The Faculty January 27, 1988 6-1.0 The Faculty The status, qualifications, interests, and needs of the faculty can be viewed from at least two perspectives. The first, and narrowest, treats the faculty as university personnel charged with diverse responsibilities, which, in the aggregate, address the three missions of the institution. In this view, faculty are both employees and principal service providers. The emphasis here is on their salaries and working conditions, the distrib- ution of their responsibilities, and the effectiveness and efficiency with which they perform. The second, and broader, perspective recognizes that a university is a unique social institution whose quality and value may be determined largely by the less tangible aspects of academic life. More than a collection of employees organized to provide services, a true university is a relatively coherent social, cultural, and intellectual entity that involves its faculty, students, administrators, support staff, and larger community in the enterprise of creating and disseminating knowledge for the betterment of society. Here, the emphasis is on the nature and quality of the professional environment, the cultural milieu, and the general intellectual life of the institution; the relation- ships among the various constituent groups that make up the faculty and the University community generally; and the struc- tures and processes that govern social and other interactions. In the present chapter, the faculty of VPI&SU will be examined from both perspectives by reviewing the recent history of faculty development at the University and by describing in quantitative and qualitative terms the current condition of the faculty. Several issues pertaining to observed or proposed changes in the defined role of the faculty when viewed from the relatively narrow "occupational" perspective will also be reviewed. Although some opportunities for further development of the VPI&SU professoriate do remain in this area, these are not, for the most part, the most pressing issues confronting the University and its faculty now, nor do they present the greatest challenges. Those challenges arise instead from a variety of issues that are best defined within the broader "professional" perspective, which receives attention in the remainder of the chapter. 6-1.1 Charge and Organization of the Committee on the Faculty This committee was charged with evaluating the university's performance regarding SACS criterion 4.4. This section incorpo- rates: * the selection of faculty, * professional and scholarly preparation, * compensation, * academic freedom and professional security, * professional growth, * the role of the faculty and its committees in university decision-making, * faculty loads, * criteria and procedures for evaluation, * part-time faculty, and * graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) and teaching fellows. The committee was constituted to include representatives from each college, the university library, the non-collegiate Exten- sion Division faculty, the staff, the administration, and the graduate and undergraduate student bodies. The committee organ- ized its effort around eight task forces focused on the following areas: * description of the faculty, * productivity, * recognition structures and procedures, * benefits, * equal opportunity and affirmative action, * professional environment, * sense of community and academic integration, and * faculty governance. Each task force conducted inquiries and addressed issues within its purview and developed appropriate recommendations. Each reported regularly to the full Committee on the Faculty, and all recommendations incorporated in the present chapter have been reviewed and approved by the full committee. A detailed listing of sources consulted during these proceedings appears at the conclusion of the chapter. 6-1.2 The Faculty: An Overview More than two decades ago, the 1965-66 Self-Study report noted that VPI&SU was in the initial stages of developing from a prima- rily undergraduate institution to one emphasizing graduate study and high-quality research. By the time of the 1975-76 Self- Study, the reorganization of the University and the composition of the faculty reflected considerable progress toward the univer- sity's goal of becoming a widely respected, comprehensive insti- tution of higher learning. The present Self-Study indicates that, with regard to the faculty, the University has matured both demographically and professionally. This chapter documents that maturity, and points out its implications for the present operation and future devel- opment of the University. 6-1.2.1 Demographics In the Fall of 1976, VPI&SU had 1,351 full-time, ranked faculty members. In the years since, the faculty has grown by some 17 percent, to 1,581 full-time, ranked members. During the same period, aggregate FTE student enrollment has grown from 20,753 to 23,846, a 15 percent increase. As a result, there has been a very slight improvement in the student/ranked faculty ratio, which now stands at approximately 15:1. Also, there are currently 181 non-instructional faculty and 324 salaried part- time, or non-permanent, faculty. Of the 324 part-time, or non-permanent faculty, 154 (47.5 percent) are designated as Research Associates. Also in the Fall of 1976, 164 faculty members (12.1 percent) were women. This percentage has increased gradually over the past decade to a present level of 15.4 percent among full-time, ranked faculty. The number and proportion of blacks on the faculty have increased only modestly, from 15 blacks (1.1 percent) in 1975-76 to 24 blacks (1.5 percent) in 1985-86. The proportion of other minorities (Asians, Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, American Indians, and Native Alaskans) on the faculty has more than doubled, moving from 2.0 percent in 1975-76 to 5.0 percent. One important demographic indicator of the "maturation" of the faculty is simply its chronological age. In 1976, more than half of the faculty (53.6 percent) were 40 years of age or less, and only one-fifth (20.0 percent) were over age 50. In 1985-86, the comparable figures are 38.8 percent at or under age 40, and 28.3 percent over age 50. This "maturation" reflects a national trend in the aggregate ages of university faculty. It contributes to both the changing expectations that characterize the faculty at VPI&SU and the emergence of some policy issues that will confront the University in the intermediate future. The most notable issues are those relating to retirement, health care, and pensions, as well as governance of the university. The demographic characteristics of the faculty are summarized in Tables 6-1 and 6-2. Consistent with the aging of the faculty, an increase in the proportion of its members who hold tenure and who are in the more senior ranks is also observed. The proportion of full-time, ranked faculty who hold tenure now stands at two-thirds (66.5 percent). In 1975-76, slightly under one-fourth (24.1 percent) of the faculty held the rank of Professor, and 27.6 percent held the rank of Associate Professor. In 1985-86, almost one-third (32.9 percent) were classified as Professors and one-third (33.6 percent) as Associate Professors. Promotion and tenure rates average about 75 percent (Table 6-3). Between 1982 and 1986, 76 percent of mandatory tenure decisions for males and 69 percent for females were positive. In 1986, 78 percent of such decisions for males and 87 percent for females were positive. Between 1982 and 1986, 83 percent of such decisions for minority faculty and 74 percent for others were positive. Promotion rates over these five years were 70 percent for males, 75 percent for females, 69 percent for Caucasian faculty members, and 89 percent for minori- ties. These data are summarized in Table 6-3. Note, however, that the denominators in Table 6-3 are conservative estimates of the actual number of eligible cases, since they exclude those faculty members who are not sent forward by their departments or those faculty members who elect to withdraw from the University. Additional analysis (data not shown) indicates that the propor- tion of Associate Professors with more than seven years in rank has increased noticeably in recent years. This suggests the emergence of a growing class of faculty who were recruited at a time when the expectations for research productivity were somewhat different from now, and may represent for the University an issue of self-definition that will increase in importance over the next several years. 