This article was downloaded by: [Universiteit Twente]On: 29 November 2014, At: 18:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

QuestPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uqst20

Preparing for Faculty Rolesin Discovery, Learning, andEngagementJerry R. Thomas aa Chair and Professor in the Department of Healthand Human Performance , Iowa State University ,Ames , IA , 50011 E-mail:Published online: 20 Apr 2012.

To cite this article: Jerry R. Thomas (2003) Preparing for Faculty Roles in Discovery,Learning, and Engagement, Quest, 55:1, 4-17, DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2003.10491784

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2003.10491784

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

18:

52 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

4 THOMAS

4

Preparing for Faculty Rolesin Discovery, Learning,

and Engagement

Jerry R. Thomas

As universities and colleges have changed, so has the role of faculty. Greateraccountability is expected for faculty time and effort. This paper considersfaculty roles by the institution preparing new faculty, the institution hiringnew faculty, and the new faculty member themselves. All institutions are seek-ing faculty who are triple threats: integrate discovery, learning, and engage-ment; increase and maintain knowledge and technology; and involve studentsin their professional lives. Institutions preparing new faculty must developmodels that stress not only quality research, but address the balance of facultyroles. Hiring institutions must select new faculty so that interest and balancematch institutional goals. New faculty must understand what they want fromacademic life and seek appropriate institutions.

Colleges and universities have changed substantially over the past 60 years,and this change continues to accelerate. For example, the idea of “research univer-sities” has evolved since World War II. The Carnegie Foundation’s classificationof colleges and universities into research, regional, liberal arts, and communitycolleges has recently been revised (see below; Thomas, 2001).

Doctoral/Research Universities (Extensive)• Confer at least 50 doctorates per year in 15 or more disciplines—3.8% of all

institutions

Doctoral/Research Universities (Intensive)• Confer at least 10 doctorates per year in 3 or more disciplines—2.9%

Master’s Colleges and Universities (Comprehensive I)• Range of programs through the master’s, with at least 40 master’s degrees

annually—12.7%

Master’s Colleges and Universities (Comprehensive II)• Range of programs through the master’s, with at least 20 master’s degrees

annually—3.3%

QUEST, 2003, 55, 4-17© 2003 National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education

The author is Chair and Professor in the Department of Health and Human Perfor-mance at Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011. E-mail: jrthomas@iastate.edu.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

18:

52 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

PREPARING FOR FACULTY ROLES 5

Baccalaureate Colleges (Liberal Arts)• Undergraduate colleges with at least 50 percent of their degrees in liberal

arts—5.5%

Baccalaureate Colleges (General)• Undergraduate colleges with fewer than 50 percent of their degrees in lib-

eral arts—8.0%

Baccalaureate/Associate’s Colleges• Undergraduate colleges with a majority of their degrees below the baccalau-

reate level—1.3%

Associate’s Colleges• Offer degrees and certificate programs, but no baccalaureate degrees—42.5%

Specialized Institutions• Offer degrees from bachelor’s to doctoral, with at least half in a single area

(e.g., medical schools, seminaries, law schools, business and professionalschools)—19.2%

Tribal Colleges• Tribally controlled and located on reservations—0.7%

These changes in and classifications of colleges and universities have beenbrought about by a number of factors. External factors include groups that rankcolleges and universities on external funding, number of National Merit Scholars,fundraising, and undergraduate and graduate enrollment. Universities and collegesare evaluated by general (e.g., North Central) and specific (National Council forthe Accreditation of Teacher Education) groups for accreditation. In addition, col-leges and universities compete for state and federal funds with entitlement pro-grams such as health care, public schools, prisons, and roads.

Attitudes of the public toward higher education have also undergone signifi-cant change (G.S. Krahenbuhl, personal communication, June, 2001). Prior to the1970s, people viewed higher education as serving the public good. There was littlescrutiny and strong support. This view eroded as people began to view highereducation as a personal benefit rather than a public good. Christina (2000) hassuggested that the public has the perception that colleges and universities havebecome less responsive to the needs of society. Thus, higher education increas-ingly has come to rely more on tuition rather than legislative appropriations, al-though this varies among states. This influenced faculty life in the form of ac-countability and increased attention from governing boards (Krahenbuhl, 1998).As a result, calls came for more teaching and attention to undergraduate education,particularly at research universities. Total quality management and the recent ad-vent of post-tenure review have grown from the calls for accountability of faculty.In fact, “it is crunch time for higher education—an age of revenue diets, legislatorsbent on micromanagement, regulators demanding greater institutional account-ability, and consumers insisting on more service at lower prices” (Double Agent,1996, p. 1). The only remaining issue is who will control the change, the collegesand universities or some external group.

