics. Major revision incorporates clearer outline of responsibilities to students, staff, colleagues, and the institution.
6. Grievance. New policy and procedures were established in 1995. Previously there were no faculty grievance policies or procedures.
7. Discrimination/Harassment.
8. Promotion and Tenure Policy and Procedures.
9. Separation. Revision will be studied in 1997/98.

There do not appear to be any impediments to freedom of inquiry. Department alcharters, discussed earlier under "Governance," have improved the integrity of search, review, and reward processes by increasing opportunities for faculty participation, broadening decision-making, and assuring consistency of treatment.

There are, however, two concerns regarding integrity with respect to faculty. The first concern involves faculty appointments to tenure-track positions. In the absence of a policy on dual career couples, there have been several instances of appointing spouses of administrators and faculty to tenurable faculty positions without searches, with some objections from faculty. The President retains the right from the Board of Control to appoint faculty at will, overriding other policies on appointments. This has caused some conflict, including the rejection by upper administration of a University Senate proposal (32-96) to restrict such appointments. Goal 2 Committee recommends that such appointments have the consent of the faculty in the department in which the appointment is made.

A second concern is the disparity between policy in the Faculty Handbook [1.2A1] governing annual reviews and promotion and tenure, and actual practice. Fortunately, practice appears better than the policy. The policy does not, for example, clarify how an interim review is to be conducted, by whom, or whether clear written feedback and evaluation must be provided to the faculty being reviewed. Although a written evaluation is required for annual reviews, the mode of feedback varies among academic units: Some provide faculty formal written summaries from department chairs and/or department promotion and tenure committees, while others might orally discuss faculty achievements. Most departments do follow clear, written departmental processes for these reviews. However, inadequate policy has allowed some inadequate performance. A faculty committee is currently working to revise the tenure and promotion policy to clarify procedures and resolve some gaps and contradictions in the policy.

NEXT