6-1.2.2 Professional Credentials The academic degree level of the faculty has improved signif- icantly over recent years. In 1965-66, fewer than half of the faculty (48.0 percent) held doctoral degrees; in 1975-76, about two-thirds (68.0 percent) held doctoral degrees; and in 1985-86 almost four-fifths (79.1 percent) of the full-time, ranked faculty held doctorates. Here, too, we find an indication of the maturing of the faculty, this time on an indicator with more directly qualitative implications. The distribution of faculty by highest degree held is shown in Table 6-4. Another indicator of "maturity" is the percentage of faculty in the academic units of the University who hold the terminal degree in their respective disciplines. These data are shown in Table 6-5, along with the proportion of graduate teaching assistants with direct teaching responsibility who have completed at least 27 quarter hours of graduate work in their teaching fields. In the vast majority of cases, both indicators reach or closely approximate 100 percent. Table 6-6 provides another view of the use of graduate teaching assistants in teaching. In the Fall Quarter, 1986, 169 sections of non-laboratory courses were offered in which graduate assist- ants were the principal instructors. In 90 percent of these sections, the graduate assistants had completed at least 27 quarter-hours of graduate work. (Those graduate assistants who had not completed 27 hours were teaching in Horticulture, English, Accounting, and Physical Education.) An additional indicator of professional maturity is the scholarly productivity of the faculty. One measure of such productivity, publication rates in selected disciplinary areas, is shown in Table 6-7. These data show that in science and engineering fields, the VPI&SU faculty outproduces similar faculties in peer land-grant institutions with similar characteristics. In the social sciences, the faculty of this University produces at a rate significantly above the average of these peer institutions. In the arts and humanities, the faculty's performance is near the average -- slightly above Iowa State and Oregon State, and below North Carolina State and Purdue. However, these data require a cautionary noteggcomparisons between fields should not be made in as much as various disciplines possess dramatic differences both quantitatively (e.g. the number of journal publications) and qualitatively (e.g. other types of scholarly and creative products). On balance, these and other data gathered during the current Self-Study and available as supplemental materials portray a productive faculty whose numbers have grown more slowly over the last decade than in the past. The faculty is still predominantly white and male, and is gradually aging. But above all, it is a faculty whose aggregate qualifications have improved markedly over the past two decades; whose work is achieving national prominence with increasing regularity; and whose potential contribution to the University is enriched by its growing demographic and professional maturity. These characteristics will provide the foundation upon which the remainder of this chapter rests. * Each is a public institution. * Each is a land-grant institution. * Each has a veterinary school but neither a medical nor a law school. * Four of the five institutions are single campus institutions; in the case of Purdue, only main campus data are reported. * Each is large "flagship" institution in a state with one other large "flagship" institution. 6-1.3 Faculty Productivity As the 1987-88 General Catalog states, "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University strives for excellence in fulfill- ing all three missions of a comprehensive land-grant institution: instruction, research, and extension." Though the lines separat- ing these missions are hardly drawn as clearly as this succinct statement would suggest, the University's faculty contributes to the purposes of the institution through productivity in each of these areas. And like the missions themselves, productivity in each area must be recognized as a complex phenomenon with both quantitative and qualitative aspects. 6-1.3.1 Assessing Productivity: Instruction The teaching of traditional courses, and the providing of tutorial instruction for undergraduate, graduate, and profes- sional students working independently or in small groups, consti- tutes the major instructional role of the faculty. Faculty productivity in the instructional mission is measured using Student Credit Hours (SCH). The data in Table 6-8 indicate that the teaching load for instructional faculty increased during the period 1978-1985. While the ratio of students to faculty, which declined from 16.2:1 in 1976 to 14.7:1 in 1978, has stabilized, Table 6-8 shows that the teaching load for instructional faculty increased during the period from 1978-1985. Since the student/faculty ratio had remained constant, the increase in SCH suggests an increase in average class size (for more discussion, see Chapter on Undergraduate Programs). These data reflect, to some degree, a portion of faculty produc- tivity. Other aspects of instructional productivity can be evaluated through such devices as student assessment, peer evalu- ation, textbook publications and adoptions, and the faculty's commitment to teaching as evidenced by participation in such activities as special studies, curriculum club advising, academic and career advising, and special seminars. However, some other aspects lend themselves less readily to direct quantitative assessment of educational outcomes. Among them arguably are some of the more important areas, such as supervision of special study projects, independent research, clinical work, advising, and graduate research. Table 6-9 summarizes a variety of additional quantitative and qualitative indicators that might be applied to measure instruc- tional productivity at the University. Other components of the instructional role, however, show significant changes in the structure of faculty loads, at least for some faculty. In particular, the size and number of graduate-level sections have increased since 1979. Graduate student FTEs, for example, increased some 31 percent between 1979 and 1985. This has been accompanied by a 12 percent decline in the number of sections offered at the lower division and a 17 percent increase in average section size (from 36 to 42 students per section). Increases in lower-division section sizes have been especially marked in the Colleges of Human Resources (82 percent), Engineer- ing (47 percent), and Business (31 percent), though in some instances these effects are compounded by enrollment increases in existing large sections. The observed shift in the nature of teaching loads has had at least three effects. First, it has freed time for the faculty to pursue research, extension, and service activities. In effect, the classroom-time commitment of the average faculty member has been