DOCUMENT RESUME.

ED` 236 127 SP 023 089

AUTHOR Mager, Gerald M.;, Myers, BettyTITLE Developing a Career in the Academy: NeW Professors in

Education. SPE Monograph Series 1983.INSTITUTION.. Society of Professors of Education, Washington,

D.C.PUB DATE Jul 83NOTE 41p.AVAILABLE FROM Society of Professors of Education, c/o Dr. George V.

Guy, College of Education, Portland State University,Portland, OR 97207 ($3.00 per copy to 10 copies;'$2.50 per copy beyond 10 copies).

PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143) -- Viewpoints(120)'

EDRS PRICE M 01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Beginning Teachers; College Faculty; Faculty

Advisers; Faculty Development: *Faculty Workload;Higher Education; NoninstructionalResponsibility;Teacher Attitudes; Teacher Education; TeacherEducator Education; *Teacher Educators; TeachingLoad; *Time Management

ABSTRACTThis monograph contains a' research report entitled,

"Developitig a Career in the Academy: New Professors in Education'," by.Gerald M. Mager and Betty Myers and two\reactions to that report, "At.Old 'Professor on New Professors: A Response to Mager and Myers,,"written by Gerald M. Reagan and "Commentary" by Roger G. Baldwin. Aninterest in what happens to begieilinglprolessors in thefield ofeducation was the motivation for the Study, which was begun in 1979.The purpose of the study was to gain-better understanding of neweducation professors' work. Three queistions were investigated: (1)How do new professors spend their time ilith\respect to'their.job-related work? (2) Are there some kinds of work new professorsbelieve they should spend more time doting? and (3) What insights donew professors have about their jobs\end themselves in theprofessoriate? The sample was selecte0 froilAoctoral graduates of 14highly ranked, colleges of education:-:k six-item questionnaire wasconstructed to survey the new_profeSiOrs' uses of time and was filledout by 191 professors in 1979;tthe que\tionnaire was revised andreadministered in 1981 and 1982 to members of the original group.Included in the report are'conclusions\ased-On:questionnaire .,

analysis 14 tables, and a list of references. (JMK)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by'EDRS are the best that can be made *

from the original document.***********************************************************************

DEVELOPING A CAREERIN THE ACADEMYBy

I

GERALD M. MAGER AND BETTY MYERS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

1::1 This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it. .

:ori4nor changes have been Made to improvereproduct6 quality.

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Cxteacci. 01,

Points of view or opibiuns stated irittlis docu-ment do not necessarily represer ;official NIEposition or policy.

- ,

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) "

,SPE-MONOGRAPH SERIES 1983, AYERS BAGLEY, EDITOR

0

DEVELOPING A CAREER IN THE ACADEMY

New Professors in,Education

Gerald M. MagerSyracuse University

Betty; Myers

University of Oklahoma I

SPE Monograph Series-1983Ayers Bagley,'Editor

. Society of Professors of Education

\'

O

Published by the Society of Professors of Education July 1983

Editorial Office: 246 Peik Hall

College of Education, University of Minnesota

* * *

Inquiries about purchase_of SPE publications should be sent to

Dr. George V. Guy, SPE 5ecretar://Treasurer, College of Education,

Portland State university, Portland, Oregon 97207.

N

CONTENTS

Foreword

George V. GuyPortland State University

Developing a Career in the Academy . . .

Gerald M. MagerSyracuse University

Betty MyersUniversity of Oklahoma

An Old Professor on New Professors 33,

Gerald M. ReaganOhio State University

On "Developing A. Career in the Academy"

Roger G. Baldwin.Wittenberg University

FOREWORD

Launching a career is generally presumed to be simply therealization of the opportunity to perform those tasks asso...ciated with one's chosen occupation. Entering a profession

is generally regarded as simply putting into practice thoseskills and understandings which. one has acquired after a

long period of arduous cultivation, and which enable one todo that for which one has been prepared. Presumably, be-

coming a professor in the halls of academe entitles the.novice to join, with other colleagues in higher education,in achieving the threefold mission.of colleges and univer-sities: teaching, research, and service.

These assumptions aside, what professors entering highereducation actually, do poses both an interesting and legiti-mate quest-TEI-1'67 which there are virtually no answers.

Moreover, how role expectations/aspirations of the profes-soriate relate to actual role performance raises an addi-tional avenue of inquiry. In any case, one. might 'presumethat tho%e in the professoriate whose performance doesnot meet "standards" sufficiently have "failed," that thosewhose performance sufficiently meet 4expectations" arethose who "survive.

Mager and Myers\ have studied "survivors,". those who havepersevered within, the education professoriate--what, theydo, what they prefel.. to do, how their behavior changed sinceentering the profession. It would be interesting to specu-late about those who did not "survive!! and seek answers tothat proverbial "why?" As with all things, however, theremust be a beginning; and our authors have begun--providingan interesting and informative description of the life ofnew professors of edUcation as they strive to find theirniche withii the academy.

--GeorgiV. GuyPortland State University

"'":

DEVELOPING A CAREER 'IN THE ACADEMY

New Professors in Education

Gerald M. MagerSyracuse University

and

Betty MyersUniversity of Oklahoma

As the academic year begins, col-leges open their doors and begin thewar!, of education. A new class of fresh-men ar1ive and are met with. The lifeof.higher education is renewed. Alsoarriving on the scene is another classof newcomers. They receive less atten-tion. But their presence is as impor-tant to the renewal of-the university asthe incoming students.- They Are the newprofessorS.

Welc ming new professors into thecollege faculty is essential to the lifeof higher education and the continuanceof its service to the larger society.New professors are both an instrumentand an object of institutional renewal.Selecting new, professors commands, thetime of faculty, deans and provosts.Sustaining new professors, some of themtin their careerslconditions the futureof .colleges and universities. But whoare sustained? And what is it that theyactually do? The study reported heredescribes several' new professors' ca-reers as they were being created.

Defining the Work at Hand

Studies, focusing on what happensto new . professors as they embark ontheir careers have not very often been°.undertaken. ,Knowledge of new professorsin a.single field such as eduCation iseven more limited. It would seem thatthe initiating experience like that inmany careers, is forgotten by most; few

-,professors look back on their rookieyears for anything more than amusement,or as a yardstick to gauge "how far I've,come."' And which professor can recallwith clarity those words of advice froma senior colleague given at the start ofa career? Consider those; given to S.

Since talking with you I have con-.fidence in your ability to do agood job. As I said, we're lookingfor people who can hold up their.end of'it and keep.the departmentrunning"smoothly. This is a fineplace to start your colfege teach-ing, and if you're our type, it's

,t7:11.1111111110.11111111111

8

a good place to stay. We don'tpretend we're anything more than a

typical American state college.

The atmosphere is relaxed. There's

no 'publish or perish' hanging

over everybody's head. There are

no geniuses around to make you un-comfortable. (Malamud, A New Life,

1961, p: 37)

Malamud notwithstanding, entry into the

professoriate is largely an unstudied

phenomenon.

Daniel Levinson (1978) wrote not

about) professors, but/ about adult malice

development. His attention to the early

stages of a career is useful here. He

uses the term "the Dream" to name one of

the.. first major tasks of the early adult:

In its primordial form, the Dream

is a vague sense of self-in-adult--world. It has the quality of avision, an imagined pssibility

that generates excitement and

vitality. At the start it, is!

poorly articulated and only tenu-ously connected to reality.

Whatever the nature of his Dream,

a young'man has the developmentaltask of giving it greater defini-tion and finding ways to live it

out. (p. 91)

By chance, the four case studies in

Levinson's Seasons of a Man's Life in-

clude a university professor, but the

early years are not described in detail

in, "The Life Of John'Barnes, Biologist."

Barnes entered- the professpriate after-

several years of graduate 'study with a

prominent scientist who also acted)las

his mentor. The goals toward which hestrove became markers in realizing his

Dream.

His _career was marked by rapid

growth and advancement. At 28, he

was a relatively unformed novice,

working in his mentor's laboratory.By 30, after a fellowship abroad,

he found an exciting problem of

his own on the frontier of his

field and accepted an assistant

professorship. . .

Two years of painstaking, solitary

experimentation led to an impor-

tant discovery at 32, clearly a

high point in his life. (p. 262),

A,year later Barnes gained tenure, fur-

ther forging a reality from hi Dream

and being graced for his efforts, at

least in this formal way, with a col-legial constituency.

Baldwin (1979) applied develop-mental \theory to the life of a pro-fessor. He contrasts three theories- -

Levinson's of, 'adult development,

Super's, and Hall and Nougaim's of ,

career development--and applies themto the career of a college-professor.

Agatin, in the earliest stage, ,whichBaldwin limits to the first three

years of full-time college teaching,the major tasks are the setting dfinitial goals/establishment of 1

Dream, and the location of a mentor

who will help in the pursuit. Baldwin,identifies four major types of criti-cal events in the professorial career)which follow in sequence: (1) formal

study -and professional socialization,

(2) early professional employment,

(3) opportunities. for professional

growth, and (4) status . and role

changes. The second set of criticalevents is particularly relevant here:

(2) Early professional employment:Many faculty also believe that

their initial college teaching

position (locating a position,

,adapting to the demands of acade-mic life) had a significant impact,

on their subsequent career direc-

tion. In other_words, the prob-lems and performance of novice

faculty members influence their

later occupational progress._ (p.

17)

Early career development, then, may be

crucial in setting a course for a career

of scholarship\and service. .The experi-

ences of \the emerging professoriate may

long afterwards influence the decisions

of which Paths to take.

