Workload Issues and Measures of Faculty Productivity
14
However, the 1990s saw a surge of interest in this version of faculty produc- tivity as part of an increasing state emphasis on performance accountability in public higher education. 3 Legislators were particularly concerned with number of contact hours and number of students taught, which could be conceived of as fac- ulty workload. 4 According to Hines and Higham, 23 states in the mid-1990s had mandated faculty workload studies. 5 Also, by 1994, at least 14 states had legisla- tive mandates to standardize how faculty productivity was measured in the state. 6 This interest in faculty workload and productivity continues today as some legis- lators tout having faculty teach more courses as a partial solution to raising college A ccording to Duderstadt, “a new p-word has replaced parking as the dominant faculty concern on campus- es these days: productivity. From state capitals to Washington, from corporate executive suites to newspaper editorial offices, there is a strong belief that if only faculty would work harder, by spending more hours in the classroom, the quality of a college education would rise while its costs would decline.” 1 Duderstadt’s observation illustrates a common perception of fac- ulty productivity: number of hours in the classroom. Conceived in this way, faculty productivity at the university level has been of interest throughout much of the 20th century. 2 Workload Issues and Measures of Faculty Productivity by Barbara K. Townsend and Vicki J. Rosser Barbara K. Townsend is professor of higher education in the College of Education at the University of Missouri-Columbia and director of the Center for Community College Research. Her current research interests include access to and attainment of the baccalaureate, including through transfer and the community college baccalaureate. Vicki J. Rosser is associate professor of higher education in the College of Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and co-director of the University Council for Educational Administration Center for Academic Leadership. Her research interests include faculty members and midlevel administrative worklife issues, and leadership and academic governance. THOUGHT & ACTION FALL 2007 7
Workload Issues and Measures of Faculty Productivity
Layout 1However, the 1990s saw a surge of interest in this version
of faculty produc- tivity as part of an increasing state emphasis
on performance accountability in public higher education.3
Legislators were particularly concerned with number of contact
hours and number of students taught, which could be conceived of as
fac- ulty workload.4 According to Hines and Higham, 23 states in
the mid-1990s had mandated faculty workload studies.5 Also, by
1994, at least 14 states had legisla- tive mandates to standardize
how faculty productivity was measured in the state.6
This interest in faculty workload and productivity continues today
as some legis- lators tout having faculty teach more courses as a
partial solution to raising college
According to Duderstadt, “a new p-word has replaced parking as the
dominant faculty concern on campus- es these days: productivity.
From state capitals to
Washington, from corporate executive suites to newspaper editorial
offices, there is a strong belief that if only faculty would work
harder, by spending more hours in the classroom, the quality of a
college education would rise while its costs would decline.”1
Duderstadt’s observation illustrates a common perception of fac-
ulty productivity: number of hours in the classroom. Conceived in
this way, faculty productivity at the university level has been of
interest throughout much of the 20th century.2
Workload Issues and Measures of Faculty
Productivity by Barbara K. Townsend and Vicki J. Rosser
Barbara K. Townsend is professor of higher education in the College
of Education at the University of Missouri-Columbia and director of
the Center for Community College Research. Her current research
interests include access to and attainment of the baccalaureate,
including through transfer and the community college
baccalaureate.
Vicki J. Rosser is associate professor of higher education in the
College of Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and
co-director of the University Council for Educational
Administration Center for Academic Leadership. Her research
interests include faculty members and midlevel administrative
worklife issues, and leadership and academic governance.
THOUGHT & ACTIONFALL 2007 7
THE NEA HIGHER EDUCATION JOURNAL8
costs. This legislative interest has resulted in institutional
efforts to measure instruc-
tional productivity so as to meet accountability requirements, at
least in public institutions. During the 1990s, three major higher
education associations (National Association of State Universities
and Land Grant Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges
and Universities, and the American Association of Community
Colleges) formed the Joint Commission on Accountability Reporting (
JCAR). The group was designed to develop a coordi- nated response
to demands for information on productivity and
accountability.7
JCAR developed measures of faculty activity but noted the
limitations of its efforts: Namely, the measures provided
descriptive information but could not serve institutions as “a
management tool.”8 To meet the need for more comprehensive
information, JCAR acknowledged the usefulness of what is generally
called the Delaware Study or more formally, the National Study of
Instructional Costs and Productivity.