reduced by approximately one hour per week during this period, while instructional production has increased. Second, while aggregate SCH distributions within the faculty have shifted, those teaching lower division courses have assumed a greater share of the instructional mission of the university. If continued, this pattern may generate a division of the faculty between those who conduct research and teach primarily at the graduate level, and those who assume primary responsibility for undergraduate education. This outcome is not adequately recog- nized within the University, and, given the present structure of rewards at the University, virtually assures increasing dissatis- faction among the latter group. Third, those faculty members teaching the lower division courses in some academic units tend to be the less senior and less experienced. To the extent that this is true, one net effect of this division is to provide an institutional incentive for reduc- ing the quality of instruction in lower-division courses. A majority (55 percent) of the faculty surveyed indicated a concern that too many undergraduate courses are taught by GTAs or part- time faculty. In the fall of 1986, direct involvement of gradu- ate students accounted for 8 percent of the total teaching load, however, most GTAs teaching undergraduate courses have completed at least 27 hours of graduate work in their respective fields. 6-1.3.2 Assessing Productivity: Extension, Research, Scholarship, Creative Activities The faculty also carries out the research mission of the Univer- sity through the conduct of its own creative activities, exten- sion, scholarship, and research, and of research initiated or supported by external agencies. Quantitative measures of research accomplishment, including the number of scholarly research publications and citations and the number and dollar amounts of grants and contracts awarded, are readily available and are widely used by the University in assessing faculty productivity. Table 6-10 summarizes the University's recent success in grant writing. Steady growth in scholarly productivity can be seen in the increased number of faculty serving as Principal Investigators in sponsored projects (478 in 1982-83; 528 in 1985-86) and the increased number of successful proposals (266 averaging $36,000 each in 1976-77; 1611 averaging $25,000 in 1985-86). In the period from 1982-83 to 1985-86, all colleges increased their ability to attract outside funding. These increases in outside monies generated for scholarship represent substantial increases in faculty productivity. Selected peer comparisons (Table 6-7) suggest that VPI&SU faculty members are highly productive. In 1985 alone, faculty published 163 books and 2491 journal articles. In addition, faculty held 259 journal and 89 series editorships, an indicator of its national and international prestige and influence. Numerous faculty members have been named to professorships in recognition of their research accomplishments, and faculty members received 508 national or international awards or honors between 1981 and 1985. A selected listing of these awards is found in Table 6-11, and suggests the diversity and significance of the faculty's accomplishments. Taken alone, however, even these measures can significantly understate the contribution of university researchers. Of growing importance in this regard, for example, is the role of the faculty in guiding graduate student research at the master's, doctoral, and post-doctoral levels. The impact of this work on the people of Virginia, the nation, and the world is a poten- tially valid indicator of the research productivity of the faculty. The number of study-research leaves granted by the University has increased from 7 in 1976 to 35 in 1986, and the Board of Visitors has approved a total of 226 such leaves since the time of the last Self-Study. The length of leaves varies from one to four quarters, and averages approximately 2.5 quarters. Most of the leaves have been taken by faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences (119, or 26 percent of those eligible). In 1987, the University adopted a policy supporting fully funded research assignments. Research productivity is dependent on such factors as the academic environment, faculty and graduate student space, and support services such as those provided by the Library and the Research Division. There has been considerable improvement in the perceived conduciveness of the academic environment to schol- arly growth since the last Self-Study, with 79 percent of current respondents assessing it favorably. Satisfaction with library collections for research use has increased from 37 percent in 1976 to 73 percent now. A continuing shortage of space, however, is seen as hindering faculty productivity by delaying or discouraging certain types of projects. This lack of space was viewed most critically by faculty in Arts and Sciences, Engineering, Human Resources, and Veterinary Medicine. Finally, 60 percent of respondents agree that the Research Division works effectively with faculty members in obtaining research support. However, nearly two-thirds of the Engineering faculty, and half of all professors University-wide, felt that the Division could do more to assist them. 6-1.3.3 Assessing Productivity: Extension The faculty is also charged under the land-grant mission with extending the educational resources of the University to all the citizens of the Commonwealth, and with exchanging information with other states and nations where this is in the interests of the Commonwealth. This extension/public service role is most apparent for, but by no means exclusive to, those faculty on extension appointments. Besides extension/public service, faculty members also provide service to and through their respective professional associ- ations, and provide service to the University and the community in a myriad of ways. Since this service constitutes a definitional component of the mission of the University, the contribution of the faculty to its achievement must be incorpo- rated into any assessment of productivity. Guidelines for the assessment of Extension Division faculty for continued appointment, promotion, and annual review were revised in 1985, and are both extensive and straightforward. Various evaluations of extension programs have been reported (e.g., Jones and White, 1981; Coffey and Norton, 1982; Norton, Coffee, and Frye, 1984). The internal rates of return for Virginia agricul- ture based on marginal products and benefit distribution patterns were 58 percent for research, 52 percent for teaching, and 48 percent for extension (Norton, Coffee and Frye, 1984). These figures measure the annual percentage rate of "real" return on public support for the indicated activities, and are higher than return rates found in other sectors of the economy. 6-1.3.4 Assessing Productivity: University Service University service is among the least understood and least appre- ciated areas of faculty activity and productivity. Service ranges from departmental committee assignments to involvement in University-level governance. Many of these assignments are quite arduous and time-consuming. Such service usually carries with it a decrease in departmental mission productivity during the period of faculty participation. However, by their involvement in service activities, faculty members enrich the University and the unit-level at which the service occurs. This point will be addressed more directly in a later discussion of university governance. For the moment, however, it is important to note that time devoted to University service is, and should be seen as, an important element of faculty productivity. 