An in erest in what happens to be-

ginning professors in the field of edu-

9

cation was the motivation for a studybegun in 1979. The purpose of the studywas to gain better understanding of Lheirwork. Because time is an, organizer ofexperience that would seem to be held incommon, and in other studies has been animportant dimension for viewing academiclife, it was selected as a central stan-dard for describing their work. Specifi-cally, three questions were investi-gated.

1. How do new professors spendtheir time with respect to

their job-related work?

2. Are there some kinds of wdrknew professors believe t eyshould spend more time doin ?

3. What insights do new professorshave about their jobs and theselves in the professoriate?

Conduct of the First! Survey/

Limited resources for the studydemanded some ,seleCtivity. The samplewas selected from /doctoral graduate

ion14 highly ranked colleges of educa on

identified by Ladd and Lipset (Fact-Fie,1979). Using graduates of these schoolsnot only narrowed the sample source butit also made the sample more describable.It could reasonably be expected thathaving graduated froM institutions suchas these, the new professors would havebeen prepared well for a wide range ofacademic tasks. The new professorssampled were completing their first,second, or third year when the studybegan in Spring, 1979.

Names of graduates were, generally,obtained from commencement programs forthe academic years of 1975-1976, 1976-

1977; and 1977-1978. For eac institu-tion, 150 names were randomly selectedfrom the fhree-year. lists. Tw, univer-sities had fewer ,than 150, 'grduateswithin thosdi three academic' years; in

these instances, all'i the graduates'names were used. The, smallest \totalnumber of, graduates was'85 and the larg-est was an estimated 635'.

Deans of the colleges of educationwere contacted to explain the study andthe need to obtain addresses for a sampleof their graduates. All 14 collegescooperated and addresses for the sampledgraduates were provided. Unfortunately,addresses for all the graduates were notavailable. The study sample consistedof the graduates whose names were ran-,domly selected and for whom addresseswhere available; these graduates num-bered 1557.

Based on available du,,a, a reason-able estimate of doctoral graduates in

education from all institutions in theU.S. over this three-year period is

approximately 22,000. (The "Fact-File,",1980,-'cites 7370 Ph.D.'s in educationgranted in 1978-/9. This was Used'as anannual estimate and multiplied by 3 toobtain 22,000.) Approximately.70% (Grant

, and Lind,. 1979) or 15,400 probablyaccepted positions in eduCation upongraduation. Only, a portion of theseposts would have been in higher educa-tion. An est mated '4500 doctorateswere granted i education by the 14

institutions i cluded in' this studyduring the th ee-year period. Thesample of 1557 tiepresents over one-thirdof that population.

A six-item,i

questionnaire was con-structed to surrey new professors'' uses*of time and was mailed in Spring andSummer, 1979. The rate of questionnairereturns Varied from institution to insti-tution. This w s not'surprising becauseof the inaccu acy of alumni addresses

\ from some institutions. Of the 475 sur-,vey forms completed and returned, 269\respondents were not employed in higher,education. Two hundred six were from'`new professors," but only 191 of thesewere under full-time contracts. These,11 constituted the sample for the study.Table 1 presents descriptive informationabout the new professors.

10

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics of Professors

First survey

Number Percent

SexFemale 81 42.4

Male 110 57.6

Year of Graduation1975 26 13.6

1976 . 64 33.5

1977 63 33.0

108 38 19.9

Note. Data were collected in 1979. N = 191.

1

The first question asked the respon-

dents to estimate how many hours theyspent in job-related work in a typicalweek. Deriving such an estimate mightbe difficult but professors tend to besensitive to `their uses of time becausethey create their own schedules,. They

are ,aware of spending time not only atwork but also of doing work at home irid

in other settings. The estimates soughtwere not precise but categorical.

Two questions asked the professors

to identify three kinds of job-relatedwork they spent most of their time doing

or should have spent more time doing.

It was considered important not to assume

that the traditional dimensions of aca-

demic work--teaching, research, and

service--were the most useful descriptors

of professors' experience. Rather, thequestions made it possible for respon-dents to-detail their experience in sucha way that more complex descriptions of

professorial life could be derived if

warranted. For these two questions,most subjects gave three responses but

several gave fewer or more. There were

692 responses to the first of these

questions and 541. to the latter. The

exact responses to these questions onapproximately 60 of the questionnaireswere written on index cards, one response

.per card. The researchers' sorted the

cards in a variety of .ways, seeking

Meaningful categories which were yet

parsimonious in number. This anal sis-resulted in identification of 21 c te-

goriei which could be defined. Antici-pating and providing that new professorsmight describe their work in more intri-cate detail than the traditional cate-gories of teaching, research, and servicepermit seems to have been validated bythe derivation of as many as 21 cate-gories. All the responses to these twoquestions were classified in one of the

categories. In this way, differences inthe new professors' responses were

honored and more comOlex descriptions oftheir academic, lives could be developed.

Another Oestion in the survey

asked he,professors to report a strik-ing pro lem or insight about their work.<,,,,These re ponses were studied and groupedthematic lly. Quantitative analysis

of the data was not attempted..

Exhibits and Interpretations

New professors, reported., spendingfrom fewer than 40 to more than 70 hoursper week -in. their work. Table 2 dis-plays the range and percentage of re-spondents in each time category.

Lillg_the 21 categories which weredeveloped through analysis of a selet-tion of the/data, all the professors'

responses were analyzed. Figure 1 slioWsthe description of each category. The21 categories were found to be usable in,working with these open-ended data; thecategories seemed to be inclusive-of' allresponses, and some categories 'were

related to others by the nature of theactivity described. For ekample, cate-sgories 12 and 13 both involve workingwith individual students; only tlie levelof the students differs. Although someof the professors-had-mentioned only one

-Table 2Hours per Week Spent Doing Job-Related Work

'First Survey

Work l 'lours Number of Professors Percent

fewer than 40 15 8.140-49 33 17.1

67 36.0,6b-69 49 26.370 or more 22 11.7missing cases 5

Note. N = 191.

1. carrying out administrative tasks which are part of my job.2. carrying out grants and other funded projects3. providing service to both the community and the profession locally4. proViding service to my department, school, or universityS. completing administrative paperwork, correspondence\ and travel6. carrying out the work of my assigned position which is' chiefly a service

role;within the institution7. doing research, and the related, supporting activities8. doing sCholarly writing9. meeting with colleagues to grow as a scholar

10. engaging in personal;,professional development11. enhancing my own skills and performance12. working with individual graduate stUdents13. working with individual under graduate students14. maintaining contact with curr t and former students15. advising and counseling undergra tes16. conceptualizing, developing, implementi

programs17. planning new courses or revising old ones18. preparing fOi teaching.19. teaching, in class20. evaluating students' work21. teaching (a general, inclusive category)

Figure 1.NCategories of job-related work.

or evaluating new curricula or

12

\ 3

/'N--

of these categories,-_ others had named frustrations. No effort was made to

both. In an effort to create a,set of quantify or categorize these statements;

parsimonious and/meaningful -groppipgs, an effort was made to integrate them

the 21 categories\ were fairli--eaSily - into a broader understanding of new

_collapsed into six clusters. pro- professors',/experience. Three themes

fessors' -own juxtapositioning of work seemed most 'potent: control of time,

tasks aided this decision-. -Figure 2 dealing with peers in the xinstitutioN -

-shows the description of the clusters. and creating an intellectual life.

'(Further analyses of these 'data, com

paring the hours profe-Ssors 'work with The control of time is a major

the-kinds of work they do, are described problem,for new,professors: Corralling

in Myers and Mager,,1981.),

z/' enough time, _ setting priorities,' and

. ,balancing cfbiergent demands are skills

A somewhat different wa'y of looking ,probably required in many professions.

atIthe experience of pew/professors, not But the flexibility of schedule; the/

specifically tied to any particular task greatly and suddenly increased expec-1

or role , was sought-in asking the re- ' tations and the ambiguity of success

"

spondents to'share an insight or problem \ measures leave,: the person entering

they had come to./ Nearly every respon- higher education at a particular disad-

dent had some comment to make, though .

vantage in solving the problems of time

they were generally brief. These` com- .For some hew professors, their resolu-

ments were studied to see what dimen- tion includes, inordinately long- work

sions they could add to understanding hours. But this resolution does not

the experience of \the new professors: solve a problem that persists throughout

The comments attended to A great variety the professorial career. The experienced

of realizations, \satisfactions, and professor' is likely to have managed some.

Cluster A. Includes work on (1) administrative tasks which are part. Of theijobof, for example, a program director; (2) oBtaining grants and carrying outfunded projects; (3) activities of service tO\3oth the community and theprofession locally; (4) assignments of service to the department or thelarger institution; (5) individual tasks of completing forms reports,correspondence and regular travel related to work; and (6) the serviceactivities which define this role in the institution.

Cluster B. Includes work on all phases and aspects of research and scholarlyproduction.

Cluster C. Includes work (1) with c leagues to grow as a scholar and' 7' (2) personal professional devel

opment of knowledge and skills through

study'or practice.

luster D. Includes (1) supervision of the individual work of graduate arid/orundegraduate students; (2)-informal contact with students and studentorganizations; and (3) advising and counseling student&

___,--- 'N,Cluster E. Includeswork to conceptualize, develop, iMplement, or evaluate

new curricula and programs and to plan new courses or revise old ones..

Cluster F. Includes work related to preparing for teaching, teaching in class,. and evaluating students.

Figure 2. Clusters of work categories.

13

resolutions: a predictable teachingload and schedule, a clearer view ofwhat is important to do;\and acknowledg-ment of sucess through \promotion and

tenure. If the new profes'sbr is er toreach that stage, gaining con of of

time is a goal that must be reac d.