Within institutions, faculty productivity is also an issue for
faculty, particular- ly those on the tenure-track and those at
institutions where faculty are expected to conduct research. There
is currently “a higher bar to winning tenure” than in the 1970s and
earlier.9 The higher bar is motivated by internal or institutional
demands as well as by external or legislative ones. The elimination
of age-based mandatory retirement, due to federal law in the 1980s,
has contributed to institu- tional concerns about being
“overtenured,” so standards for awarding tenure have been raised.10
Also, many faculty members, particularly at research universities,
are currently pressured not only to publish more but also to
generate grant funding to help pay their salary. While the general
public and state legislators may not view grant funding and
scholarship as important because they do not increase the num- ber
of students and courses taught, these performance expectations are
ones some faculty must meet to be successful or considered
productive within their institu- tion. This tension between
institutional views of faculty productivity and those of the
general public and legislators illustrates the importance of
clarifying what is meant by faculty productivity and determining
how to measure it.11
There is a lack of agreement about what faculty productivity means.
Defining it as number of classes or courses taught, number of
credit hours generated,
and number of students taught is really defining teaching workload,
which some
The elimination of age-based mandatory retirement, due to federal
law in the 1980s, has contributed to institutional concerns about
being ‘overtenured.’
T&AFall07-d-rosser 10/31/07 12:49 PM Page 8
THOUGHT & ACTIONFALL 2007 9
WORKLOAD ISSUES AND MEASURES OF FACULTY PRODUCTIVITY
equate with faculty productivity, especially in the public two-year
college or com- munity college sector.12 Teaching workload is also
considered by some to be instructional productivity as opposed to
noninstructional productivity.13 Scholars seeking to examine the
productivity of four-year college and university faculty typ-
ically focus on noninstructional productivity and more specifically
on research pro- ductivity. When examined, research or scholarly
productivity is typically measured by counting the number and type
of publications over a specific time period.14 The logic for this
approach is that publication is usually “an indicator” of
research.15
Similar logic would seem to underlie other measures of research
productivity,
which include “peer recognition, citation indices/score, curriculum
vitae, [and] weighted indices/summaries,”16 grant awards,17 and
“fewer coauthors and higher authorship position”18 in
publications.
Whether examining what is labeled as research or teaching
productivity, those who count time spent in work activities and
products generated through these activities, (e. g., credit hours
generated, articles published) are not truly measuring
productivity—at least according to some scholars. Meyer argues that
workload and productivity are not the same. Rather, “workload
traditionally captures how time is spent, while productivity is a
measure of what is produced with that time.”19
Typically, faculty workload is calculated by three measures: (1)
the total number of hours each week that faculty work to meet their
job responsibilities, (2) the week- ly number of hours spent in
instructional activities, and (3) the weekly number of hours spent
on scholarly activities.20
When productivity is defined as what is produced during the time
faculty spend on their work, the concept includes such things as
credit hours generated or
articles published.21 But Middaugh, one of the key figures in the
development of the Delaware Study, is adamant that emphasizing
outcomes like scholarly publications and presentations and
emphasizing number of hours worked, particularly in the classroom,
reflect misguided views of faculty productivity.22 He maintains
that the institutional or academic emphasis on number of published
articles in a given time period has little meaning for the general
public and legislators, who do not under- stand the nature of peer
review and the meaning to academicians of a faculty mem- ber’s
number of publications. To him, faculty productivity is more
appropriately defined in terms of outcomes such as pass rates in
certification exams and job place- ment of graduates. However, he
concedes that understanding what faculty do, that
Faculty productivity is more appropriately defined in terms of
outcomes such as pass rates in certification
exams and job placement of graduates.
T&AFall07-d-rosser 10/31/07 12:49 PM Page 9
is, how they spend their time, is “the first step in defining
faculty productivity.”23
Following Middaugh’s24 logic that the first step in examining
faculty produc- tivity is to understand how faculty members spend
their time, we sought to exam- ine on a national level the extent
(number of hours worked per week) and the nature (instructional and
research activities undertaken during these hours) of full- time
faculty’s workload over an extended time period.
The specific research questions we asked are as follows: 1. What
was the extent and nature of the faculty workload in 1993 and
2004? 2. Did faculty workload change in extent and/or nature from
1993 to 2004? 3. Were there differences in faculty workload by
institutional type in 1993
and 2004? We anticipated that faculty workload would have increased
between 1993 and
2004, perhaps in response to increased calls for greater
productivity. We also antic- ipated institutional differences in
both the number of hours worked and the out- put generated from
instructional and research activities because of differences in
institutional mission. Finally, we anticipated that research
activities were more likely to have increased than instructional
activities because research requirements for tenure and promotion
have escalated.