6-1.3.5 Assessing Productivity Of The Missions The Self-Study questionnaire asked faculty to evaluate the relative weights that should be given to research, teaching, extension effort, and service in decisions on promotion, tenure, and salaries. Of those responding, 64 percent expressed a belief that the relative weight assigned to teaching should be increased, 46 percent supported increasing the weight accorded to extension activities, and 41 percent supported increased weight- ing for service. In contrast, only 24 percent of the respondents supported an increased weighting for research. These figures represent a collective view of the faculty that, in defining itself as a "research university," VPI&SU may have over-extended itself in the direction of rewarding research effort. This is not to say that the research effort should be reduced, but rather, that emphasis on it should be returned to a more balanced relationship with the other missions of the univer- sity. This would be facilitated were the state to lift its half-decade freeze on operating budgets. VPI&SU serves diverse constituencies, and it is the implication of the survey responses that the reward and support structures currently in place do not provide incentives for the faculty to serve them all with appro- priate vigor. Recommendation 6-1: That, consistent with its diverse mission and with the highest standards of performance in each compo- nent thereof, the University adopt a set of criteria by which faculty productivity will be evaluated, and assure that these criteria are effectively incorporated in decisions on promotion, tenure, and faculty salaries; these criteria, developed in broad consultation with faculty, should provide appropriate recognition to faculty effort in fulfilling the instructional and service missions of the University, in conjunction with maintaining emphasis on scholarship and research. 6-1.4 Recognition Structures and Procedures Closely related to the productivity of the faculty in general is the manner in which the University defines and recognizes the outstanding accomplishments of individual faculty members. Such recognition establishes the standards of performance toward which all faculty should aspire, and rewards the efforts of those who best achieve them. Over the past 10 years, VPI&SU has made important strides in honoring its most outstanding faculty. In the area of research, for example, the number of honored positions available to faculty in the form of endowed chairs and professorships has been greatly increased, from 6 (3 endowed) to 35 (33 endowed), with an additional 46 that are either fully or partially endowed but not yet filled. Similarly, the number of Alumni Distinguished Professors has increased from two to eight. The awarding of Certificates of Teaching Excellence has been made more signif- icant by raising the standards used in awarding them, and a diversity of other awards for outstanding teaching (summarized in Table 6-12) have been developed. In the area of service, the first step toward recognizing those faculty members who have contributed to the University through extraordinary University service has been taken with formation of the Academy of Faculty Service. Also, outstanding faculty are recognized through the University and Alumni Distinguished Professorships and the Alumni research and extension awards. The university should continue to develop ways of honoring those faculty members who have made major contributions in the areas of research, teaching, extension and service, for by so doing, it encourages the faculty to develop in these areas. At the same time, such recognition allows the University to retain its best people and to attract outstanding individuals to the faculty. To a large degree, the individuals who hold these honored positions define the excellence of the University both to those within the University community and to those outside it. Conse- quently, it is important that the procedures followed in making these awards be regular, public, and consistently applied, and that the implications of establishing and selecting members of a class of honored faculty be fully appreciated. 6-1.4.1 Selection Procedures At the collegiate level, a variety of methods are used to select faculty members to be honored with professorships or endowed chairs. Some of these involve faculty participation throughout the process, while others hardly involve faculty peer review at all. Moreover, the university has no specific guidelines regard- ing the qualifications that should be required of candidates for such positions. There are two levels of teaching awards. The first is the Certificate of Teaching Excellence. Twenty Certificates are awarded each year; the awards are made by the colleges. The number of Certificates that can be given by each college is based upon proportional representation of the total faculty. The second level of awards includes the seven major University teach- ing awards; these are the two Alumni Teaching Awards, the three W.E. Wine Awards, the University Sporn Award for teaching intro- ductory subjects and the Engineering Sporn Award for teaching engineering subjects. Each year, the winners of the Alumni, Wine, and University Sporn Awards are inducted into the Academy of Teaching Excellence for a three-year term. Thus, at any one time, the Academy has 18 members. These awards are summarized in Table 6-12. The selection of the Certificate winners is the responsibility of the respective colleges. However, the Academy has recommended the following criteria to the colleges: * teaching evaluations in all courses over an extended period of time; * letters from students and alumni; * letters from peer review committees and department heads; * curriculum vita that emphasizes the faculty member's teaching contributions to the department, college, University and profession. The Alumni Award winners are selected by the Academy of Teaching Excellence. All Certificate winners from the previous years are eligible for these awards. The Wine Award winners are selected from nominees, one from each college, by a committee of previous Wine Award winners. Sporn Award winners are chosen by a commit- tee of faculty and students from candidates nominated by students. The involvement of multiple committees in the selection of the various teaching award winners has created some problems of coordination. In addition, some segments of the University appear to have received a disproportionate share of the awards (see Table 6-13). This may be due to the fact that some depart- ments are more effective at preparing and presenting the creden- tials of their nominees. Also, certain colleges fail to use the criteria suggested by the Academy. For example, several depart- ments in the College of Arts and Sciences make extensive use of peer reviews and quantitative student evaluations, while the College of Engineering primarily uses student evaluations. On the other hand, the College of Architecture refuses to use any form of quantitative student evaluation. To some extent, such disparities are inevitable due to the diverse nature of the courses offered at the University. Recommendation 6-2: That the University, through the Commission on Faculty Affairs and the faculty associations, develop guidelines for the criteria and procedures to be applied in selecting faculty for named professorships and endowed chairs. Recommendation 6-3: That the University examine the selection processes for University-level teaching awards; specifically, a committee should be charged to clarify the selection crite- ria for each award, publicize these to the University commu- nity, and provide guidelines for departments and/or committees for complying with criteria and in assembling effective dossiers for candidates. 