'Dealing with peers, 4indingka placein their institutions, and coming to

grips with the created culture form a

second thge. a newcomer to theinstitutiOt'ep the new professor may findthe culture difficult to. assimilate,.

What is valued may be misunderstood, orperhaps understood all too clearly. The

newcomer must learn how'd read andrespond to these values. ! The historiesof the institution--how the culturedeveloped--are privy only to those whohave been there and are contained in

fragmented-oral accounts. These Anec-dotes and tales might make present

appearansees more interpretable, if knownby the new professor. But they remainsubmerged and largel untold.7--Adminis=-trators, knowing the histories - andattuned to the valu s, might be expectedto lead effective hey might be

expected to' provide newcomers with in-cstghts that would clarify their experi-'0-nes; they might be expected to workwith all professors in such a way thattheir growth would be sustained over

years. Typically, however, administra-tors do not provide this leadership. The

institution and its values change as wellbringing new expectations and events tobear on the work of higher educationthat even, the, experienced professormight not understand; to the new pro-fessor it may/be all the more puzzling.

The third theme developed from the,-insights might\best be termed creating alife of the mind. The rich stimulationof graduate study.days is sometimes ex-changed/for intellectual barrenness whenthe graduate student moves from acol-lection of desks ins, a shared roomito apri1vate office as an assistant professor.The peer group is gone and new colle-giality may be slow to form. Taking one-self seriously in matters of knowledgeand ideation is the responsibility of aprofessor no matter how 'experienced.Being taken so by others is a sometimes

surprising if infrequent experience forthe newcomer, Finding others who willdo so on a regular basis in exchange fortreatment in kind .is the. challenge.Amidst' the politics, the demands .ofschedule, the search for efficiendy andquality, the new professor pursues, as_

well, a life of the mind.; It is al-pur-_suit which may set the course a he

career. _(These three themes ar jllus=trated in Mager and Myers, 1982.)

Setting Priorities

The quality of an' institution ofhigher education links to the quality of .

;its` professoriate--the men and womencomprising its acadeMic ranks.- To their.efforts-we can attribute the,success/qfdevelopment projects, the advanceTent ofknowledge through research,-the renderingof serviceinand out of.theinstitutiOn,

conduct/i0f effective teaching.Continued excellence in an institutiondepends -tin. acquiring high qualityfaculty and-suitaining their work, 'bothsubstantively and in spirit, over anumber of years.

The faculty member is .the one re-sponsible for his/her own intellec-tual development, that when she/heis hired there is an implicit ifnot explicit agreement that she/hewill continue to develop as a

scholar. . . . If the. facultymember is to be resonably expected.to make of herself/himself a better.academic' resource;' conditions to

encourage this growth must be pre-sent. If the demands for quanti-tative production are too great,'the faculty member may find littletime or .opportunity to improve asa scholar.---(Reagan, 1982, p. 13)

Starting a professorial career challengeSthe. individual on many fronts.' But thechallenge 'also Issues to the institu-tion, especially as the career needssustenance.

Nearly two years after the surveyof the emerging professoriate, a secondsurvey of those same respondents was

15

conduCted. As in the earlier survey,the purpose was to,gain understandingof professors'- work early in their'

careers, but after- had acqujted

some-experience'in this °le. The ques-tionsof interest Cal-il-d-nRW be addressed

more-directly. With the developMent ofthe six clusters of professorial work,the respondents could be asked TO toidentify a few tasksthatconsume much

..of their time but to apportion theirwork hours among the six kinds of work.These kinds of responses would providefuller pictures of their work so that a'search for work patterns could be under-

taken. Along worth the same three:clues-_ tiomsas-,were used in the first survey,

ti a work tasks, and Ansights--theprofessors were asked about their rankand tenure status.

,Conduct of the SecoriA Survey

All the retpondr!7; from the firstsurvey were again , questionnaires.

although, notNupexpectedly, some neverreached the professors. Several were

returned as undeliverable; some sent toinstitutional addretses were forwarded,but others may not have teen; a few ofthe new professors reportedly had leftthe professoriate, so perhaps others hadalso and were simply out of reach; a fewindicated they did-not have enough timeto respond to questionnaires and it

seems reasonable to project that some

non-respondents felt the same way. Thus-,

questionnaires were sent to all the 206respondents from the first survey with118 being completed and returned. Table

3 presents descriptive ,,information aboutthese respondents. '\\

The questionnaire used in this sur-.vey was a 'modification of theNtirst one,

with the greatest difference being thetwo questions about the kinds of work-,the professors do and believe they shoulddb. The first question again asked re-spondents to estimate how man -hoursthey spent in job-related irorkl'in,

Table 3Descriptive Statistics of Professors.

Second Survey

SexFemaleMale

Year of Graduation19751976

,19771978

RankAssistant prOfesorAssociate Professor.

ProfessorOther`Missing Data

Tenure Status'TenurediUntenured

Missing Data

Number'

4375

2139,

/25 N -I

74

31,6

61 .

33 /83:

1

Note. Data were collected in 1981. N = 118.

15

typical week. Then, the six clusters(Figure 2) were listed. The professorswere asked_ to write the percentage oftime on a line next to each cluster thatrepresented their best estimate of theiractual use of time over the period of anaverage week. Respondents were remindedto check that their estimates summed to100% of their tAmec7---=0 a second set ofthe six clusters, the professors wereasked to write the percehtage of timethey would prefer to give to each of thesix clusters orTvork:

In another question, the new pro-fessors wereasked to report how theybelieved their current colleagues wouldorder, the traditional missions of

research, service,, and teaching. Theseresponses allowed for eventual compari-sons of the new professors' own workcommitments and their perceptions ofinstitutional priorities.

Exhibits and Interpretations

Responses to the i different ques-tions were analyzed- using methods re-quired by the nature of the, data. It isuseful to report the analysis here in

the following four secti,ons.

Work commitments. The hours perweek spent doing job-related work re-ported by the zirespondents are displyed,_in Table 4. Comparing these figureswith those in Table 2 for the first sur-vey shows that the modal category ofwork hours still is 50-59, and >theesecond and third, ranking categories arethe same al so.1-Thus, overall, the groupof professorS' work ;hours has not

..increased or decreased discernibly.

The respondents displayed con--

siderable variance in their -commitments-

Table 4 i

Hours per Week Spent Doing fob- Related WorkSecond Survey

Work Hours Number of Professors

fewer than 4040-4950-5960-6970 or moremissing data

6-15

3362

Note. N = 118.

In a pair of questions, the respon-dents were asked to .name any _indicatorsthey might have from themselves or _theircolleagues that made them either stillfeel or no longer feel like a, new pro-fessor. Responses ,to these questionsprovide evidence for both subtle andovert' changes in status and for ihstitu-

Ntional and personal views of careerprogress.

Again, as in the first questionnaire,professors were asked to share a,currentinsight about their work.

of time to the various work clusters,and in Table 5 the means and ranges ofresponses for the entire group aregiven. The table indicates that, on theaverage Clusters F and A garner most of

ti e professors give to their work.tTable 5 also gives the means and rangesof preferred commitments.. This is, it

summarizes how the respondents -would /

!'apportion their work time among theyvarious work clusters if they had theopportunity to do so. Again, there isconsiderable variance and also a shiftin /emphasis, with Clusters F and > B

16

attracting most emphasis. These general-ized results obscured clear differencesamong-individual professors, as could be--seen simply by scanning the question-naires. It seemed important to movefrom summarizing, data toward handlingthe data in such a fashion that the keendifferences could be honored. One wayof doing so was to group the professorsby. patterns in their.work loads. Some

professors involve themselves on a

is not nearly .so balanced. They commitmajor Portions. of their time to one ortwo of the work 'clusters and little tothe rewainder (a.difference of more than28%). To distinguish betweenthese'twotypes of patterns, the formerWere called"balanced" and the.latter "unbalanced."Figure 3 illustrates` these. two patterns.

Comparing their actual apportion...-.

mentt to ther.preferred appOrtionments,

Table 5The Means and Ranges of Work Hours Proportionied among

Six Work ClustersSecond Survey

Work Clustersa

Actual Commitments

Means of Itnge ofPercents

AB ,

CDEF

2815'8

137

30

Preferred' Commitments

Means of Range ofPercents Percents Percents

045 16 0,75.

0-75 25 0 -80

0-30 12 .0-55.

0-55 12- 0-40,0-30 8 '0-25

0-85 27 0-85

Note. N = 118, with 7 respondents not indicating preferred commitments.aThe work clusters are described in Figure 2.

fairly equal basis in each of the sixclusters of professorial work. That is,they apOortion enough of their work time

to .each cluster such that their workseems balancej. Other professors' work

it became evident thatzsOme professorsare content with the present patternwhile some would make modifications inthe design 1Table 6). Of the 25 profes

.sors reporting balanced patterns, 9

Work ClustersABCDEF

Balanced Pattern ( %)102010301020

Unbalanced Pattern ( %)1510

550

65

figure 3. Two patterns of proportions of time allocated to the six work clusters.

17

woulL prefer unbalanced patterns; of the93 reporting actual unbalanced patterns,26 would. change to balanced. Takinganother perspective, note that nearlytwo-thirds of the professors; regardlessof their actual work\-, pattern, wouldprefer to retain that pattern. This isespecially noteworthy be ause the domi-nant actual work pattern i an unbalancedpattern.

It is not useful to report how pro-fessors within a given se would appor-tion- their time to the /six clusters,since the variances within the sets arestill great, especially with the un-balanced patterns set, and may",be madeup quite different. individual profiles;The fact of the disproportionate commit-ments versus relatively even commitmentsto.the work clusters, regardless of whichparticular clusters were emphasized, wasa more important vantage point for view-

/ing the. data.