As a result of our study, described below, we learned that faculty
workload did indeed increase in the aggregate between 1993 and
2004. But there were
institutional differences in terms of the average work week and in
the extent and nature of instructional activities and scholarly
output. Some types of scholarly out- put increased in some
institutional types but decreased in others. Contrary to our
expectation, it appears that research output in certain forms
declined in two insti-
THE NEA HIGHER EDUCATION JOURNAL10
T&AFall07-d-rosser 10/31/07 12:49 PM Page 10
tutional types while instructional workload increased. Since 1988
the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) and the
National Science Foundation (NSF) have sponsored every five years a
national survey to measure various aspects of higher education
faculty members’ profes- sional and institutional worklife. This
survey is called the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty
(NSOPF). In this study we use the 1993 and 2004 NSOPF restricted
datasets. Both NSOPF databases (1993 and 2004) are nationally
repre- sentative samples of faculty members in higher education
institutions.
Because faculty roles are largely shaped by their employing
institution’s dom-
inant mission, we focused on faculty at five types of public higher
education insti- tutions: two-year colleges, liberal arts colleges,
comprehensive colleges and univer- sities, doctoral-granting
universities (labeled in NSOPF as “public other Ph.D.”), and
research universities. By doing so, we hoped to capture possible
differences in faculty’s teaching and research activities.
Additionally, we restricted the study to public institutions
because they are more subject to scrutiny by the general public and
control by state legislators than are private institutions.
Finally, we looked only at full-time instructional faculty.
For the purpose of this individual-level study, 18,563 full-time
faculty members from public institutions were selected as a subset
from two national samples:
11,421 faculty members from the 1993 NSOPF data set, and 7,142 from
the 2004 NSOPF data set (See Table 1 in Appendix for specifics of
the two subsets).25
To measure the extent of faculty workload, we used the NSOPF
variable “average total hours worked per week” (includes paid and
unpaid activities at insti- tution, and paid and unpaid activities
not at institution). To measure the nature of the activities in
their workload, we classified the activities into two categories:
teaching or instructional workload and research or scholarly
workload. We meas- ured instructional workload by the number of
courses or classes taught (including both credit and non-credit),
total classroom credit hours, and total number of stu- dents taught
in credit classes. We measured scholarly workload by output within
the last two years of articles in refereed journals; articles in
nonrefereed journals; presentations; books, textbooks, and reports;
and patents and computer software.
Descriptive statistics provide us an appropriate way to examine
faculty mem- bers’ workload within each surveyed year and by
institutional type. We also ran t- tests in the aggregate as well
as within each institutional type to examine the mean differences
between the 1993 and 2004 workload measures. While these
databas-
We restricted the study to public institutions because they are
more subject to scrutiny by the general public and
control by state legislators than are private institutions.
THOUGHT & ACTIONFALL 2007 11
WORKLOAD ISSUES AND MEASURES OF FACULTY PRODUCTIVITY
T&AFall07-d-rosser 10/31/07 12:49 PM Page 11
es are nationally representative, we present these statistical
differences with a note of caution; the respondents from the two
subsets are different individuals from 1993 to 2004.26 These two
subset years represent distinct snapshots in time rather than
showing longitudinal changes that are measured over time.
Limitations of the study include the nature of the data:
self-reports by faculty, some of whom may erroneously report the
number of classes taught, number of stu- dents taught, number of
publications, and so forth. Another major limitation was changes in
the questions asked in the two iterations of the NSOPF survey. Each
time the survey appears, some questions on the previous survey are
omitted and some new
ones are added. Thus the questions researchers can ask, when using
two or more sets of NSOPF data, are limited by the questions that
are common across the sets. As a result we could not look at the
weekly number of student contact hours, grants or fund- ed
research, or service activities (e.g., institutional committee
chaired and/or served on) because, unlike the 1993 survey, the 2004
survey did not ask about these activities.
As we anticipated, faculty workload, defined simply as the reported
weekly num- ber of hours worked by faculty, significantly increased
in the aggregate between
1993 and 2004: 50.61 hours in 1993 as compared to 52.12 in 2004
(p=.000). However, Table 2 illustrates the difference in work week
by institutional type.