The study of physical activity has also undergone substantial changes inhigher education. Conant’s (1963) opinion on the poor state of physical educationas graduate study in the U.S. was an embarrassment to the field. Henry’s (1964)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

18:

52 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

6 THOMAS

paper that outlined a “discipline” of physical education modeled after other sci-ences resulted in a substantial change in our field. We see the outcome of thismodel today. We have established kinesiology as the study of physical activitywith its connected subdisciplines. The value of our field is recognized by fundingfrom the National Institutes of Health, recommendations for increased physicalactivity by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Health People, 2010)and the U.S.D.A. (Team Nutrition), daily physical education for children (U.S.Pediatric Society), and many other groups. Regular physical activity is the bestand cheapest health promotion tool available. We are players in the critical aspectsof health-related research. Many of you have lived through this process; did youever imagine in the 1960s that we would be where we are?

In the remainder of this paper, I will share my views on how the changes inhigher education and our field are shaping new and interesting faculty roles. I willdo this by describing six topics:

• What are faculty roles and how do they vary?• What kinds of faculty are institutions in higher education seeking?• What role should the doctoral program play in preparing these faculty?• How should institutions go about selecting and mentoring the “right” faculty?• How should new faculty go about selecting the “right” institution?• How should institutions reward faculty to shape programs?

Faculty Roles

As higher education has changed, so have the roles faculty play (Krahenbuhl,1998). In the past, one of the attractive features of being a faculty member wasfreedom to pursue professional interests. No one paid much attention to how fac-ulty used their discretionary time, particularly if the faculty member did a reason-able job of teaching and published some. “Departments have been portrayed asclans of arrogant experts, accountable first to their own agendas, second to theirdiscipline, and third—largely as an afterthought—to the institutions that housethem (Double Agent, 1996, p. 2). Now there is more interest in what the facultymember does. Faculty are being asked to answer questions such as the following:

1. How much do you teach and how good is your teaching?2. Do you have an ongoing research program and do you involve your students

(undergraduate and graduate) in it?3. How often and in what journals or presses do you publish?4. How much in external resources (e.g., grants and contracts) do you bring to

the university?5. How effective are you at crossing disciplinary lines and working with fac-

ulty from other disciplines?6. How good an academic and professional citizen are you?7. Are you engaged with the community to provide your expertise?

Figure 1 provides a view of current faculty life that is seen in many collegesand universities. The balance in these responsibilities varies by type of institutionand also at different points in a faculty member’s career. For example, a majorresearch university is likely to ask faculty to place a greater percent of their timeand effort in discovery (and areas that interact with discovery) where a regional

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

18:

52 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

PREPARING FOR FACULTY ROLES 7

university is likely to expect some time and effort in discovery but a substantiallygreater percent in student learning and teaching. Generally, all faculty are expectedto have some balance in their professional lives among the areas and their interac-tions. In addition, faculty may change their roles, and thus the balance amongareas, over their careers. For example, faculty that are increasingly successful inattracting external funding for research may be encouraged to place more time andeffort there. A faculty member who grows into an outstanding teacher may devotemore time and effort to teaching. Faculty may also move into areas like facultygovernance and administration changing their balance of activities. What is be-coming increasingly common is that universities/colleges are developing agree-ments with faculty on how their time and effort are to be spent. These are oftenlabeled “Position Responsibility Agreements” (Thomas & Martin, 2001) and areused for two purposes: (a) to align faculty goals with university/departmental mis-sions and objectives, and (b) to serve as criteria for evaluating faculty performanceand assigning rewards.