Study of these work commitmentsshows clearly that work patterns-differedamong professors, sometimes markedly_so.Questions might be raised about why suchdifferences exist. Whether they arl afunction of individual preferences,\ in-stitutional priorities, institutionaldemands, or other factors, is yet a

puzzle. There is also a'question abouthow persistent such patterns are overtime.

Key patterns. To begin to answersome of these questions, the patterns-were studied seeking trends in the othervariables. When all those patternswhich 'displayed balanced, actual work-loads were contrasted with those display-ing unbalanced, actual workloads, no

specific trends were evident. When thesame contrast was made with preferredworkloads, an intriguing ,connection be-'came apparent. Two key patterns becameevident.

The first key includes all the pat-terns in which the preferrdd workload isbalanced. This group consis s of 38% ofthe preferred patterns. Most f the pro-fessors who express such a

have actual unbalanced patte n§ andwould maintain them. These are profes-sors who wish to wOrk at all the -kinds

of professorial tasks without immoderateemphasis on any one. This' preferencefor a balanced work pattern was expressedeven though these _professors also re-ported, their perception that the. insti-ution had -priorities... It t'sperhapsstriking that professors. who -recognizethat their institution expresses clearpriorities would not,, in some fashion,account fdr these priorities in theirown work comthltments.

The second key includes those pat-terns in which the preferred work time it

Table 6

Actual and Preferred Work atterns

Second Survey.

Work Patterns Actual Prefeire!da

Balanced

Unbalanced

Missing Data

25

9

26,

3 :

7

. 16 -42.

60 69

7

Note.. N = 118.

aSeven professors did not,indicatea preferred pattern.

,!allocated unevenly among the six clUt-ters.. It is unbalanced.. This groupconsists. 62% of preferred: patterns.JheAreatmajority who express such'Hapreference already have actual unbal-

anced patterns; a fewin this group have:.actual balanced Workloads-. It was char-

acteri.ttic of the preferred.-unbalanced.key ::that either Cluster B (research and

scholarship) or Cluster.T (teaching)took priority in the. pattern. In con-

trast with first key, these pr.O-

fesSors seem to have hadaAood sense ofthe relative priority of teaching and

.research in their institutions.

Table 7

Institutional Priorities. The re-

spondents prioritized the traditionalprofessorial work categories and theseare summarized in Table 7. Some oftheir responses suggested ' they were

uncertain Of the priorities, there wasambivalence in the institution about

priorities, or there was. fairly even

value placed. on two or even all three

categories, resulting , in rd3 priority.

These suggestions were conveyed bymargin notes on,the ,questionnaire or by,

listing the same kind of work: .for allthree ranks.

Faculty Perceptions of 'Teaching, ReSearch or Seryice.as.

Institutional Prioritiesa-'bi Preferred WprIc Pattern. Second Survey

-,=nrrvia,/

teaching ' Researc Service-. Work Pattern

aminharm

Thcise preferring .

balanced work 21 17

patternsThoSe preferringunbalanced work 4.4 20

patterns

Note. N = 118:aFour respondents did not indicate institutional prioritY.

bSeven respondents did not indicate preferred work patterns.

19

The new professors who' were firstsurveyed in the Fall of 1979 had gainednearly three more years of experience ?

when they were surveyed again in the Fall /

of 1982. They could not reasonably be/lcalled "new" professors any longer. In-/

'stead it seemed reasonable simply to con, .sider them a part of the professoriate:

People at thit stage in their careerhve already dealt with one set of

critical events /which Baldwin groupedunder "early professional employment,"and may now be/facing critical events in"opportunitieS for-professional growth"and "status and role changes." He de-scribed each of theSe types of criticalevents (Baldwin, 1979, p. 18):

(3) Opportunities for professionalgrowth (e..g. seminars, sabbaticals,grants for study and/ research)also affected the careers of:pro-fessors in this study. Facultystated that potenttally negativeexperiences like failures, disap-pointMents, and value questionsalso had a majoOmpact on theircareer direction/and growth. Thisinformation concurs with the as-sumption that professional supportand development efforts are bene-ficial to,faculty careers.

(4) Likewlse, many respondentsvi'ewed their status and rolechanges as important career events.In addition to the achievement ofraditional faculty ranks, pro-

fe ors described new roles and

'new terests which continued toevolve ng after receipt of thefinal for 1 academic title (fullprofessor). Adoption of admin-istrative roles, participation in

/campus governance, and increasedinvolvement in profe ional orga-nizations all suggeSt hat manyfacility careers develop an diver-sify.almost to the,time of re re-ment.

Achieving Goals

//

were likely to have encountered the pro-motion and tenure process, and were-

/ likely to'have become more comfortable/ with the idea of being a professor. It

seems, reasonable that the reports oftheir experiences at this time of theircareer would have changed noticeablyfrom earlier reports:

Conduct of the Third Survey

As between the first and secondsurveys the number of subjects was re-duced, so between the second and thirdsurveys the sample again grew smaller.A number of the subjects were removedfrom further consideration after thesecond survey, because information theyproiided indicated they were no 'longerin higher education or no longer in acollege, school or department of. edu-cation, or their positions had changedfrom what might justifiably be con-sidered a professorial role. Part-time faculty Were also removed. Thefinal sample included in the' third sur-vey is smaller and more clearly definedthan the earlier samples (Table 8).

The 1982 respondents had indeed spent'number of years at their institutions,

The responses from the second sur-vey were used to revise several ques-tions from that instrument. In addi-tion, anticipating that the -professorswould now have had experiences notaddressed in the earlier questionnaires,several new questions were developed.Questions about apportionment of actualand preferred work hours remained thesame except that professors were askedto estimate the hours they spent or

would choose to spend on each work clus-ter per week instead of the proportionof work time. They also were asked tototal the work cluster ,estimates to

check if that sum seemed reasonable.Questions about faculty rank, status,and institutional priorities for pro-fessional work were retained. In thisquestionnaire three open-ended clues,

tions were included:. the former ques-tion about insights; secondly, a ques-tion about major decisions they hadmade about themselves or their careers

7in -recent years; and thirdly; a ques- colleges, schools, and depai.tments of

tion. about major problems faced by education in the 1980's.

;

Table 8Descriptive Statistics of Professors

Third Survey

SexFemaleMale

Year of Graduation1975197619771978

Number

15,32

7 1.

10

18:12

RankAssistant Professor 19Associate Professor 25Professor 2Other. 1

Tenure StatusTenured 21Untenured 21

Other 5

Years at Present Institution1 3

2 03 44 4

5 11

6 13

7- 7

8. 5

Note. Daia were collected in 1982. N = 47.

21

Exhibits and Interpretations

Quantitative analyses parallel to

those done earlier or suggested by thetwo previous surveys were done and arereported below. These questionnaireswere also matched with the respondents'earlier forms, making it possible to

begin viewing the experiences not justepisodically but also longitudinally.With the capacity. for this kind ofanalysis, questions about the con-sistency of work patterns over sev-eral years could be studied. Pro-fessors' earlier preferences for work

patterns could be compared with pre-sent actual and preferred work patterns._Changes in average weekly work hourscould be seen. And, the professors'insights .could be viewed in regard tostability over years and the matchwith expected "critical events." Thuswhere some statistical analyses arestill appropriate there ,'is an in-.

creased possibility and value in viewingthe data as individual cases: Certainlyfuller understanding of the,career deve1,7.opment of professors can come only frOmsuch a shift in analysis.

Table 9Hours per Week Spent Doing Job-Related Work

Third Survey

Work Hours Number of 'Professors

fewer than 40'40-4950-5960-6970 or more

316

. 16

84

Note. N = 47.

Table 10The Means and Ranges of Work Hours Proportioned among

Six Work Clusters-Third _SurVey

. Work ClustersaActual commitments Preferred Commitments

Means of Rangeoof Means of Range ofWork Hours Work Hours Work Hours Work Hours'

A 0.8 1-45 . 6.6 0-40B 11.3 0-38 16.1 2-40C 4.0 0-20 6.7 0-20D 7.9 1-30 7.1 0-20E 2.9 0-10 3.3 0 -10

F '14.6 3-36 12.3 0-30

Note. N = 47.aThe work clusters are described in Figure 2.

22

Work commitments. Table 9 dis-

plays the hours per week spent doingjob-related work., The current sampleof ,professors average 52' hours per

week in work. For purposes of infor-mation Table 10 summarizes the actualand preferred work hours committed toeach cluster through means and rangesof responses., It should be recalledthat' these are work hours and nOt pro-portions of work time as given in

Table 5.

Recall that with the results of

the second survey a search was under-taken for patterns of work clusters.

It resulted in the determination that

some professors' workloads might be

characterized as balanced, and others'

as unbalanced. With the.shift, in thethird survey, to reports of actual 'hoursinstead' of proportions of time commit-ted to each cluster, it. was necessaryto adjust the rule by which the distinc-tion between balanced -and unbalancedworkload was made. With the third survey

Table 11 shows the number of pro-fessors in the third survey/whose workpatterns could be characterized as bal-anced or unbalanced. Also evident is

how these professors would adjust theirworkloads given the opportunity. As inthe second survey (Table 6), more pro-fessors' actual workloads are unbal-

anced though a sizable number are bal-anced. The professors,were distributedsimilarly in the preferred patterhs,

though about one-third of .the sample

preferred 'a different pattern, than

their actual pattern. This fact paral-lels the finding in the second survey.

Work commitments viewed longitudi-nally. With the third survey- it is

TTTible to view some of the data across.

several years, albeit' for a smaller

group. -The number of subjects for whom

this tracing could be' done was 40.