When examining the nature of the workload in terms of instructional
activi- ties, one finds a significant increase between 1993 and
2004 in the total number of classes taught, both in the aggregate
and in each institutional type (see Table 3). However,
institutional-level examination of instructional and scholarly
outputs reveals that faculty at certain institutional types had
greater output (what some might label as productivity) in
instructional activities while others had greater out- put in
scholarly or research activities (see Tables 4 through 10). For
example, dur- ing both years (1993 and 2004) two-year college
faculty led in instructional work- load as measured by number of
classes taught, credit hours generated, and total number of
students taught in credit courses.
From 1993 to 2004 scholarly or research output increased
significantly in the aggregate for all faculty and also for faculty
in three institutional types for two cat- egories: number of
articles in refereed journals and in nonrefereed journals (see
Tables 6 and 7). As expected, there were significant differences by
institutional type, with two-year faculty having the least number
of articles in refereed and non- refereed journals. Scholarly
output in the form of presentations increased both in
Faculty workload, defined simply as the reported weekly number of
hours worked by faculty, significantly increased in the aggregate
between 1993 and 2004.
THE NEA HIGHER EDUCATION JOURNAL12
T&AFall07-d-rosser 10/31/07 12:49 PM Page 12
THOUGHT & ACTIONFALL 2007 13
WORKLOAD ISSUES AND MEASURES OF FACULTY PRODUCTIVITY
the aggregate and for faculty at each type of institution with one
exception: other Ph.D. institutions (see Table 8). Output in terms
of books, textbooks, and reports, and number of patents and
software in the last two years declined, both in the aggregate and
for all institutional types (see Tables 9 and 10).
In sum, the extent (reported number of hours worked weekly) of
faculty work- load increased from 1993 to 2004, both in the
aggregate and for faculty at public two-year schools and at public
comprehensive colleges and universities. However, the workweek
declined in 2004 for faculty at liberal arts colleges and other
Ph.D. and research universities. The nature of the workload changed
somewhat between
1993 and 2004, with faculty in all institutional types reporting a
greater number of classes taught. The total number of classroom
credit hours declined in the aggregate in 2004, and for faculty in
comprehensive institutions. Similarly, the number of total students
taught in credit classes declined (non-significant, p=.132) in the
aggregate in 2004, although it increased in liberal arts colleges,
other Ph.D. institutions, and research universities. The scholarly
aspects of faculty workload also appeared to change somewhat from
1993 to 2004. Output in the form of refereed articles and
nonrefereed articles was significantly up in the aggregate, as were
the number of pre- sentations. There were some variations by
institutional type with faculty at other Ph.D. institutions and at
research universities showing a decline in the number of juried
articles and faculty in comprehensive colleges and universities
showing a very slight decline in the number of presentations.
However, the number of books, text- books, and reports, as well as
the number of patents and software declined in the aggregate
(p=.000) and in all institutional types.
The significance of the findings varies by how they are
presented–in the aggre- gate for all faculty members or
disaggregated by faculty in specific institu-
tional types. Policy makers and the general public seeing the
increase from 1993 to 2004 in the self-reported number of hours
worked may perceive that faculty are working more hours and thus
are more productive. Those outside the academy may also assume that
working more hours means faculty are teaching more stu- dents
and/or more classes. But a closer look at the data indicates a
decline from 1993 to 2004 in the number of total classroom credit
hours taught and in the total number of students taught in credit
classes, important measures of faculty produc- tivity for a general
audience.
An audience of faculty and higher education administrators would
note the
The nature of the workload changed between 1993 and 2004, with
faculty in all institutional types
reporting a greater number of classes taught.
T&AFall07-d-rosser 10/31/07 12:49 PM Page 13
THE NEA HIGHER EDUCATION JOURNAL14
mixed findings on scholarly output during the time of the study,
both in the aggre- gate and by institutional type. In the aggregate
faculty appear to have increased their productivity, if defined as
generating more output of refereed articles, non- refereed
articles, and presentations from 1993 to 2004. But this finding
needs to be interpreted with caution. While scholarly output in the
form of articles has increased, this may not be evidence of more
faculty scholarly effort, but rather the result of “the increasing
number and diversity of publication outlets (particularly in an age
of online publishing).”27 Alternatively, this increase, as well as
the increas- ing number of presentations, may reflect the trend
toward multiple-authored
rather than single-authored work in certain disciplines.28 Of
particular interest to administrators in other Ph.D. and research
universities would be the decline in the number of refereed
articles within the last two years of the 2004 study. Given the
increasing emphasis on peer-reviewed articles to gain tenure and
promotion, including to the rank of full professor, it is unclear
why there would be this decline at these two institutional types,
the ones most likely to require peer-reviewed arti- cles for
promotion and tenure.