What Types of Faculty Are Institutions Seeking

In the “world of work,” outside universities employers are often looking forwhat they label as SWANs: Smart, Hard Working, Adaptable, and Nice (G.S.Krahenbuhl, personal communication, July, 2001). They want people who not onlyhave knowledge and technical skills but a “social quotient” defined as workingwell with others. An example of the social quotient idea for faculty is the emphasison engagement with the community as an important part of faculty life (Christina,2000; Kellogg Commission, 1999). Another is that Federal agencies such as NIH

Figure 1 — Model for balance in faculty activity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

18:

52 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

8 THOMAS

and NSF are putting more money in large, interdisciplinary, collaborative projects.While we are often looking for doctoral students who are smart and work hard,how often do we try to evaluate if they are adaptable and work effectively withothers? If we hope to prepare faculty for successful careers in higher education, wecan expect that they will need to work in groups to solve problems in discovery,learning, and engagement that we have not yet faced. I would argue that in highereducation today, faculty who will be successful in discovery, promote learning,and are engaged with the community over long periods of time will increasinglyneed ALL of the characteristics of SWANs. Krahenbuhl (personal communica-tion, July, 2001) says that over his many years as a major university Dean and nowSenior Vice President, the most valuable faculty are the “difference makers;” hecalls them “catalysts for good” and they have the following common characteristics:

1. Respected academics2. More interdisciplinary3. Good at converting ideas into actions4. Patient but persistent5. Optimistic6. Flexible and accommodating—adaptable7. Care about progress, not who gets the credit8. Successful in larger arenas (e.g., professional groups, granting agencies)9. See change as opportunity

10. Think strategically, not selfishly11. Well rounded12. Good with external groups13. Lift others around them to greater productivity14. Think and are concerned about the “greater good”

Those of us preparing future faculty are interested in whether these are simply charac-teristics some people have or can they be instilled through professional preparation.

Higher education is also seeking diversity in faculty. Here I mean diversityin the broadest sense of the term. In addition to the traditional notion that diversitymeans “faculty of color,” I include the need for international faculty and theircultures to promote “one world” views. Diversity of ideas and thoughts is whathigher education is about. As we recruit doctoral students, we should be aware ofthis issue. The fact that we have difficulty attracting faculty of color to our institu-tions is a direct result of our failure to attract students of color to our doctoralprograms. I believe our over emphasis on quantitative values to select doctoralstudents is a direct influence in this problem. We admit students to programs basedon a quantitative notion of smart and fail to look carefully at the other characteris-tics implied by SWAN—hard working, adaptable, and nice. Of course, it is mucheasier to rely on a GPA and GRE test score than to evaluate the other SWANcharacteristics and the notion of social quotient. If we ever hope to achieve a di-verse faculty in higher education that represents the world’s cultures, we mustbegin by achieving a diverse group of doctoral students.

Another way of thinking about faculty roles and rewards is to consider char-acteristics of current faculty. One way to do this is depicted in Figure 2. This 2 �2 matrix conceives of faculty who affiliate with the field (e.g., kinesiology) andthose who affiliate with the organization (college or university). Faculty who are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

18:

52 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

PREPARING FOR FACULTY ROLES 9

high on both affiliation with the field and organization are called “stars.” They aregood at all aspects of academic life and are loyal to their institutions. Those highon affiliation to the field but low on institutional affiliation are labeled as a “lonewolf.” They tend to be good scholars but have little loyalty to their department andinstitution. Faculty high on organizational affiliation but low on field affiliationtend to work hard for the institution but are often average as scholars and teachers.Finally, the “apathetic employee” is neither a good scholar/teacher nor do theycontribute to the department or institution. As we prepare future faculty, we shouldtry to select and prepare people to be stars. Stars are equivalent to Krahenbuhl’sidentification of “difference makers,” those who are forces for good in the depart-ment and institution. Potential faculty members who will achieve success are thosethat are triple threats:

• Integrate discovery, learning, and engagement• Increase and maintain knowledge and technological aspects of their work• Involve their students in all aspects of their professional lives

Role of Doctoral Programs in Preparing Future Faculty

While I have already touched on a number of issues in preparing future faculty,it is important to clearly communicate what I believe should be the responsibilities

Figure 2 — 2 � 2 Matrix of faculty characteristics.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

18:

52 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

10 THOMAS

of doctoral programs. First and foremost is the need to prepare well-rounded andwell-balanced faculty (Thomas, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2002a). I hope to dissuade youfrom an attitude once expressed to me by the chair of a PhD granting department:“We prepare good researchers, they can learn everything else on their own.” In myview, a good mentor prepares doctoral students for a balanced and complete fac-ulty life. There are two points here. One, when doctoral students become faculty,their responsibilities will be similar to those described earlier and those that weachieve daily. This involves developing an ongoing program of research that ofteninvolves other faculty and certainly students; promoting learning in classes and indaily contact with students (for example, read Grunert, 1997 and Seldin, 1997);and being good citizens as we engage ourselves in our various communities—university, professional, and local (for example, read Christina, 2000). The secondis that all of our doctoral students will not choose (or be able) to obtain positions inthe types of universities that prepared them. If they did, where would other typesof institutions obtain faculty? Just as it is important to recognize that potentialfaculty need preparation for a balanced life of faculty work, it is important to ac-knowledge that only a minority of our doctoral graduates will work at researchuniversities. As I look back over the 11 PhDs that I have mentored, only 5 are atmajor research universities. If you are honest with yourself, I expect you will findthe same when you evaluate the placements of your doctoral students. Did I do agood job of preparing the 6 for faculty life at regional and comprehensive collegesand universities where they are located? I suspect not, although I think I improvedafter the late 1980s.

As a second point, having talked about the need for balance in preparation, Idon’t think the integrity of doctoral preparation can be compromised. The PhD isa research degree, and as mentors, we are obligated to prepare scholars with goodresearch ideas and skills. The important questions revolve around the best way toachieve that end. Some believe a very narrow and in-depth focus is the way. I don’targue with the need to develop technical skills and in-depth knowledge about oneor more aspects of physical activity. However, I do argue that very narrow prepa-ration can and does produce “paradigm bound” scholars who cannot think beyondthe way they were prepared and the technology they have learned. Since most ofus in the Academy are mature (note I didn’t use the word “old”), how many changesin theoretical frameworks and technology have we experienced and observed? Wehave learned the new frameworks and technical skills needed to advance our re-search. For goodness sakes, I’m using the 3rd derivative of displacement (jerk) as adependent measure in my research on rapid aiming movements. Fifteen years ago,I was not even using high-speed video, and I thought jerk was some person whobehaved badly toward others. The only constant about theories and technology isthat they will change. We must prepare our students to be adaptable to that change.

Faculty preparing doctoral students must maintain some level of response tothe available job market (Atwell, 1996). Another paper herein analyzes the jobmarket in our field. While preparation cannot be absolutely driven by the currentjobs available, it cannot be ignored. People change jobs and responsibilities mul-tiple times over their career. One point should be obvious by logic and inspection:If we are preparing doctoral students to be like ourselves, we are making an error.There are not enough jobs like ours, and that assumes anyone wants to hire a newfaculty member like us. As I view the situation, nearly everyone wants to hire a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

18:

52 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

PREPARING FOR FACULTY ROLES 11

new faculty member who is the “triple threat” I described earlier. As an example,ideas of faculty within a doctoral program about preparing good teachers and whatthe employing institution wants are not necessarily a good match. I don’t recallmany advertisements for a new faculty member to teach only immune system func-tion and exercise or fine eye-motor control in children. In fact, many ads seek afaculty member who can teach beyond their identified area—exercise physiologyand biomechanics, motor behavior, and pedagogy. We would be wise to considerthese needs as we prepare and provide teaching opportunities for doctoral students.

Finally, we would do well to be faculty who are engaged with our communi-ties (e.g., service learning) and bring our doctoral students into this engagement.The ideas about doctoral preparation expressed here have been previously addressedby two national groups that have called for a more broadly based preparation offaculty—the Preparing Future Faculty program, funded as a joint program to theAssociation of American Colleges and Universities and the Council of GraduateSchools by Pew Charitable Trusts and the National Science Foundation (1995) ina summary report for mathematics and the physical sciences.

Selecting the “Right” Faculty

Departments typically have more than 90% of their academic budgets in-vested in faculty. Thus, selecting and mentoring faculty is a very important job forthe academic unit and chair (Thomas, 1997). Obtaining the “right” faculty mem-ber begins with deciding what is important in your department and what role thisfaculty member will play. Said another way, spend a lot of time defining yourposition so you can attract the correct group of applicants. Select a search commit-tee that will pay attention to the job and follow up on all aspects of reviews andinterviews. Make sure you get a good pool of applicants—advertise but don’t stopthere. Call colleagues and contact faculty who are known to prepare the type ofindividual you are seeking. Particular attention needs to be paid to obtaining appli-cations from candidates of color. Invite good candidates to apply when you haveidentified them. A flattering letter or phone call is quite successful in obtainingapplications. Careful telephone checks with references and others you know aswell as thorough interviews are essential. During interviews, it is particularly im-portant to see and hear candidates present their research and teach a class. Ques-tion them carefully about their interest in engagement with university duties, theprofession, and the community. The pace of change in colleges and universitieshas accelerated and will probably continue to do so. Potentially, you are hiring for30 to 35 years. Select faculty members who seem to be adaptable and whose train-ing has emphasized that university life will not be static in the future. “For facultyhires, no decision at all is better than a bad decision” (Thomas, 1997, p. 44).

