Developing Faculty in Liberal Arts Colleges

Vicki L. Baker, Laura Gail Lunsford, Meghan J. Pifer

• Publisher: Rutgers University Press
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9780813586823
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

Developing Faculty Members in Liberal Arts Colleges analyzes the career stage challenges these faculty members must overcome, such as a lack of preparation for teaching, limited access to resources and mentors, and changing expectations for excellence in teaching, research, and service to become academic leaders in their discipline and at these distinctive institutions. Drawing on research conducted at the thirteen institutions of the Great Lakes Colleges Association, Vicki L. Baker, Laura Gail Lunsford, and Meghan J. Pifer propose a compelling Alignment Framework for Faculty Development in Liberal Arts Colleges to show how these colleges succeed—or sometimes fail—in providing their faculties with the right support to be successful.  
 

Part One

Contexts of Academic Work in Liberal Arts Colleges

Inside Institutions and Departments

1

Institutional Structures, Support, and Evaluation

It’s eight o’clock on a Tuesday morning, and the members of a strategic planning committee—consisting of faculty members, the associate provost (the chair of the committee), and the provost—have gathered for one of their biweekly meetings. A faculty member questions how the institutional priorities will change in the current revision process. The associate provost responds, “I think our institutional priorities are driven from our strategic plan, which was developed seven years ago. I think they’re very clearly articulated. They’re very public. Updates were provided annually to the institutional community, and feedback and assessments were collected to ensure goals and initiatives were achieved.”

As members review the data from the past seven years and benchmark the college’s accomplishments against its aspirations, the main pillars of the new strategic plan begin to emerge. The usual suspects appear: community engagement, global partnerships, and student learning. One faculty member asks: “Do any of these programs connect to faculty explicitly? We worry about excellence at the student and programming levels, but what about faculty?” Another faculty member asks the provost, “How do you define faculty excellence, and what does that mean to us?”

The provost responds: “My use of the term ‘faculty excellence’ is probably much more of a ‘campaign’ way of talking about faculty excellence. Of course faculty development is a priority of the institution, but it’s not explicitly accounted for in strategic planning and hasn’t been in the past.”

This disconnect between strategic planning and supporting faculty members caused us to wonder how institutional leaders conceptualize faculty development as part of their strategy for improving institutional reputation and student outcomes. Furthermore, how might they do this while offering meaningful responses to critics and adjusting to reduced resources? Most important, how might leaders equip their faculty members to fulfill their institutions’ priorities, while also signaling that liberal arts colleges (LACs) support their faculty members’ careers?

A main premise of this book is that campus leaders, other administrators, and faculty members at LACs can do more to align institutional aspirations and goals with professional development opportunities for faculty members. Before exploring the components of alignment in faculty development, we present an overview of what institutions do in this regard. Then we consider how to make improvements that may strike a better balance between LAC faculty members’ needs and institutional priorities in the changing higher education landscape. In this chapter, we specifically focus on the institutional infrastructure that underpins faculty development in the Great Lakes Colleges Association (GLCA). We organize this discussion into three categories: structures, supports, and evaluations. We reviewed the faculty development portfolio of each institution in the consortium to provide the context for faculty professional development opportunities within LACs. We then consider institutional themes and outliers related to faculty professional development strategies and their influence on the nature and outcomes of faculty work in LACs.

Institutional Structures for Faculty Development

We all know that academic institutions today are expected to do more with less. How do the GLCA institutions manage this challenge and support faculty development as a means of using available resources to the greatest advantage? It is easy to overlook institutional structures in seeking to understand faculty work. We are reminded of the saying that the fish can’t see the water. Yet academic leaders need to see the water—their institutional structures—to conceptualize their faculty development efforts. In the GLCA, we found three types of structural approaches to assigning responsibility for faculty development: administrative positions, faculty committees, and centers for teaching and learning.

Administrative Positions for Faculty Development

“I was happy to step into the associate dean position responsible for faculty development. But talk about drinking from a fire hose those first two years, in all honesty!”

—An associate dean

There are many models for administrative oversight of faculty development efforts, each of which has benefits and drawbacks. The GLCA institutions reflect this range of models (see table 1.1). Three categories of administrative positions exist: full time permanent; full time renewable; and half time. Most GLCA institutions rely on a combination of positions, ranging from full time to half time, to serve as the primary points of contact for supporting faculty work.