Both audiences—policy makers and the general public as well as
higher educa- tion faculty and administrators—would see from this
study the differences in
faculty workload (both extent and nature) by institutional type.
Those who under- stand differences in institutional missions with
consequent differences in expecta- tions for faculty would
understand the differences found in the NSOPF studies. The
community college emphasizes teaching, so its faculty members teach
more classes than do faculty at the four-year institutions in the
study. Liberal arts col- leges and comprehensive colleges and
universities have more of a teaching mission than do institutions
classified as other Ph.D. and research institutions, so faculty in
liberal arts colleges and comprehensive institutions teach more
classes than do faculty at other Ph.D. or research institutions.
Since four-year college and univer- sity faculty members are
typically expected to generate some scholarly output, they do so on
the average more than do community college faculty, who are not
typi- cally expected to conduct research.29 “In light of the fact
that faculty activities dif- fer greatly across institutional
types,” it would be imprudent to compare all insti- tutions,
regardless of type, to a single standard such as a minimum number
of con- tact hours with students.30
While the findings of this study reinforce the dichotomy between
the work-
It would be imprudent to compare all institutions, regardless of
type, to a single standard such as a minimum number of contact
hours with students.
T&AFall07-d-rosser 10/31/07 12:49 PM Page 14
week and output of two-year college faculty when compared to
university faculty, this finding is not new. What is more striking
is the differences in the instruction- al workload of faculty in
liberal arts colleges and comprehensive institutions ver- sus
faculty in other Ph.D. and research universities. In this study,
faculty at liberal arts colleges and comprehensive institutions
taught more classes and classroom credit hours than did faculty at
the other two types of four-year institutions (other Ph.D. and
research universities). At the same time the scholarly output in
terms of refereed and non-refereed journal articles was much higher
for faculty at com- prehensive institutions than for faculty at
two-year colleges. These institutional
differences in faculty workload need to be understood by those
seeking faculty careers and by administrators evaluating faculty in
these institutions.
All audiences need to be cautious in assuming that faculty
workload, defined here as number of hours worked and instructional
and scholarly outputs gen-
erated during the hours worked, equates with faculty productivity.
For example, the number of students taught in credit courses does
not automatically equate to the number of students who learned the
material in these courses. Similarly, the num- ber of articles
produced and presentations made within the last two years of an
NSOPF survey indicate how faculty members are spending part of
their time, but not whether the articles and presentations are
substantive contributions to the expansion of knowledge in a
discipline or field. Information about faculty workload for all
faculty members or for faculty members in different types of
institutions sim- ply provides a starting point for questions about
faculty productivity, not a definitive answer.31
Finally, for researchers, this study illustrates the difficulty in
conducting sec- ondary analysis of existing national data sets when
two or more iterations of the survey provide the data for the
study. Working with NSOPF data across different iterations of the
survey reveals the many substantive changes in the survey vari-
ables. If the same questions are not used in each survey, it
becomes very difficult to find a set of questions that can be
examined across the studies. Yet, studies com- paring responses in
different time periods are vital for a broad look at what is hap-
pening, in this case with faculty workload over time.
The number of students taught in credit courses does not
automatically equate to the number of students
who learned the material in these courses.