Once a new faculty member is hired, make the department and institutionalexpectations clear. An important step is to develop a Position Responsibility Agree-ment about what is expected and how to meet those expectations (Thomas & Mar-tin, 2001). Second, providing mentoring for new faculty is essential. Mentoringfrom a more senior person is important in all aspects of faculty life—discovery,teaching/learning, and engagement. The mentor for the new faculty member takesover where the doctoral advisor left off. When a faculty member fails at promotionand tenure time, it is probably a reflection of failure by the department as well as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

18:

52 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

12 THOMAS

by the faculty member. Often this reflects a department’s failure to conduct a care-ful search, set clear objectives, provide mentoring, and provide social support.When a junior faculty member fails at promotion and tenure, everyone fails. Notonly is the faculty member hurt and bitter, the university has lost a huge invest-ment of time, effort, and money.

Making the “Right” Decisionby a New Faculty Member

During the graduate program of study, students should consider the type ofinstitution at which they want to work (review categories of institutions herein)and on matching their skills with opportunities. While many (maybe most) doc-toral programs think they are preparing faculty for research institutions, a reason-able analysis shows that in fact they are not. Since there are only about 150 “re-search extensive” universities (3.8%), that limits jobs similar to those of the graduatestudent’s mentor to a small percent of the available jobs. About 30% of all institu-tions are master’s comprehensive and baccalaureate colleges (N ~ 1150). Over40% of institutions of higher education are community colleges (N~ 1600). Also,departments of kinesiology and/or physical education are more likely to be repre-sented at comprehensive, baccalaureate, and community colleges than in the re-search university (e.g., there are about 60 PhD programs in the 150 research exten-sive universities). Based on this data, a large percentage of the positions availablewhere doctoral faculty are being recruited will be at comprehensive, baccalaure-ate, and community colleges. I anticipate that data presented in another paper hereinwill confirm my estimates.

Another factor for the doctoral student (and the doctoral program) to con-sider is a point I made previously. Since most of the jobs are not at research insti-tutions, the positions will be advertising for a more broadly prepared new facultymember than a research university might, especially with regard to teaching compe-tence and interest in engagement with the academic, professional, and local community.

Candidates for faculty positions should target the types of jobs they wantand apply for those (Thomas, 2002b). Applying for all positions may land a job,but not the one for which the candidate is well suited. Doctoral students need tocarefully construct a letter of application tailored for each position to which theyapply. In addition, the vita should be thorough, reflect all achievements and expe-riences, and be organized in an effective way. Many doctoral programs will pro-vide seminars that will help doctoral students as they apply for positions, includ-ing preparing vitas, writing letters of application, practice at interviews, etc. (e.g.,Brems, Lampman, & Johnson, 1995). Doctoral advisors should also provide sup-port and advice in the job application and interview process. A good way to see theinside of this process is to ask to be the graduate student representative on a facultysearch committee in the department while in the doctoral program. It takes a gooddeal of work but provides considerable insight about the process and what is important.

When interviewing for jobs, be well prepared; know who your audience is(Thomas, 2002b). Go to the college or university home page and learn about it.Look at the department’s home page and learn about the faculty, what they do, andother information about the department. Be well prepared when presenting yourresearch. If you are teaching, call the person responsible for the class and find outwhat she/he would like for you to do. Finally, conduct yourself as a professional.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

18:

52 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

PREPARING FOR FACULTY ROLES 13

When an institution becomes interested in you for a position, negotiate tact-fully but skillfully (Thomas, 2002b). Don’t make snap agreements but be promptin your responses. Ask advice from your advisor and other faculty about the joband what is being offered. This is the point where you must negotiate for resourcesthat you need to be successful in both teaching and research. While you don’t wantto be overly demanding, taking a position without the needed resources is a badstart toward successful promotion and tenure. Be certain you are clear on what youneed to do to achieve promotion and tenure and how the promotion and tenureprocess works (read Diamond, 1994).