That is, they responded to both the

second and third survey 'instruments

with complete data. With such small ,

Table 11

Actual and Preferred Work Patterns

Third Survey

Work Patterns Actual Preferred'

Balanced

Unbalanced

Missing Data

17

30

17

29-

1

Note. N. 47.

aOne professor did not indicate a preferred pattern.

data an individual professor's-wo kfload

was labeled as balanced if, of the/total

reported work hours, no partiCular

cluster was given one-fourth or more of

the -total time. If any cliister was

allocated that much, the woekload wascharacterized as unbalaned'. " This rule

was applied to both actual/and preferred

work hours.

numbers divided. into several categoriesit is not useful to attempt to make

generalizations about the experience;

but some observations can be made which

may suggest trends in their experience.This section will, report the longer viewfor-work hours, commitment to work clus-ters, and work patternS.

24

Table 12 displays the hours workedper week by the wofestoi's, across all

three surveys. In the first two sur-Aleys the 50-59 range' was Most frequent-ly, reported while the '60-69 range wassecond.- By the third survey a notice-able drop in work hours Wa's.recorded.The paths of individual' professorswere traced thrOugh these three surveysto see how indivi idual work hours fluc-

tuated. There was considerable move-ment from one range to another so thatthe professors in any given range dur-ing the first survey have very likelychanged by the third survey. Thoughthere are exceptions, the .noticeabledrop between the second and third sur-veys. can be attributed to professors-who were promoted or tenured.

\

Table 12Hours per Week Spent Doing Job-Related Work

Three. Surveys

Work Hours -Number of Professors

. First Second Third

fewer than 40 4 240-49 7 3 14

1 50-59 17 22 1460-69 11 12 670 or more 4 3 4

Note. N = 40.

Table 13The Means and Ranges Work Hours Proportioned among

Six Work ClustersSecond and Third Surveys

Work ClustersaSecond Survey Third Survey

Means of Range ofWork Hours Work Hours

Means of Range ofWork Hours Work Hours.

A 14.1 2-41 12.3 1-45B 12.6 2-41 11.7 2-38C 4.4 0-11 4.2 0-20D 8.5 3-20 . 8.3 1-30

3.8 , 0-14 3.1 \O-10F 16.3 1-51 13.6 -4-35

Note. N = 40.

The work clusters are described in Figure 2.bThesiF data were transformed from percentages to hours.

25

24

-

Table 13 compares the same 40 pro-fessors, on their work hour commitmentsto six clusters from the second surveyto the third survey. These are actual.

work hours only. (In-order to make thiscomparison, the second survey .data weretransformed for each respondent from

)13roportions'of time to hours. This was-done by multiplying the mid-point of therange of hours by the proportion.repor-

.tedly committed; for examOlei 55 hours' x20% =-1-1-hours.) In reviewing the tableit can be seen' that between.the secondand third surveys, these 40 professorsas a group maintained a good deal of

consistency in time spent on each of thesix work clusters. Noticeable declinesoccur in the hours spent in administra-

iive and service tasks and teaching..

This may be consistent with the overalldecline in work, hours between the twosurveys.

Another comparisbn across. the timecan be made by looking at the balanced

and unbalanced patterns of workloads.The-question is how professors who re -

-ported particular patterns in'the sec-

ond survey fared in their experience.

leading into the third survey. An effort

Table 14Change of Work Patterns from the Second to Third Surveys

Second Survey Patternsa

Third Survey Pattein:,,

Actual preferred

Balanced Unbalanced

Balanced preferring Balanced(N = 6)

Balanced preferring Unbalanced(N = 3)

Unbalanced prefet;ing Balanced(N =8)

31

3 Balanced '-

2 - 3 Unbalanced

Balanced

.2-'Llnbalanced

Unbalanced pr, feNing Unbalanced 17

(1= 22)

13 -Balanc

2 5 Unbalanced

5 8 Balanced

1214' Unbalanced

Not. ce.:11this

9;a0nefrespondent indicated no preferred pattern and is thusomitted

alcall that these patterns were derived from the responses of the 118professors who responded to the second survey.

bThis respondent Indicated the actual pattern but not the preferred pattern.

25'

'was made to trace this experience.

Table 14 traces this complex develop-ment perhaps as best as it can be done.The four patterns from the second sur-vay were used to organize the table..

Each group's responses to the .thirdsurvey were reported separately, and

traced through their current actual

and_preferria patterns. For example,Six professors in the second.. survey

had a, balanced pattern and preferred abalanced pattern. According to the

third survey results, three of them

actually ,have balanced patterns whilethree have unbalanced patterns. These

six are also evenly divided on theircurrent preferred patterns, but not in

the same way.

Studying this development from thesecond to the third survey, these obser-vations seemed supportable, ProfesSorswith unbalanced workloads outnumber'those with balanced workloads in both

the second and third surveys, thoughmore moderately in the third. Actual

work patterns in the second survey donot ,.seem t predict very strongly actualpatterns. n the third survey. Nor-dopreferred atterns from the second sur-vey predic actual patternS in the thirdone. Furthermore, preferred patterns inthe second. survey don't seem verystrongly related to preferred patternsin the third. What -this may suggest isthat at this point in their careers pro-fessors' work patterns are highly change-able even over a, short period of time.And change that occurs in their patter'sis not always in the direction of theirpreferences. Preferences .themselves

were not particulary stable. over the

period between the two surveys. As amatter of fact, from these data it mightbe safer to say that their preferences.seemh more influenced by their actual

work patterns than an.influence on thosepatterns.

Key ,patterns, "In the second sur-vey an effort was made to identify pat-terns 'of actual and preferred work com-mitments.. of the new professors, and ,torelate those patterns to other descrip-tors:of the new- professors' experierice.Using the second survey results :two keypatterns were identified which relate

professors preferences for balanced orunf4lanced workloads to institutionalpriorities. It seemed that professorswho preferred an unbalanced, design much`more itrequently matched their institu-itiona ! proirities in their own workemphasis' than those who preferred a

balanced workload. No :cause or effectwas inferred.

An effort was ..,!.11,ade to see if a

.similar Set of pafterns was 'evidentusing the third ,survey results. The

same analysis was performed. But thistime no such patterns emerged. Whathad been prominent differences betweentwo patterns in the second survey re-sults somehow were not repeated in thethird survey data.

Speculation about why 'this occur-red could take several courses. First,it is possible that the patterns deVel-oped in the second survey were spurtou's.Secondly, it is possible that the small-er number of respondents made it im-

possible to recognize patterns with

allowable variation. Thirdly, it is.

possible that the patterns changed.among the individual professors; evi-dence of the instability of workloads.and preferences was given earlier in

the longitudinal view of work commit-ments. Fourthly, it is possible thatintervening events such as change of.

role within the institution, developingnew priorities for work, promotion ortenure, or even changing' institutionshad some effect on the patterns. For

,whatever reason, what was a distinctiVedifference in the second survey wasnot sustained by the third.

The Work of BecOming/a Professor:

The study ofi thd life of a 'Pro-,,

fessor has been a topiCof keen inter-est for a. number of members of the pro-fessoriate. The study 'of how a man' or-`woman' beComes a professor andjfvee thelife has been the focus of' fewer. - Thecontext of a life in higher educationchanges with the 'start orrf each aca-deOitc year and the work of becoming a

26

professor thus changes, for each gener- this 'seemed the only reasonable course

ation of academics. This work merits to take. The instruments did not take

continuing attention, their 'content or, format from other

studies. This survey held in abeyance.

The new professor study reporteddecisions about the .nature of the pro-

herein was an effort at coming to under-fessorial experience until the data it-s

stand" the experiences 'of men and womenself helped to inform the issue. Care

was taken to request .data about whatembarking on careers in colleges,

were believed to be potent dimensionsschools, and departments of education.Their experiences are probably somewhat

while, optimizing the likelihood *lat

different than other new professors'the new professors would respond. A

.

limited' number of questions were in-Firstly, they are typically older and

cluded in each survey and they provid-come-to graduate study after some years-2of employment in the field. Secondly,.

ed a rich data base from which to build.Given the 'results that were obtained,

their academic home is appropriatelytermed a professional school with all -

this research strategy has satisfied

its implications for the work of'a pro=\-. demands .of the problem. The sequence

fessor. But thirdly, the tenor of these\,of three surveys gathered selected in-formation about new professors' experi-times, especially as felt in the field

of, education, is particularly trouble-ences from near the beginning-through

soin e:- reduced job opportUbities, ajust over three years of their careers.

.

colleague group' of highly tenured,The three surveYs built on one another,clarifying' and detailing these experi-

established faculty, declining collegeenrollments, and, scarce funding. These ences, and were useful not only for

contextual characteristics are likely totracing the experiences -of this genera-t-

make, their beginning different fromion of professors, but also for illus

Other professors', and different eventrating points for study of academic

from professors of education who began acareers at a broader level.

decade, ago or will begin a decade fromThey deserve particular attention. A particular contribution of the

new professor study is that it follow-, \ ed subjects over a number of years.

The new professor study tapped the Longitudinal research is sometimes com-graduates of particular institutions. - plicated by the loss of subjects; suchwhich, 'had firm reputation in the grad-uate

thestudy of education: These grad-

While .a smaller number of respondentsuates were probably at least as Well

limits the usefulness of cerfain statis-,Prepared for' the range of academic tasks

tical procedures, it enhances the pos-as any, and possibly better,prepared in sibility for more elaborate study ofsome. 'Associating with a scholarly

the few. This will' be the directionfaculty while they were graduate stu-.

of this research project in its nextdents, teaching at the college level, -

engaging in research projects, partici-stage.

pating An professional development semi-nars, sharing in college administrative The new professor study reported

and service responsibilities may have herein really constitutes work in pro

stood them in better stead than others gress. The data already collected have

in their cohort. But if these experien- not been fully analyzed. Future analy-.

ces have made them different they also ses will examine characteristics of pro-

may have prepared them to lead in for fessors who emphatize certain kinds of

'nation and re-formation of their pro- work such as research or service; the

fession.. It it important that their insights of Professors at different aca-

experience .is brought into focus. demic ranks might be used to organize'their reports of the kinds of 'work to ..which' they commit time; or years ofexperience at an in titution could beexamined. relation to\ actual and pi-e-

The new ,professor -study ,used sUr

vey research methods: Given the :number

and geOgraphic spread of...tthe,sample,-.