THOUGHT & ACTIONFALL 2007 15
THE NEA HIGHER EDUCATION JOURNAL16
Table 1. Faculty Respondents by Institutional Type
Table 2. Average Faculty Work Week in Public Institutions, 1993 and
2004 (Means and Standard Deviations)
Table 3. Total Number of Classes Taught (Credit and Non-Credit) in
Public Institutions, 1993 and 2004
Table 4. Total Classroom Credit Hours in Classes in Public
Institutions, 1993 and 2004
Institutional Type 1993 2004
Two-year 12.70 (5.87) 12.70 (5.68) Liberal arts 10.04 (2.92) 10.51
(3.77) Comprehensive 10.03 (4.30) 09.95 (3.54) Other Ph.D. 07.60
(3.66) 08.23 (3.56) Research 06.44 (3.59) 06.96 (3.50) Total 10.27
(5.34) 09.95 (4.95)
Institutional Type 1993 2004
Two-year 4.06 (2.37) 4.94 (2.81) Liberal arts 3.02 (1.44) 3.72
(1.66) Comprehensive 3.12 (1.80) 3.48 (1.33) Other Ph.D. 2.33
(1.75) 2.98 (1.64) Research 1.71 (1.55) 2.48 (1.70) Total 3.14
(2.17) 3.67 (2.30)
Institutional Type 1993 2004
Two-year 46.66 (16.01) 49.17 (13.52) Liberal arts 53.16 (16.06)
51.63 (13.41) Comprehensive 51.34 (16.92) 53.15 (13.13) Other Ph.D.
54.34 (15.14) 53.17 (12.77) Research 55.20 (15.07) 54.71 (12.70)
Total 50.61 (16.40) 52.13 (13.31)
Institutional Type 1993 2004
Two-year 4,320 (37.8%) 2,445 (34.2%) Liberal arts 61 (0.5%) 245
(3.4%) Comprehensive 3,659 (32.0%) 1,784 (25.0%) Other Ph.D. 1,546
(13.5%) 881 (12.3%) Research 1,835 (16.1%) 1,787 (25.0%) Total
11,421 7,142
T&AFall07-d-rosser 10/31/07 12:49 PM Page 16
THOUGHT & ACTIONFALL 2007 17
WORKLOAD ISSUES AND MEASURES OF FACULTY PRODUCTIVITY
Table 5. Total Students Taught in Credit Classes in Public
Institutions, 1993 and 2004
Table 6. Number of Articles in Refereed Journal in Last Two
Years
Table 7. Number of Articles in Nonrefereed Journals in Last Two
Years
Table 8. Number of Presentations in Last Two Years
Institutional Type 1993 2004
Two-year 1.26 (4.47) 1.73 (3.71) Liberal arts 2.02 (3.85) 2.58
(3.31) Comprehensive 2.93 (5.91) 3.57 (4.59) Other Ph.D. 4.27
(7.51) 4.21 (5.76) Research 4.73 (7.77) 5.03 (6.44) Total 2.76
(6.16) 3.35 (5.13)
Institutional Type 1993 2004
Two-year 0.12 (0.92) 0.41 (1.59) Liberal arts 0.26 (1.03) 0.94
(2.95) Comprehensive 0.50 (1.66) 0.97 (2.39) Other Ph.D. 0.81
(2.28) 1.17 (2.73) Research 0.97 (2.48) 1.35 (3.07) Total 0.47
(1.73) 0.89 (2.45)
Institutional Type 1993 2004
Two-year 0.15 (0.98) 0.25 (1.10) Liberal arts 0.79 (1.31) 0.96
(1.81) Comprehensive 0.91 (2.01) 1.41 (2.41) Other Ph.D. 2.20
(3.47) 1.98 (3.09) Research 3.18 (4.56) 2.73 (4.08) Total 1.16
(2.80) 1.40 (2.87)
Institutional Type 1993 2004
Two-year 98.65 (56.91) 92.69 (54.65) Liberal arts 67.88 (29.80)
83.41 (50.30) Comprehensive 98.65 (56.96) 91.80 (58.06) Other Ph.D.
79.57 (66.35) 88.67 (70.75) Research 78.25 (84.02) 86.01 (88.62)
Total 91.03 (63.12) 89.98 (67.38)
T&AFall07-d-rosser 10/31/07 12:49 PM Page 17
E N D N O T E S 1 James J. Duderstadt, A University for the 21st
Century, 2000, 154. 2 David E. Gullatt and Sue W. Weaver, Faculty
Productivity: A National Institutional Perspective,
1995. 3 Joseph C. Burke, Reinventing Accountability: From
Bureaucratic Rules to Performance Results,
2000; Michael K. McLendon, James C. Hearn, and Russ Deaton, Called
to Account: Analyzing the Origins and Spread of State
Performance-Accountability Policies for Higher Education, 2006;
Katrina A. Meyer, Faculty Workload Studies: Perspectives, Needs,
and Future Directions, 1998; Jennifer B. Presley and Edward
Engelbride, Accounting for Faculty Productivity in the Research
University, 1998.