Once a new faculty member is hired, the work has just begun (Thomas,2002a). A real advantage is to find a faculty member to serve as a mentor. Someinstitutions have established programs administered by the Office of the Provostto provide a mentoring match for new faculty. If your institution does, take advan-tage of it; if not, ask your department chair to suggest a mentor. Of course toachieve success in any position requires hard work, but it is also important thatstudents, faculty, and the chair know you are working hard, thus the advice to bevisible in your department and professionally. But hard work can fail without aclear plan. Below (Thomas, 2002a) are listed 10 tips that present sound advice fornew faculty members. New faculty often fail to understand the importance of keep-ing careful and thorough records of their work—all of us keep information onpublications, but often good documentation of teaching and learning (e.g., Seldin,1997) as well as engagement (e.g., Christina, 2000) are not kept and become diffi-cult to reconstruct at later dates. The following tips will maximize a new facultymember’s chances for success:

1. Write an entry/promotion plan.2. Build strong working relationships.3. Establish your credibility.4. Build your research agenda.5. Protect your scholarship interests.6. Develop your teaching portfolio.7. Keep balance in your professional life.8. Work with your mentor.9. Find reflective time.

10. Schedule balance in your life.

Rewarding Faculty to ShapePrograms and Institutions

Defining rewards is an important part of this section. While one reward ismoney, I doubt faculty behavior and programs can be shaped using the amount offunds typically available for raises. However, there are many rewards that influ-ence faculty:

• Teaching—both load and the classes selected• Research time• Resources to support research• Graduate assistants• Committee responsibilities

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

18:

52 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

14 THOMAS

• Travel opportunities• Positive reinforcement from students, peers, chairs, and deans• Professional opportunities• Supportive environment in the department• Support and encouragement for interdisciplinary connections

In fact, as a result of Boyer’s (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered, major changeshave occurred concerning the evaluation of faculty (e.g., Glassick, Huber, &Maeroff, 1997; Krahenbuhl, 1998). Numerous ways of evaluating faculty and pro-viding rewards have been developed (for an example from kinesiology and physi-cal education, see Thomas & Martin, 2001).

An important issue in all evaluation is to be certain to reward (in the broad-est use of the term) that which you hope to reinforce or change. A classic paper inthe area of management is titled “On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B”(Kerr, 1995). In Table 1, I have listed some of the things departments and univer-sities hope for on one side but the behaviors they typically reward on the other. Ifjunior and senior faculty seem unclear about what they should do, it is not surpris-ing. To whom among the following should they listen?

• Papers like this that suggest changes are occurring and balance is important• A particular faculty member who may argue that research is more important

than teaching or that successful teaching is all that matters• Department chairs who have some control over rewards but may or may not

be chair when the faculty member is to be promoted and tenured• Senior faculty who have the vote on promotion and tenure• Promotion and tenure documents developed by the faculty governing body

and approved by the college or university

The “bottom line” for issues like this is that the university community mustdevelop agreement about what faculty should do and systems to evaluate how wellthey do it. This of course will vary by type of institution. The faculty governingbody must develop a document that has the support of the faculty and administra-tion. Then deans and department chairs should maximize use of their faculty withPosition Responsibility Agreements developed in concert with each faculty mem-

Table 1 What Universities Hope Versus What They Reward

We hope for … But we reward …

Good teaching Research publicationsQuality research Rate of publicationStudent learning Good gradesUniversity loyalty New faculty hiresInnovation Established approachesTeamwork Individual accomplishmentInterdisciplinary work Departmental achievement

________________________________________________________________________

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

18:

52 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

PREPARING FOR FACULTY ROLES 15

ber to promote the best interests of the faculty member, department, and university(Figure 3). The evaluation for all rewards must be based around successful accom-plishment of the duties described in the Position Responsibility Agreements (seeThomas & Martin, 2001, for examples). All of these processes must be ongoingand cannot change substantially just because a new dean or department chair isselected.

Another way to think about rewards is to consider performance at the de-partmental rather than the faculty level. For example, deans may choose to look atthe productivity level and response to college and university goals for a totaldepartment rather than its individual faculty members. At Arizona State Univer-sity, Krahenbuhl (personal communication, July, 2001), Dean of the College ofLiberal Arts and Sciences, developed a departmental “report card” that gradeddepartments on characteristics such as these:

Figure 3 — Aligning faculty, departmental, college, and university goals.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

18:

52 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

16 THOMAS

• Contributing to the college and university mission and goals• Responding flexibly to the changing environment• Using resources wisely• Counseling students successfully toward their degrees• Producing external resources

Departments received additional resources depending on their grade. How the in-ternal resources of the department were managed to obtain this “grade” was up tothe faculty and chair.