6-1.4.2 Retention of Honored-Faculty Status The position of Alumni Distinguished Professor is stated to be a permanent appointment that is conferred for the remainder of the honored professor's active service as a member of the faculty. The custom has been to treat an appointment as a University Distinguished Professor as permanent as well, and the same is in all likelihood true of appointments to endowed chairs and professorships. However, no provision is made for encouraging retirement from the honored appointment, despite the limited availability of these positions. It is clearly in the interests of the University to address this issue. 6-1.4.3 Role of Honored Faculty Members For whatever aspect of the faculty experience a particular faculty member is honored, that faculty member represents the University at its best. Consequently, these honored faculty members constitute a great resource for the advancement of the University and should be intimately involved in its life. In particular, they should interact with the student body and the faculty by teaching courses at all levels and by giving public lectures, and they should be put forward to represent the Univer- sity in their respective spheres of excellence. In addition, such individuals should be encouraged to participate in the governance system of the University and to involve themselves in University decision making through established channels. By the same token, it is not necessarily the case that honored positions recognizing research accomplishments are awarded on the basis of wide experience in affairs outside one's discipline. Rather, such recognition tends to go to those who have focused most of their attention on theory and research in their field of expertise. Accordingly, such individuals, or groups of such individuals, may serve the University community as appropriate to their expertise. Moreover, it is inappropriate for the adminis- tration to consult such individuals or groups of such individuals as a substitute for consultation with the appropriate governance bodies, particularly the Faculty Senate, which have been chosen to represent the faculty. The several categories of honored faculty are based on differing criteria and emphasize particular aspects of faculty service to the University. All of these forms of service are of great value to the University, and no one of these categories should be perceived as having greater eminence than any other. No Univer- sity materials or publications should suggest the existence of a hierarchy of eminence. 6-1.4.4 Additional Recognition for Teaching Excellence Over the past decade, increasing emphasis has been placed on the value of research to the University. This has created an environment in which faculty members are not encouraged to spend the extra time needed to develop their teaching skills. Indeed, 77 percent of self-study respondents indicated that the Universi- ty's reward system and working environment do not support faculty involvement in the improvement of undergraduate education. The recently released report of the Carnegie Commission makes clear that this is a national trend rather than one peculiar to VPI&SU. One of the remedies suggested in the Carnegie report is the establishment of positions recognizing distinguished teaching, which would be roughly equivalent in stature to the University Distinguished Professor designation and would be administered in roughly the same manner. That is to say, the honored faculty member would receive substantial salary benefits and University resources. Such professors might be expected to offer teaching workshops and demonstrations to interested faculty, to partic- ipate in the Honors Program, and to present lectures on and off campus. The establishment of such positions at VPI&SU would constitute an important symbolic statement of the University's commitment to excellence in the classroom. Recommendation 6-4: That the University consider establishing honored appointments which recognize excellence in instruc- tional activities for those who also contribute to the other missions of the University. 6-1.5 Faculty Compensation In recent years, the Commonwealth of Virginia has made a substan- tial commitment to improving the salaries of faculty, with the result that salaries at the University are now reasonably compet- itive with those offered at peer institutions. While room for improvement remains, salary levels are not generally an issue now. This condition could change markedly if the state were to impose upon the University, as it has shown an inclination to do, a list of peer institutions based principally on quantitative indicators of similarity rather than on qualitative ones. As is the case with individual faculty members, the overall character of the institution must be judged in both quantitative and qualitative terms if that judgment is to be meaningful. VPI&SU is unique among land-grant universities in both its accomplishments and its aspirations, and that uniqueness represents an asset for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The University provides a comprehensive benefits package as part of its overall compensation program. This package is designed to address the needs of faculty and staff by providing income replacement in certain situations, by providing security through financial protection, and by providing such special services as sick leave, vacation pay, and related programs. Benefits programs are developed and evaluated by the Office of Employee Relations in cooperation with a faculty and staff committee on benefits. Progress in recent years has included the offering of the Teacher's Insurance Annuity Association/College Retirement Equity Fund (TIAA/CREF) retirement program as an alternative to the state retirement system. In addition to these programs, a number of additional benefits have been developed locally. A well-designed benefits package accommodates the current needs of faculty and staff and provides a recruiting tool that assists in attracting highly qualified faculty to the University. As a state agency, the University offers certain benefit programs that are mandated through legislation or executive order with control maintained at the state level. Among the several programs currently under review, for which local action is sufficient, are the following: * Faculty and Staff Assistance This program would include crisis intervention, individual counseling, and group intervention. * Comprehensive Retirement Planning With the elimination of mandatory retirement, a comprehensive retirement program that considers the broad spectrum of retirement planning is in order. The ramifications of early retirement, phased retirement, and part-time work, along with discussion of such issues as relocation, psychological aspects of retirement, and health during retirement should be included. Among the several programs currently under review, for which state action is required, are the following: * Cafeteria Benefits Currently, Internal Revenue codes permit the payment of certain benefits with pre-tax dollars. Such programs can enhance the overall benefits package, e.g., by including such items as child care, while at the same time providing the faculty and staff of the University with a tax advantage. * Retirement Health Care Both to protect retired faculty and staff and to provide a possible incentive for early retirement, health care benefits should be provided for retired personnel and for those who wish to phase into retirement by part-time arrangements for a period near their careers' ends. * Summer Salaries Summer school salaries should be included in the determi- nation of retirement benefits. The University recently adopted an optional defined contribution retirement plan for faculty who