4 James S. Fairweather and Robert A. Rhoads, Teaching and the
Faculty Role: Enhancing the Commitment to Instruction in American
Colleges and Universities, 1995; Katrina A. Meyer, op cit.
5 Edward R. Hines and J. Russell III Higham, Faculty Workload and
State Policy, November 1996. 6 David E. Gullatt and Sue W. Weaver,
op cit. 7 Michael F. Middaugh, Understanding Faculty Productivity:
Standards and Benchmarks for Colleges
and Universities, 2001, 30. 8 Ibid., 51. 9 Hugh Hawkins, The Making
of the Liberal Arts College Identity, 2000, 30. 10 Ibid., 21. 11
Katrina A. Meyer, op cit. 12 James Palmer, Enhancing Faculty
Productivity: A State Perspective, September 1998. 13 Jennifer B.
Presley and Edward Engelbride, op cit. 14 Elizabeth G. Creamer,
Assessing Faculty Publication Productivity: Issues of Equity, 1998;
Katrina
A. Meyer, op cit.; Linda J. Sax, Linda S. Hagedorn, Marisol
Arrendondo, and Frank A. DiCrisi,
THE NEA HIGHER EDUCATION JOURNAL18
Table 9. Number of Books, Textbooks, and Reports in Last Two
Years
Table 10. Number of Patents and Software in Last Two Years
Institutional Type 1993 2004
Two-year 0.08 (0.66) 0.03 (0.36) Liberal arts 0.13 (0.59) 0.03
(0.25) Comprehensive 0.11 (0.66) 0.04 (0.28) Other Ph.D. 0.15
(0.76) 0.06 (0.37) Research 0.17 (0.80) 0.10 (0.55) Total 0.12
(0.73) 0.05 (0.40)
Institutional Type 1993 2004
Two-year 0.44 (2.61) 0.24 (1.04) Liberal arts 0.72 (2.11) 0.31
(0.86) Comprehensive 0.92 (3.47) 0.41 (1.09) Other Ph.D 1.47 (4.95)
0.56 (1.44) Research 1.57 (4.83) 0.57 (1.49) Total 0.91 (3.70) 0.41
(1.27)
T&AFall07-d-rosser 10/31/07 12:49 PM Page 18
Faculty Research Productivity: Exploring the Role of Gender and
Family-Related Factors, 2002; Daniel Teodorescu, Correlates of
Faculty Publication Productivity: A Cross-National Analysis,
2000.
15 Mary F. Fox, Research, Teaching, and Publication Productivity:
Mutuality Versus Competition, 1992, 296.
16 Steven F. Doellefeld, Faculty Productivity: A Conceptual
Analysis and Research Synthesis, 1996. 17 Maureen M. Black and
Wayne E. Holden, The Impact of Gender on Productivity and
Satisfaction
Among Medical School Psychologists, 1998. 18 Gabrielle A. Roberts,
Kim S. Davis, Dinorah Zanger, Aimee Gerrard-Morris, and Daniel
H.
Robinson, Top Contributors to the School Psychology Literature:
1996-2005 (2006): 737. 19 Katrina A. Meyer, op cit., 45-46. 20
Katrina A. Meyer, op cit. 21 Ibid. 22 Michael F. Middaugh, op cit.
23 Ibid., 10. 24 Ibid. 25 We used the 1994 Carnegie classification
variable for both datasets because we could reduce
these data more specifically from privates and medical
institutions. 26 Weighting is an important aspect of this study.
First, to correct for oversampling, the relative
weight was developed by dividing raw weights by their means.
Second, to correct for clustering effects, the relative weights
were further adjusted by the design effect (DEFF). For more clari-
fication and explanation of weighting approach used in this study,
see Scott L. Thomas and Ronald H. Heck, Analysis of Large-Scale
Secondary Data in Higher Education Research: Potential Perils
Associated with Complex Sampling Designs, 2001.
27 Linda J. Sax, Linda S. Hagedorn, Marisol Arrendondo and Frank A.
DiCrisi, op cit., 424. 28 Gabrielle A. Roberts, Kim S. Davis,
Dinorah Zanger, Aimee Gerrard-Morris, and Daniel H.
Robinson, op cit. 29 Ibid. 30 MGT of America, Inc., Faculty
Productivity Issues in State Universities, 2002; See also
Illinois
Board of Higher Education, Faculty Advisory Council's Response to
the Board’s Request for Input Regarding Faculty Productivity
Issues, 2003.