Summary

Integrating how future faculty members are prepared with the changing rolesof higher education faculty is an exceptionally difficult task. If success is to beachieved, consideration must be given to the roles faculty will play in the immedi-ate and longer-term future. In particular, doctoral granting institutions have to aidpotential faculty in understanding the balance in activities they will have at vary-ing types of institutions. At the same time, all institutions of higher education mustmore clearly align their goals and objectives with the goals and objectives of aca-demic departments and their faculty. Being faculty at colleges and universities is aservice to society, really of “doing good” for society. Universities should be aboutmaking the world a better place through the education of students, development ofknowledge, and engagement with our society.

References

Atwell, R.H. (1996). Doctoral education must match the nation’s needs and the realities ofthe marketplace. Chronicle of Higher Education, 43(14), B4-B5.

Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. Princeton, NJ:Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Brems, C., Lampman, C., & Johnson, M.E. (1995). Preparation of applications for aca-demic positions in psychology. American Psychologist, 50, 533-537.

Christina, R.W. (2000). Advancing engagement in kinesiology and physical education (20th

Dudley Sargent Lecture). Quest, 52, 315-329.Conant, J.B. (1963). The education of American teachers. New York: McGraw-Hill.Diamond, R.M. (1994). Serving on promotion and tenure committees: A faculty guide. Bolton,

MA: Anker.Double Agent. (1996). Policy Perspectives, 6(3), 1-12 (The Pew Education Roundtable).Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T., & Maeroff, G.I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of

the professorate. San Franciso: Josey-Bass.Grunert, J. (1997). The course syllabus. Bolton, MA: Anker.Henry, F.M. (1964). Physical education: An academic discipline. Journal of Health, Physi-

cal Education, and Recreation, 37(1), 32-33.Kellog Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities (1999). Returning

to our roots: The engaged institution (Third Report). Washington, DC: NASULGC.Kerr, S. (1995). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management

Executive, 9, 7-16. (Original work published 1975)Krahenbuhl, G.S. (1998). Faculty work: Integrating responsibilities and institutional needs.

Change (Nov./Dec.), 18-25.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

18:

52 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

PREPARING FOR FACULTY ROLES 17

National Science Foundation (1995, June 5-6). Summary report: Graduate education andpostdoctoral training in the mathematical and physical sciences. Washington, DC:Author.

Seldin, P. (1997). The teaching portfolio (2nd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker.Thomas, J.R. (2001). Surviving in higher education: Knowledge and action are the keys. In

J.E. Bryant & B.A. Passmore (Eds.), Administrative leadership in health, kinesiol-ogy, and leisure studies (pp. 31-41). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Thomas, J.R. (1991). Who is preparing Ph.D.s and for whom? NAPEHE: The Chronicle ofPhysical Education in Higher Education, 3(1), 5, 11.

Thomas, J.R. (1995). Initiation and passage rites for the academic tribe of esicrexe ecneics(subspecies ygoloisenik). Research Consortium Newsletter, 13(1), 3 [reprinted inNAPEHE: The Chronicle of Physical Education in Higher Education, 11(3), 1, 8-9,2000)].

Thomas, J.R. (1997). Vision and leadership for selecting and mentoring new faculty inhigher education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 68(5), 41-46.

Thomas, J.R. (1999). Is there overspecialization of doctoral programs in physical activity.NAPEHE: The Chronicle of Physical Education in Higher Education, 10(3), 3, 14-15.

Thomas, J.R., & Martin, P.E. (2001). So how are annual evaluations and raises done at yourinstitution? NAPEHE: The Chronicle of Physical Education in Higher Education,12(3), 1, 16-19.

Thomas, J.R. (2002a). Advice for new faculty. The Chronicle of Physical Education inHigher Education, 13(1), 1 & 16.

Thomas, J.R. (2002b). Interviewing for a faculty position. The Chronicle of Physical Edu-cation in Higher Education, 13(2), 1 & 14-16.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

iteit

Tw

ente

] at

18:

52 2

9 N

ovem

ber

2014