preferred such a plan over the Virginia State Retirement System (VSRS), a defined benefit plan based on salary and length of service. With summer school pay serving as an integral part of the compensation package for many faculty, and with many faculty continuing their University responsibilities during the summer months, it is important that retirement credit be provided for that service. * Tuition Waiver A tuition waiver for spouses and dependents should be provided by the University. Such a benefit would be useful in attracting and retaining faculty and staff. * Benefits for Part-Time Personnel At present, part-time personnel are not eligible for any University benefits. A comprehensive benefits package for part-time personnel should be instituted. * Early Retirement Because of the elimination of the mandatory retirement age, the University should work toward establishment of an attrac- tive early retirement plan. * Medical Examinations Annual paid medical examinations and no cost physical/psychological check-ups might be considered as an additional fringe benefit for faculty. Recommendation 6-5: That the University continue its recent progress in improving benefits available to the faculty and staff, with particular attention to the items listed above, and in developing a benefits package for part-time employees. 6-1.6 Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action A commitment to the principles of equal opportunity and affirma- tive action is inherent in the very nature of a land-grant insti- tution, for such entities were initially created for the express purpose of extending the benefits of education and of new knowledge to segments of the society that lacked access to them. In the contemporary era, that same philosophy calls upon us to extend access to the University to women and to racial minori- ties, most notably blacks. As an expression of the basic mission of VPI&SU, efforts in this direction deserve the highest prior- ity. In truth, the University has not always accorded to these concerns the attention they warrant. The 1975-76 Self-Study report, for example, devoted only seven lines to the subject of affirmative action. In following years, however, the University has devoted substantial amounts of time, energy, and financial resources to the recruitment and retention of women and minori- ties, and this needs to be sustained. Much of the initial impetus for this effort derived from an order from the Office of Civil Rights of the Justice Department, directing that certain goals be set and attained regarding numbers of minority students and faculty. Most recently, this external pressure has given way to a firmer indigenous commitment to the same principles. The University first instituted an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action (EO/AA) component in 1973. An EO/AA officer was named, and an affirmative action plan was designed and implemented. In 1979, two assistant EO/AA officers were hired, with another added in 1980. This brought the staff of the office to its present level of four, all holding administrative faculty positions. Assignments include EO/AA Director, Disabled Student Services Counselor, Minority Concerns Counselor, and Women's Concerns Counselor. A University EO/AA Committee, first appointed in 1975, remains active. Its purposes are to recommend policy, guidelines, and procedures, and to provide leadership for the entire area of EO/AA. The Director and counselors of the EO/AA Office have indicated that most of their time is spent in processing, inves- tigating, and resolving complaints and problems that arise. The Director expressed concern that the available resources do not permit the staff to address EO/AA issues before they become critical. The EO/AA programs at VPI&SU are aimed first at expanding the services of the University to all segments of the population, and second at improving the quality of education at the University. The first purpose is achieved by better involving minorities, who have not been adequately represented heretofore, in instruction, research, and extension programs of the University. The second is achieved by enhancing the quality of education by developing a diverse, multi-cultural environment among students, faculty, and staff that is more representative of the population at large. The program is undertaken with the realization that the Univer- sity itself, and the affected groups, will benefit from its success. 6-1.6.1 Recruitment and Retention of Women and Black Faculty Table 6-14, which includes both instructional and other positions, summarizes the number of faculty at the University by race and sex for the academic years 1980-81 through 1985-86. In 1987, of 181 total positions in the administrative faculty, which includes all librarians, 68 were held by women and 10 by blacks. Of the 32 such positions at the college level, seven were held by women and none by blacks. These figures provide a background for understanding the issues of recruitment, advancement and retention. Comparing these data with those in Table 6-1 indicates that both women and minorities are disproportionately represented in non-full time faculty teaching positions (see section 1.8.5 for further discussion). The Self-Study questionnaire and interviews with members of the Women's Network and the Black Faculty/Staff Caucus yielded a wide range of perceptions on these issues. For example, 68 percent of white respondents to the questionnaire and 97 percent of blacks, and 64 percent of men and 88 percent of women, agreed that the University should increase its recruitment and retention efforts. In addition, 64 percent of black respondents and 86 percent of whites expressed a belief that departmental decisions regarding recruitment, salaries, and promotion and tenure are made with a sensitivity to EO/AA concerns. Although differences between the various groups are evident here, each of these figures seems to indicate both a degree and a perception of general good will on the issues in question. In contrast, only 34 percent of blacks compared with 71 percent of whites, and only 40 percent of women compared with 79 percent of men, found the institutional climate at the University to be generally supportive of women and minorities. This result would seem to suggest an insensitivity among some of the white, male segment of the faculty and administration to the perceptions of their female and black colleagues and to certain implications of their own professional attitudes and behaviors. Members of the Women's Network and the Black Faculty/Staff Caucus voiced concerns similar to those reflected in the Self-Study questionnaire. They pointed to a need for more assistance for new staff members, and to the desirability of affording greater visibility to women and minorities on departmental, collegiate, and University-level committees, especially those related to hiring and personnel decision making. Members of the Women's Network expressed serious concern regarding what they perceived as inequities in salaries and salary adjustments. Table 6-15 shows average salaries by gender, rank, and college. Within academic units, which does not include the library, women at the assistant professor rank tend to exhibit median salaries about on par with men of the same rank. For associate and full ranks, women tend to have lower levels of compensation than men, although there are exceptions in some colleges and there are several instances where the number of cases is insufficient to compile average salaries. These data do not provide prima facia evidence of substantial differences in compensation by gender. They do, however, imply the need for additional scrutiny, accounting for a number of other salient factors that impact on salaries