27

ferred workloads as well as, to insights..Other changes over time in the profes-sors' experiences may be, found in thelongitudinal data. Data' will continueto be collected although the study willbe less appropriately termed a study ofliner," professors.

The data alrea in hand providea basis ,,for discussio of the work ofbecoming a professor. Analysis of thedata has led to particular, tentativeobservations. It will be the 'purpbseof this section to lay them .out as 'a

means of marking the progress -of thestudy and as a means of prompting-

comment.

Time for Work

People ,beginning a career as pro-essors in education work long hours.Their average work week is much longerthan the typical American worker, in

not a few, cases increasing that work7load by more than one-half. Self re-ports of time spent at work have beendoubted, '.laboring under the criticismthan 'they are exaggerated. Whilethis study' had no way of attesting tothe accuracy of respondents' claims,it is inconceivable that the entiregroup of respondents would have so

inflated their workloads. .This studydid find considerable consistency in

the figures of two consecutive esti-mates approximately two years apart;this suggests that the estimates wereneither casual nor without some found-ation. Even with some degree of over -estimation 'accounted for, the timespent at mirk by these professors is

substantial.

Time is a major problem for newprofessors, Finding enough time' to doall the t ings, that they expect of them-selves or that are expected of, them is' a

real -chal enge. . Controlling time in

such a wa that they tan do the thingsthey want to do more regularly is

another facet of the problem. Given the

time alreadY committed, to work, it isunlikely that; a solution to that Problemis simply spending more hours on the-

job. . Rather, it must lie in making"better" use of time

New professors, new to the insti-tution, may be subject to conditionswhich place greater demands on theirtime. Even' though they are new .they aregiven .assignments comparable to moreexperienced 'profeSsors; some new :Oro.*fessors report heavier .teaching loadsand,. more committee assignments. Eithcourse they teach, is to them a newcourse. Each -memo they receive: is one.whiCh demands attention.. Each college-wide committee is a 'serious.;responsi,bility. Unfaiiliar.with the institution,they are unfamiliar with its procedures,and they are not privy toir.'k shortcutswhich established faculty use'to stream-line heir work. With more experience,new- professors probably become' moreefficient.

As new professors gain experienceat a particular institution,1 and per-haps more specifically, as they reachand pass the point' of promotion and

tenure, the time they spend r at workseems to decrease. Whether tills de-

crease is a -result of greater efft-,

ciency or simply a release after thepreSsure of .status review is unknown.Common- wisdom suggests the latter. In

either case, it is important to re-cognize that' their- average workloadis still substantially above the typicalAmerican work week.

New professors do not complainabourworking long hours, with the ex-ception, perhaps, of when, such a load

interferes with personal fife. Other-wise, they seem to feel that putting inlong hours is a necessary condition oflife in higher education, and one whichthey can accept. Given the opportunityto redesign their work patterns, thesenew professors dtd not decrease the timespent at work; they simply spent it dif-ferently.

The time professors spend at:'-woric

is divided -among ...a. variety of tasks.

much more numerous UM' the. tt7adition,-al-designations of teaching Hreseakch.

and *vice: The variety .andf.complex7,,ify of; work is: eVident. in tWisiords

28

they use to describe it; they are ableto make differentiations among partic-ular task's which are more. commonly seen

as one. For example, teaching containsthe activities of preparing for.class,class instruction, and evaluating stu-dents' work. New professors see .thiswork as distinct from working with indi-vidual students which,itself contains -anumber of distinct activities. And itis yet_ different from curriculum devel-opment. Descriptions of professorialresponsibilities such as occur in somejob descriptions, annual faculty load

reports, ,and in the pronouncements of

institutional priorities may simply betoo global to capture the experience ofnew professors. Perhaps as new firo-

fessors become more experienced thesedistinctions will disappear; their workmay become more integrated. But for thenew professor these distinctions servesome function.

For purposes =of this research, theactivities were grouped into six clusters

of work tasks: administrative and ser-

vice tasks, research and scholarship;

'-, personal-- professional development, workwith individual students, curriculum de-velopment, and teaching. These clusters

were found to be useful in -providingrespondents with a parsimohious means ofreporting their work, as well as subse-quently describing their work to others.

But it, should be noted that "catch

phrases" such as these are less adequatethan the full, cluster descriptions pro-

.vided earlier in the paper (Figure 2).These catch phrases are quick but theyalso obscure important facets of the

cluster.L

Consider several of the clustersseparately' for .a moment. Cluster F,

teaching is, as already has been noted,

differentiated from Cluster D, work

with individual students, , and E1 cur-

riculum development. In the early

years,of becoming a professor learninghow to teach is often reported as a

disconcerting part of the experience.

'But for these education graduates none

of these three tasks was P.eported as

,a problem or concern. Sometimes they

commented on students' abilities and

motivations,, at times in dismay and at

other times with optimism. But in all

cases this work seemed to be within'

the realm of their competence. With

some regularity, these new professorsshared their enjoyment of engaging in-

this work This' might be as expected,'considering that these new professorsprobably had relatively,more experiencein teaching than their non-education

counterparts.

Cluster A combines what might be'cor idered activities that are chiefly

ministrative 3ith those that are

chiefly service in orientation. It

was impossible to distinguish betweenthese two types of activities, and thatwas probably the case because professorsthemselves seemed to find them over-lapping. Thus, sitting on a collegecommittee might be perceived as a formof service or as a forM of administra-tive work. Holding a role in a localprofessional organization might produce

the same double perception. This. con-

fusion leads to tasks which are judgeby some to be trtviel being grouped witthose. considered important. Thus tlt

cluster probably connotes a positivvalence for some and a negative valen efor.fothers.

Cluster A and Cluster C, personalprofeSsional, development, both would

seem tOkinclude activities in which 1)--stantial contact with, colleagues b th

immediate and distant is required. New

professors reported that establishingrelationships with colleagues can 1)6 a

problem. Politics, personalities, ra-

ditions,,and miscommunications unde liemany of 'their ,griefs. ThrtiS not tosuggest that Cluster A and C are proplem

lclusters but rather that major pro ems

new 'professors report are relate to

their work therein.

Commitments 'and.Preferences

Most -new professor's commit some

time to each of the six clust rs ofprofessorial tasks. But this ommit- '/

ment is far from, Administra- /tive and . service tasks, research and/scholarship, and teaching by far garnermost of their time, 'with. the as /Of

29

theSe clusters typically dominant.C Individual's, of course, varied on this

count.

Personal professional developmentalmost always receives a minimal -commit-ment of time. For Some this may simplybe a "' token while for others it may rep-resent what little time they can carveout of their schedules for reading,-working with colleagues, and acquiringnew skills that would enhance theirwork. Yet these professors are just outof programs of graduate study and arenew to scholarship and life in the aca-demy. Their professional developmentis,hardly complete by any standard, butalready it seems to be curtailed. Cer-tainly this must be a shock in contrastwith the ,support for and challenge.ofprofessional development provided in

graduate school. Further, this may bodepoorly for their long-term professionaldevelopment. It may undermine the*pro-mise of the, institution as well.

-When looking at <the overall allo-cations/of time to the work of being aprofessor, it is -possible to see thatsome men and women create a rather bal-anced work life. Others, clearly a

majprity, create a very different 'worklife;,fe emphasizing teaching, or researchand schblarship, or administrative andservice tasks. 'Given the opportunityto redesign their work life,, most new'professors would choose the latter plan.From this'research it cannot be judgedwhich life is the better to, lead sinceinstitutions have different priorities,have different ways of expressing thetrpriorities, and-professors hmiediff&-ent sources of satisfaction. -Clearly,however, if productivity is related tothe use of time then some plans may bemore desirable than others.

Making,judgments .about prioritiesis a difficult task for new professors.

They perceive, in some cases, differ-

ences between their own inclinationsand the priorities of the institutionsof2which they are a part. Even given.the opportunity.to redesign their worklife they do not always do so in con-cert with the institution. It seems

also to be true that these professors

changed their minds over the course oftheir early-careers. The change may berelated to changes in the context oftheir decision: , changes in institu-tional priority, a clearer view of in-stitutional priorities, a clearer visionof their future lives in the academy,or the critical event of status review.

There is some evidence to suggestthat among these new professors, thosewho would prefer to organize their worklife around one particular kind of pro-fessorial work are more often in concertwith the priorities of their institution:'The others who would not prefer to do soeither do not perceive a priority or donot choose to follow it. This surely,presents a dilemma for' predicting suc,-

cess, satisfaction, or productivity.' Onemight speculate that the latter-group ofmen and women areleading a more fancifulprofessorial life. That is, they arenot ,attuned to the real expectationsbeing placed on. them. The former 'group,

however, would design their work life,if not in response to, at least in. con-cert with those expectations. */==

Creating a Life of the Mind.

The work of becoming a professoris Snot simply a matter of identifyingtasks, apportioning time according ,to

priorities, and solving problems. It'

is more fully a matter of developinga life of the mind: sculptinga blockof knowledge, making it one's own, iden-tifying colleagues who-respectandcon--tribute to that Work, and making thatwork available to the larger public.This work spans a career.