31 Michael F. Middaugh, op cit.
W O R K S C I T E D Black, Maureen M. and Holden, Wayne E. “The
Impact of Gender on Productivity and Satisfaction
among Medical School Psychologists.” Journal of Clinical Psychology
in Medical Settings, 5 (1998): 117-131.
Burke, Joseph C. “Reinventing Accountability: From Bureaucratic
Rules to Performance Results.” In Joseph C. Burke and Associates,
Achieving Accountability in Higher Education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 2000.
Creamer, Elizabeth G. Assessing Faculty Publication Productivity:
Issues of Equity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26(2).
Washington, DC: Graduate School of Education and Human Development,
George Washington University, 1998.
Doellefeld, Steven F. Faculty Productivity: A Conceptual Analysis
and Research Synthesis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation:
University at Albany, State University of New York, 1996.
Duderstadt, James J. A University for the 21st Century. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 2000.
THOUGHT & ACTIONFALL 2007 19
WORKLOAD ISSUES AND MEASURES OF FACULTY PRODUCTIVITY
T&AFall07-d-rosser 10/31/07 12:49 PM Page 19
Fairweather, James S. and Rhoads, Robert A. “Teaching and the
Faculty Role: Enhancing the Commitment to Instruction in American
Colleges and Universities.” Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis 17 (1995): 179-194.
Fox, Mary F. “Research, Teaching, and Publication Productivity:
Mutuality versus Competition.” Sociology of Education 65 (1992):
293-305.
Gullatt, David E. and Weaver, Sue W. Faculty Productivity: A
National Institutional Perspective. Paper presented at Thirteenth
Annual Conference of Academic Chairpersons, Orlando, FL,
1995.
Hawkins, Hugh. “The Making of the Liberal Arts College Identity.”
In S. Loblik and S. R. Graubard (Eds.), Distinctively American: The
Residential Liberal Arts Colleges (pp. 1-25). New Brunswick, CT:
Transaction Publishers, 2000.
Hines, Edward R. and Higham, J. Russell III. Faculty Workload and
State Policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, Memphis, TN,
November 1996.
Illinois Board of Higher Education. “Faculty Advisory Council's
Response to the Board’s Request for Input Regarding Faculty
Productivity Issues,” 2003, www.academicsenate.ilstu.edu/
Docu…./FacultyProductivityReport-IBHE-FAC12.-08-03.htm> (1 June
2006).
McLendon, Michael K., Hearn, James C. and Deaton, Russ. “Called to
Account: Analyzing the Origins and Spread of State
Performance-Accountability Policies for Higher Education.”
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 28 (2006): 1-24.
Meyer, Katrina A. Faculty Workload Studies: Perspectives, Needs,
and Future Directions. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26(1).
Washington, DC: Graduate School of Education and Human Development,
George Washington University, 1998.
MGT of America, Inc. Faculty Productivity Issues in State
Universities. Tallahassee, FL: Author, 2002.
Middaugh, Michael F. Understanding Faculty Productivity: Standards
and Benchmarks for Colleges and Universities. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 2001.
Palmer, James. Enhancing Faculty Productivity: A State Perspective.
Education Commission of the States, September 1998.
Presley, Jennifer B. and Engelbride, Edward. “Accounting for
Faculty Productivity in the Research University.” The Review of
Higher Education 22 (1998): 17-37.
Roberts, Gabrielle A., Davis, Kim S., Zanger, Dinorah,
Gerrard-Morris, Aimee, and Robinson, Daniel H. “Top Contributors to
the School Psychology Literature: 1996-2005.” Psychology in the
Schools 43 (2006): 737-743.
Sax, Linda J., Hagedorn, Linda S., Arrendondo, Marisol and DiCrisi,
Frank A. “Faculty Research Productivity: Exploring the Role of
Gender and Family-Related Factors.” Research in Higher Education 43
(2002): 423-46.
Teodorescu, Daniel. “Correlates of Faculty Publication
Productivity: A Cross-National Analysis.” Higher Education 39
(2000): 201-222.
Thomas, Scott L. and Heck, Ronald H. “Analysis of Large-Scale
Secondary Data in Higher Education Research: Potential Perils
Associated with Complex Sampling Designs.” Research in Higher
Education 42 (2001): 517-540.
T&AFall07-d-rosser 10/31/07 12:49 PM Page 20