and which may be explanatory of salary differentials within ranks. These include such factors as differences in time since appointment to the faculty, in length of time in rank, and in performance in teach- ing, research, and service. Moreover, men and women are dispro- portionately concentrated in the various colleges and, within colleges, in different disciplines or subspecialties, where external labor markets differentially impact on average salaries. The data in Table 6-16 address the question of salary adjustments by gender. In a majority of the academic units, women received a slightly higher average annual percentage salary adjustment than did men. However, these data would also benefit from more scrutiny of possible explanatory variables for differencesgge.g., women are presently disproportionately concentrated in lower ranks, and faculty members in lower ranks may generally receive a somewhat higher percentage increase (although lower absolute dollar amounts) than do those in more senior ranks. Although the numbers of black and women faculty members have increased, and although growth in both areas is limited by the availability of qualified personnel, the University must continue and enhance its efforts at recruitment and retention. But the University community must also take the additional step of identifying those attitudes and behaviors that contribute to a widespread perception among such groups that they are inade- quately supported, and must move to change them. In recent years, the University has addressed these concerns through its sponsorship of special workshops on the black student/white professor relationship and on the classroom climate for women. Another approach might be the encouragement of "mentoring." In many disciplines, productive scholarly research is carried out in a collaborative mode in which faculty members join in team inves- tigations. In addition, junior faculty in many fields need the assistance of senior faculty in developing their own research programs. In both of these types of situations, women and minor- ity faculty often feel left out or find it awkward to join estab- lished teams or to develop a "mentor" relationship. Thus, if senior faculty were to make every effort to include women, junior, and minority faculty colleagues in their research programs, inviting their collaboration where appropriate, offer- ing assistance in their professional development, and providing career advice, these efforts might go far to alleviate the perceived inequities that were evidenced in the committee's investigation. Recommendation 6-6: That the University explore a wider array of programs with regard to the recruitment of highly quali- fied black and women candidates for faculty positions and toward the retention and equitable pay of such persons once recruited. Among the elements of this effort should be * provision of significant additional resources to the EO/AA effort, * close encouragement of search committees in the various units to involve women and minorities in the search process, even where this requires using personnel external to the employing unit, * intensifying efforts to build the minority vita bank and to increase its utility and accessibility, * coordinating the activities in recruitment of professional spouses to aid in affirmative action hiring, and * continuing to demonstrate a high degree of commitment to EO/AA through making additional positions and funds available for hiring black faculty and through encouraging the research, grant-seeking, and publishing activities of women and black faculty members. Recommendation 6-7: That the University President, other officers of the University, the Faculty Senate, and the faculty associations should assure that more blacks and women are named to policy-making and leadership positions, includ- ing key committees at all levels of the University. This must be done, however, with a sensitivity to the adverse impact that multiple appointments can have on the profes- sional development of individual faculty members; i.e., access to decision-making must not be accomplished at the cost of non-retention of minority and women faculty members. Recommendation 6-8: That a formal salary equity program be initiated by the University to ensure that all faculty members receive, and are understood to receive, equitable treatment. Data regarding the program should be shared with interested groups in order to establish trust in the support- ive climate of the University. 6-1.6.2 Child Care Services The increase in women faculty at VPI&SU during the past decade has been accompanied by a marked increase in single-parent families and families in which both parents have professional responsibilities. In such circumstances, familial responsibil- ities often compete with those of one's profession. Although the University, in its evaluation of professional development, cannot make distinctions on such bases, it should help to provide assistance to such faculty members so that their time can be used most effectively. One important kind of assistance, according to roughly 500 faculty members responding to the Self-Study questionnaire, is the availability of child care facilities. As might be expected, this is an area of particular concern to junior faculty, with 67 percent of Instructors and 60 percent of Assistant Professors responding that they would use an on-campus child care facility if one were available. In addition, the Women's Network indicated a strong interest in the establishment of such a facil- ity. A clear benefit to the University of providing a child care service would be the increased productivity, and the consequent greater retention, of parents with younger children. Recommendation 6-9: That the University support child care services. 6-1.6.3 Handicapped Concerns According to the University Disabled Student Services counselor, the number of faculty members with whom he has worked over the last eight years has steadily increased, reaching 24 in 1986-87. While much progress has been made in providing these persons with access to all programs, many of the older buildings do not yet have suitable vertical access for aging faculty and for temporar- ily or permanently disabled faculty. As a result, these faculty are not only inconvenienced, but are prevented from participating fully in University life. Recommendation 6-10: That the University make all academic programs and auxiliary support available to handicapped persons, thereby accommodating handicapped members of the University community. 6-1.7 Faculty Participation in University Governance This is an area of University life in which much has been accom- plished since the University's initial Self-Study in 1965-66, and one where much remains to be accomplished. The need for further action arises from two sources. First, the University has yet to act effectively on some of the recommendations put forward in earlier self-studies to deal with certain identified problems. Some processes and structures on the campus have proven quite resistant to change. Second, the relatively recent growth, maturation, and diversification of the faculty has created expec- tations for higher and higher standards of institutional perform- ance. VPI&SU is a bigger, more comprehensive, and fundamentally different institution than it was 20, or even 10, years ago, and the faculty who have made it so are characterized by rising expectations about their participation and influence in univer- sity affairs. The University has responded positively to certain of these expectations, but not always at a pace which the faculty has regarded as satisfactory. 