Becoming a. professor is the firstStep of that work. The data from thenew professor study suggest that whilepeople are' taking' that first step, theirprogress and prospects are uncertain.The many hours they work may not beincluding enough time for the kinds oftasks that would assure the success ofwhat is essentially ,a longterm creativeendeavor. The number of hours they workalso calls into question their capacity

30

for sustaining a career w ich .spans a

quarter of a century, or longer, and

doing so with fervor. n the other%

hand, there is evidence, to suggest thatthey are meeting with some *uccess bothin terms of institutional rewa d and Col-

egial affiliation. And many report

they like what they are doing. Such'

mixed evidence points up the uncer-

tainty of success in creating a life

of the mind:

The context of higher education ischanging with each academic year. Thecapacity of these professors, who, willin a decade ,be senior faculty, not onlyto perform the mechanical work- of thatrole but also to continue to create a.

life of the mind may be again chal-

lenged. They may need to display

greater flexibility, greater adapt-

ability, and greater perseverance if

that endeavor is to be sustained. Andtheir current experience may'be playinga large part in developing their capacityand crystallizing their 'commitment to

such an undertaking. At some point

these' professors, as senior faculty,will, themselves be creating the contextfor other new professors. A generation-after-generation, effect develops. Whatthese new professors recall of the workof becoming a professor, what they valueas helpful in that work, what they judgeas necessary, and the extent to whichthey sense progress in their efforts tocreate a life of the mind, may well, inturn, either extend or circumscribe theprospects for another generation 'ofcreators of the academic life.

References

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Bureaus ofEducational Research Services of the University of Oklahoma andthe Division for the Study'of Teaching at Syracuse University forthe costs of the study.

***

Baldwin, R. G. "Adult and Career Development: What Are the Implica-

tions for Faculty?" Current Issues in Higher Education 2 (1979):.

13-20.

"Fact-File." Chronicle of Higher Education (December 8, 1980), :

"Fact-File." Chronicle of Higher Education (January 15; 1979), p. 6.-

Grant,. W. & Lind, C. Digest of Education StatistiCs 1979.(Washington,

D.C..: National Center for. Educational Statts'tics, 1979).

Levinson, D. J. The' Seasons of a Man's Life (New. York: Alfred A:

Knopf, 1978). A- ,

31

Mager, G. M. & Myers,' B. "If First Impressions Count: New Professors'Insights and Problems," Peabody Journal of Education 58 (1982):100-106.

Malamud, B. A New Life (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Cudahy, 1961).

Myers,. B. & Mager, G. M. "The Emerging Professoriate: A Study of NewProfessors." ,(Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Detroit,February 1981).

Reagan, G. M. "The Concept of Academic Productivity and the Evaluationof the Professoriate." (Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, New York, March1982).

c

, N

AN OLD PROFESSOR ON NEW PROFESSORS: A RESPONSE TO MAGER AND MYERS

Gerald M. ReaganThe Ohio State Universal

Ezra Pound once quipped that a

philosopher these days is just a per-son who is too damned lazy to work in

a laboratory.

Those who share Pound's sentimentsmay believe as well that philosophersof eddcation are just persons who: are

rcii. As a philosopher of educationtoo/`damned lazy to do .empirical re-

se

I don't believe that Pound was right,nor do I believe persons becoMe philo-sophers of education to avoid doing em-pirical research. Yet is is teue thatas a philosofter of education I do notdo empirical research and yet have theunmitigated gall to comment on the

empirical, research done by others. Al-though it does- not reduce the gall, letme say that I,applaud the work of Mager

and Myers. I agree that the inductionof the young into the academy is an

important matter about which we need a'better understanding. That understanding-will not come about without careful em-pirical research;

1. 'Mager and Myers give se4eralgood reasons to look at "job time",de-mands facing new professors of educa-tion. I agree that it may well be that

new professors face excessive demandson their time, that, most professors work

more hours than workers outside academe,that professors have some degree of con-.troljin scheduling their work, etc. As

an old member of the professoriatethough, it seems equally important to methat professors seldom count total workhours per day or week or month. or termunless someone in authority, or someonewith the ubiquitous survey research ques7tionnaire asks them to do so. Profes-.

sors do,.of course, count the number ofhours they, teach, though seldom do.they

. bother to calculate the number of hoursspent which are related to that teaChing.

If I have a point here, I guess it is

that it is not clear to me that manymembers of the professoriate are as

conscious of work time and how that time,is apportioned to 'various tasks as, onemight think from the Mager and Myersstudies.

I do want to make full use of myoppontunity to comment and raise Many years ,ago, there was a car. -

questions on the .work of Mager and toon in The New Yorker which' struck my.

Myers. A few of these. questions and / fancY. A man, unShaven, clad in an

comments may be at -least tangentially undershirt, drinking' a can of beer, sits

related to what they have reported about \ staring at a television.' His wife;

their three studies. More of tke\ commenting to a friend, says "Thats,s-th

questions and comments, I sUppose, are ,Hell of being married to a philosopher

ones about matters they have not studied You never know'when they're working ::and

but which happen to intrigue me. towhen they ' re, goof i rig off . " I t seems,..

17,

34

me thatthis is true not only for philo-sophers but for many academics:' when

things are going well, 'it is not easyto tell, and it is even less importantto tell, whether we are working or

playing.4

The New Yorker cartoon exaggerates,of course. There are times for all pro-fessors when we know we are Working,e.g., when one is explaining a conceptto a student for the, seventh time andseems to be losing ground as well as

patience.: And there are times when weare playing and know we are playing.But it seems AD me that there are

times--many times--when we would' notbe sure even if we were to think aboutit. I If I'm even close to being rightabout this, it would seem that this isan important part of .being a member ofthe .academy as well as an important in-dicator of the extent to which a young.colleague has become,a part of the aca-demic community. I'm not sure what

this means in relation to the studiesof Mager and Myers. Perhaps It is onlythat in

youngtp finding 'out, how

much our young collelgues work and whattasks constitute that work; 'that we

should also find out how much of theirwork is 'experienced as work, and howmuch falls into the realm of the work-play puzzle.

Our young colleagues heed to cometo understand that, the academy is not

best seen as a .job or career - -even

though it is convenient if our rela-tives and non-academic friends view it'that way. The academy is, at its best,/a way ,of, life. There are, even in

thew hard'academic times, a fortunatefew who ,are allowed and even encouragedto live/at least, part of their workinglives_purSuing the life, of the mind.There are disadvantages, of course; butthere remain, many of the advantages ofthe cloister without the disadvantAgeof vows of'chastity and obedience-=andas for .our implicit vow of genteel

poverty, the' cost seems a small ,price

to pay for this way .of life.A

/

2. I do want to say ,something toshow that I am not ignoring the studies

done. I need to Study the Mager andMyers paper mor °carefully but at pre-sent I'm not she how well the "cate-gories" and "clisters" which have beenconstructed wor . Mager and Myers re-ject the tr ditional categories of

Teaching, Res Arch, and Service, but

the Mager and(nMyers categories may notbe an improve ent simply because thereare more ofthem. (Perhaps this is theplace to c 11 attention to the factthat the TR 1 categories are.not Alwaysused the w Y Mager and Myers seem toassume. A Ohio State University, forexample, w have what may be the world'worst "acc untability form," the "Quar-terly AcOvity Report," which eachfacultymember fills out for his or herAutumn Quarter work. Activities are

listed acid then for each activity thefaculty/member indicates the percentageof the // time takeh by thAt activitywhich d ould fall under each of the TRSlabels/./ In short, it is not the acti-

r vitieS which are categorized, but the

different furictions into which the timemay be categorized.)

//

/I But back to my point. The MAgerand? Myers categories, seem less cate-gories of work or categories of aca-demic function than categories of be-ginning professors' descriptions of

Work. Given an identical task, for

example, we might ,find-- the 'following;'description- category:

New, Professor #1: "Carrying out lad--ministrative tasks which' ,are

part of my job."New Professor #2: "Providing service

to-my department, school, or uni-versity. "._

New Professor #3: "Completing admin-istrative paper work---etc:"

New Professor #4: "Carrying out thework of 'my assigned position-- -etc.

New Professor #5: "Carrying out

grAnts:---etc."New Professor #6: "Preparing for

teaching."

Perhaps missed something, but itseems, to-me th t Mager and Myers Agreethat these Cate ries are not mutually

35

exclusive. Indeed, it appears that

this is one of the reasons they movefrom the categories to the "clusters."But the clusters seem even 'more puz-zling than the categories: 'I

The clusters are clusters of ac-

tivity descriptions. Further, any

given activity description will fall

into one and only one cluster, (i.e.,

the clusters, do not function as do theTRS categories at,Ohio State Universityas I have described that strange sys-tem.) Yet when we look at the clus-ters we find the following:

Cluster A includes "Carrying out

funded projects."Cluster B includes "All phases of re-

search and scholarly production."Cluster. C 'includes "Work with col-

leagues to grow as a scholar."

Cluster D includes "Supervision of

graduate students."/

What puzzles me is that I have carriedout both funded and unfunded projects,and the "carrying out" included all of

the other items mentioned in B, C, andD. In short, a single activity con -..

tributes to many of the clusters. The

clusters may -hold- ds clusters of theway professors describe their work, butthey may be misleading as categoriesinto which the work described neatly.

falls.

I do not intend this as a defenseof the standard. TRS categories-1 do

not with' to succumb to that academic

disease known as "hardening of the

categories." What I. do need Ps some

further explanation about what theclusters constructed by Mager and Myersadd to our understanding. Part of, myconcern here-has to do with the, use ofthe clusters as ,a basis for describinga_work pattern as "balanced" or "unbal-anced." Could it be that, balance orlack of balance is simply a functien ofthe cluster-category system? Might it

be that a person who would be describedas having an unbalanced work patternusing the. cluster system would have abalancgd pattern if work activitieswere apportioned out among the. TRS

categories?