Table 1.1. Summary of Administrative Positions for Faculty Development at Institutions in the Great Lakes Colleges Association
Institution	Administrative Positions
Albion College	Provost Associate Provost Director for Teaching and Learning
Allegheny College	Associate Provost for Faculty Development
Antioch College	Dean Associate Dean
Denison University	Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs
DePauw University	Faculty Development Coordinator
Earlham College	Associate Academic Dean
Hope College	Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship
Kalamazoo College	Associate Provost Director of Teaching and Learning Director of Faculty Grants
Kenyon College	Associate Provost Faculty Development Coordinator
Oberlin College	Associate Dean of the Faculty Director of the Center for Teaching Innovation and Excellence
Ohio Wesleyan College	Provost Associate Dean for Faculty Development
Wabash College	Dean of the College Faculty Development Coordinator
College of Wooster	Dean for Faculty Development

Full-Time Permanent Positions for Faculty Development

Albion, Antioch, Earlham, Kalamazoo, Kenyon, Ohio Wesleyan, and Wabash have full-time permanent positions dedicated to faculty development. The executive titles are at the director, dean, or provost level. At Albion College, the provost and associate provost share this responsibility, spending approximately 10 percent and 20 percent of their time, respectively, on faculty development. Similarly, at Antioch College the dean spends approximately 25 percent of his or her time engaging in faculty development, and the associate dean spends roughly 25 percent of his or her time on mentoring faculty and scheduling courses. Faculty development at Earlham College is the responsibility of the associate academic dean, who works with the academic dean. The academic dean/provost has primary responsibility for faculty development at Ohio Wesleyan University. At Wabash College, the dean of the college has primary responsibility for the development of the faculty and is supported by the faculty development coordinator. Kalamazoo has a director of faculty grants, an administrative position, who provides support for faculty members seeking external support for their scholarship. The associate provost is the primary point of contact for faculty development at Kenyon College.

Benefits. Having a full-time permanent position responsible for faculty development sends a message to faculty members about the importance of having clear and direct administrative support for them as they engage in academic work. In most of these LACs, the dean is the position on campus most connected to faculty development. The person in a full-time permanent position becomes the faculty development advocate as he or she works to ensure that faculty development is an institutional priority. Ideally, faculty members are able to build a strong working relationship with a full-time staff member, helping to foster continuity in programming, consistency of message, and ownership of faculty development work.

Drawbacks. The reality is that faculty development is one of many areas of responsibility assigned to staff members in the dean’s or provost’s office. Although the position is a full-time permanent one, its predominant focus is not on faculty development. Furthermore, most deans and associate deans have had their primary training within their disciplines and professional societies, which often results in their having a steep learning curve to understand faculty development more generally—including all that encompasses the professional field and as it pertains to individual faculty members. Lastly, the average tenure of a dean is 4.7 years, according to an American Council of Education study titled The American College President 2007 (King and Gomez 2007), and thus leadership turnover makes it difficult to achieve the continuity in programming, consistency of message, and ownership of faculty development work that we noted above. Finally, relying on just one administrative position to oversee faculty development leaves LACs vulnerable to person-specific politics and personalities that could help or hinder faculty buy-in for that person’s ability to support and develop the faculty effectively.

Full-Time Renewable Positions for Faculty Development

Several of the colleges have full-time renewable positions, which are typically occupied by full-time members of the faculty. At Allegheny College, the associate provost is responsible for faculty development and spends approximately 25 percent of his or her time on such efforts. This position is a four-year renewable term. At Denison University, the associate provost for faculty affairs is responsible for all faculty development programs. This is a three-year appointed position, filled by a teaching faculty member who reports to the provost; it can be renewed for a second term. DePauw University has a faculty development coordinator appointed for a three-year term from the faculty by the vice president for academic affairs and dean of faculty, on the recommendation of the faculty development committee. At Kalamazoo College, the associate provost, a member of the faculty, has a three-year term. Faculty development is part of the portfolio of the associate dean of the faculty at Oberlin College. The position of associate dean normally rotates every three years, and the associate dean reports directly to the dean of arts and sciences. And lastly, the College of Wooster has a dean for faculty development, which is a full-time cabinet (that is, senior administrative) position. In all of these colleges, these roles are filled by faculty members, who typically return to their faculty roles after their appointments expire.

Benefits. The benefit of a full-time renewable position appointed from the faculty is credibility. Faculty members are more likely to see a single point person with faculty development responsibilities as the face of faculty development. If this person also comes from the faculty, he or she is likely to have established relationships with colleagues, understand the institutional culture, be aware of institutional opportunities and challenges, and have personal experience with faculty work, needs, and even challenges related to the potential divide between faculty and administrative styles and perspectives.

Drawbacks. The reality is that members of the faculty do not have formal training in faculty dev...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Foreword: Life at a Small Liberal Arts College by Michael Reder
• Note on the Text
• Introduction: Developing Faculty Members in Liberal Arts Colleges
• Part One
• Part Two
• Part Three
• Part Four
• Acknowledgments
• Appendix A
• Appendix B
• Appendix C
• References
• Index
• About the Authors