3. I don't suppose that there isany reason to believe that professors'self-reports of how they spend time areany less honest or perceptive than

self-reports of any other group. As I

listen to colleagues both young and

old, however, I have a nagging suspi-cion that they tend to exaggerate, par-ticularly on the amount of time they

are required to spend on tasks whichthey find. unpleasant or unnecessary.

Although I have not seen the Magerand Myers survey form, I would suggestthat some not-so-open questions mighthelp give a more accurate picture ofhow professors spend their time. For

example, although it may be useful to

ask professors how much of their timeis related to teaching functions, it

would be at least equally helpful to

know (1) how many different course

preparations they have each Week,

(2) how many classroom contact hours

per week, and (3) whether their teach-ing responsibilities clearly fall

within their areas of competence and

training.

.4. Mager and Myers have chosen aninteresting sample ,to follow, i.e.,

graduates of prestigious universities.

who are_survivors. They'are survivorsfirst in the sense that-they got jobs.Second, they are survivors. in thesense that each ,study focuses - mem-.bers of the original sample who remainin the academy.' This approach leavesuntouched some questions which 1 hope'

Mager and Myers or other researcherswill address at some future time, e.g.,

-

a. If we were to 'look at 'graduatesfrom the smaller or less presti-,gious universities, would we findthe same problems and patterns aswith.this-sample?

b. Are there some. "induction problems".for . which training. institutions

'could prepare graduates? Are stu-dents from prestigious universitiesspared some induction problemswhich face graduates of less pres-tigious schools? Are. graduates of

=1,1 36

the less prestigious schools sparedsome induction problems faced by

graduates of the more prestigiousschools?

c. Do induction problemi decrease if

the new graduate takes a positionin a college/univeOsity which hasfunctions/missions similar to thoseof the training institution? Do

induction problems increase if thenew graduate takes a position in acollege/university with functions/missions dissimilar to the traininginstitution?

d. Do, different training institutionsattempt to pattern training exer-cises for specific kinds of acade-mic institutions, do some in-stitutions attempt to produce,grad-uates, who are 'research - oriented

while others prepare students to

be teaching-oriented? If this hap-pens, does it make any 'differencein terms of indpction problems.

I suppose that these questionsreally don't do much except indicate myconcern that we need more study of thenew professors. And we need studieswhich will 'give us' a better idea notonly of the problems pew professors en-counter, but also how the first majorstep in the induction process--kloctoralstudy--can be modified to better pre-pare people. for their initial full-time positions in the academy.

Mager and M.) have made a sig-nificant contribution.i In pointing,

out what they have learned, they havehelped us all develop a better under-standing of how much there is about

which we remain ignorant.

NOTES

1. This oint is in no way original. Re14.ted discuSsions can

be found in Thomas F. een, "Work, Leisure, and the American

School"; in Paul Nash, A thority, and Freedom in Education, and

in Harry ,S. Broudy, Tr th and Credibility; ,The Citizen's.

Dilemma. -,

Commentary by Roger G; BaldwinWittenberg University

On "Developing a Career in the Academy: New Professors. in Education"

Mager and Myers indicate that verylittle empirical research has examinedthe early stages of the academic career.Evidence, that is available' (Baldwin,1979; Blackburn and Havighurst, 1979)suggests that professors' early careerexperiences help to shape theft' lateroccupational course. The organizationalcareer' concept of tournament mobility(Rosenbaum, 1979) emphasizes the impor-tance of initial career events. Accord-ing to 'studies in corporations, earlyemployment positions set an employee ona career track. If a person gets onthe wrong track or has a' negative earlyexperience, subsequent career develop-ment will be affected. Productivity'maybe reduced. Satisfaction may be dimin-ished. Potential advancement may be

limited.

Because of the long-term implica-tions of initial professional e joerien-

f)ces, it is important for us to knowabout the problems and challe ses begin-ning professors encounter. If collegesand universities understand the initialstages of the academtc career,' they cancreate a climate that \fosters new pro-fessors' development and achievement.Mager and Myers' research on new profes-sors in colleges -and schools of ,educa-tion' sheds new light on oun rather. im-,Pressionistic picture of the aeademic

career. Several of their:_ findings have

important implitations for schools of

education and higher education in

general. 1

The six task clusters the re-

searchers developed help to clarify hownew professors spend, their time and

energy. It is no surprise that teaching.,and .administrative and service tasks'

take--the largest percentages of. a newprofessor's work day. However, it is

worrisome to note that beginning aca.,

demi cs, who. have a great deal to learnabout their new roles, cannot spend asmuch time as' they would like on important . duties such as professional devel-opment and research; If new professOrs,find inadequate opportunities to devel00professionally,. .they ,and the institu-tions: they serve could suffer lOng4lerthnegative conseqUentes. To ,prevent sucha situation from developing,'..colleges:ofeducation shhuld 'identify methOds, to'preserve sufficient, time for all ':major

faculty activities. .:Ierhaptnew professor's should :have lighter Work:-assignments than their veteran ;col

leagues. They '-tould be spared- heavy

committee assignments, oreduring an 'orientation period whilearn" to teach,..fdesign new course's and

try to Anitiateretear0h..

The finding that most "new ;professort 'prefer;:antmbalanced, distributiOn: of workaillong;::#0::s.ix 'task :areasseems healthy. teinefaCelty detie4ft:note as ,:iinnortant,-;as othersnot consbmeeqUall amounts

0

,3

38

Assignments that divert large amounts offaculty members' creative energy to

routine administrative chores are a poorinvestment of, education's most valuableresource, its'professors.

The flucttkation Mager and Myers

discovered in beginning professors' workpatterns and professional priorities isanother phenomenon. The

variation that\bec me apparent from thesecond and third ,surveys implies that

new education professors may not be in

control of their careers. Rather, theyseem to respond to fluctuatinj circum-stances and changing institutional

demands. A clearer expression of insti-

tutional expectations and evaluationcriteria would probably help new pro-fessors to invest their professional

energy more, wisely. If, for example,

schools of education would spell out

'clearly what they value, new professorscould plan a consistent career path thatwould benefit both themselves and their.institutions.

The problems new professors have in

establishing relationships with their

colleagues also deserve serious con-

sideration. This finding of Mager andMyerS suggests that schools of:educationshould look for ways to foster greaterinteraction; and cooperation among begin-

ning and veteraalfaculty. There must.be

many ways novice and seasoned professors

could assist one, another with their

teaching, research, and other facultyresponsibilities.

As is true of most social, science

research, this study raises as many

'questions as it answers. Colleges anduniversities could benefit from furtherstudy of several of these unresolved

issues.

First, are the findings about new

education professors- generilizable to

the whole population of new college

professors? I suspect that new pro-fessors An many fields have comparableexperiences, but relevant data are

needed to riiake teat assumption.

It would also be useful to learnwho drOpOed out of the sample in each

of the successive surveys and why they

did so: Were they less ''competent pro-

fessors? Were they less dedicated to ateaching career? Were they on temporarycontracts and unable to locate new teach-

ing positions? Were they attracted topositions outside higher education whichoffered better opportunities for advance-

ment? The answers to each of these/

questions would sharpen our under-.

standing of those who remain in the aca-

demic profession.

The enigriiatic findinulty workload also; deseryvestigation. Why do somebers have balanced won

other's workloads are s

direction or another? An

teristics distinguish p

prefer balanced workloadsprefer to concentrate or

faculty roles?

s about fac-further in-faculty.mem-

kloads whilesewed in onewhat charac-

ofessors whorom those whoonly a few .

I suspect that a mixture of bal-anced and unbalanced workloads is bene-ficial to an_ academic department. A

blend of sPecialists and, generalistsenables an academic unit to fulfill allits responsibilities without requiring'that all professors perform exactly thesame functions. This flexibility rec-ognizes, that academics have different

talents and can be, most effective if

they are able to exercise their prin-cipal strengths. However, it also leadsto ambiguous definitions of acceptableprofessional achievement. Further re-search could explore what happens to thecareers of new professors who have dif-ficulty determining what their insttu-tio* expect of them and how they willbe evaluated.-,Are they as successful asprofessors who have a clear idea of

their school's standards of performance?

Some empirical explanation, of why,professors work less after tenure wouldalso be enlightening-. Do they burn out

trying- to achieve tenure? Or do pro-fessors gradually become more efficient--and productive as they "learn the ropes"of their profession? Higher educationinstitutions-should consider what theycan do to help new professors adjust .'

quickly to their responsibilities, to

become maximally_ efficient and effec-tive.

Mager and Myers' research demon-.

strates the complexity of the early

stages of an academic career. TheinveStigatorS conclude that no simpleadvice can prepare a new professor for asuccessful career. Fortunately, how-ever, studies which clarify the typicalexperiences and problems of beginning

11

college teachers can help new professorsto avoid major pitfalls and to plan

strategy for achieving successful . and

satistifing careers. Schools of educa-tion and higher education in general

-wOuld- benefit from more research of thiskind.

References

Baldwin, R. G. "Adult and Career Development: ,,.41hat Are the IMplicationsfor Faculty?;" Current Issues in Higher Education 2 (1979):13-20.

Blackburn, R. T., and HavighurstT R. J. i"Career Patterns of U. S. Male.Academic Social Scientists," Higher Education 8 (1979):553-72.

-Rosenbaum;' J. E. "Tournament Mobility: Career Patterns in a Corporation,"_Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (1979):220-240.,_