6-1.7.1 Shared Governance at the University Level The University's system of shared governance operates as follows. University-level issues are addressed by University-level bodies, including the University Council, six subsidiary commissions (Extension, Faculty Affairs, Graduate Studies, Research, Student Affairs, and Undergraduate Studies), and the Faculty Senate. University Council now consists of 42 members; 17 administrators, 16 faculty representatives, eight students and one staff member. All deans and vice presidents serve on the Council. Faculty representatives come from both the Faculty Senate and the individual colleges. Student members are the officers of the principal student organizations. The single staff representative is selected by the Vice President for Administration. Some proposed policy changes arise either from the administration or from the Faculty Senate, and are channeled to the appropriate commission(s) to be developed. Other changes are undertaken at the initiative of the commissions themselves. At this point, informal consultation takes place among all interested parties. Proposals are then evaluated by the commission(s) within whose jurisdiction(s) they fall. Once proposals are approved, they are sent forward to Council as resolutions. Council rules provide in most instances that some two to six weeks will be available between the presentation of a proposal and any subsequent vote, this to allow further time for review and discussion. Following this, items are either approved or disapproved, or referred to commission for further study. Policies approved by Council take the form of recommendations to the University President, who has, in recent years, accepted them largely as a matter of course. The role of the Faculty Senate in this process is largely a reactive one. The Senate is represented on Council by its Vice President and seven elected Senators. The Senate officers and Cabinet are often consulted informally as policy is being devel- oped, and the full body may express itself as well. The Senate is represented on all six commissions, and receives reports of commission activities at all of its meetings. Once an item reaches University Council, any member thereof may request a deferral of action for six weeks. Typically, the Faculty Senate, through its Vice President, makes such requests, especially for issues that entail any degree of controversy. These issues are brought before the full Senate for discussion and recommendations. Amendments and other comments offered by the Senate are then taken back to Council, where in recent years they have regularly resulted in revisions to pending proposals. The Senate also serves as a forum for debate, and as a mechanism for bringing issues to the attention of the university community. The Faculty Senate is regarded as constitutionally independent of the University Council. Its actions are not subject to Council approval, and, as a symbol of its independence, its President does not sit ex officio on Council. One consequence of this structure, however, is that resolutions passed by the Senate do not have direct, formal influence on Council or any other governance body. Rather, policy initiatives undertaken by the Faculty Senate must be channeled through one of the commissions. Typically, such initiatives are channeled through the Commission on Faculty Affairs, the only commission where a majority of members are Senators elected by the Senate. The Faculty Senate was formed in 1969 in response to a recommen- dation of the 1965-66 Self-Study. Those early years, which also saw a restructuring of University governance generally, were dominated by the kinds of conflict and distrust typical of such start-up periods. The principal style of Senate action was the passage of large numbers of policy resolutions, which were presented to the University administration as public expressions of the "faculty position." By the time of the 1975-76 Self- Study, some 46 percent of the faculty surveyed called for a further restructuring of university governance, and only 27 percent judged the Faculty Senate to be effective in representing its constituency. Further changes were implemented, including revision of the constitutions of both the Senate and the Univer- sity Council in 1981. When the Faculty Senate was established in 1969, the numbers of faculty members and programs at the University were substantially smaller than they are today. In addition, in the years since it was established, and especially in the last five years, the Senate has assumed broader responsibilities for representing the faculty on a number of boards, commissions, and committees both within the governance system and in the University's auxiliary enterprises. This development is likely to continue. For both these reasons, the capacity of the Faculty Senate to serve its increasing, and increasingly diverse, constituency and to meet the new demands placed upon it is becoming strained. An increase in the size of the Senate would provide it with the personnel resources to maintain and extend its level of service to the faculty at large without unduly increasing the burden on individ- ual Senators. Expansion of the Senate would also provide an opportunity to redress the one lingering inequity in representation of the faculty at the University level, the exclusion of the non-collegiate extension faculty. Both the Senate Cabinet (in 1985) and the Non-Collegiate Extension Faculty Association (in 1987) have endorsed this extension of suffrage and represen- tation. Recommendation 6-11: That the Faculty Senate be enlarged with due attention to the principle of proportional representation and to providing appropriate representation for the non-collegiate extension faculty. In recent years, the style of policy-making at the University has evolved to a less confrontational one, with an increasing degree of involvement of faculty leaders in the early stages of policy formulation within the administration, and a greater degree of administrative support for faculty initiatives. This is not a trend without exceptions, to be sure, nor is it evident in equal measure in all areas of administrative responsibility. It does, however, represent a fundamental shift in the predispositions of University policy makers, especially those with academic respon- sibilities. The results of this shift are evident in the latest Self-Study survey, which shows, for example, that 73 percent of the faculty believe the University's governance system to be open and responsive, and that 65 percent of the faculty now express confidence in the Faculty Senate. Final decisions regarding University policy are made by the Board of Visitors, the voting members of which are appointed by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Since 1983, the Board of Visitors has provided for a student currently enrolled at the University to serve on the Board without vote. In 1986, a resol- ution to provide similar representation for the faculty, in the person of the President of the Faculty Senate, was unanimously adopted by the University Council and was carried by the Univer- sity President to the Board with his endorsement. At this writing, the matter has yet to be acted upon. Shared governance at VPI&SU is an expression of the commonality of purpose among the faculty, students, and administration, as is perhaps best indicated by their joint support for faculty repre- sentation on the Board. Such representation would bring to the Board a perspective on the University that is effectively excluded by the current structure of that body and one of poten- tially great value. At the same time, such representation would give to the faculty a better understanding of the larger issues that confront a governing board. Finally, formal faculty partic- ipation in its proceedings would provide a mechanism by which the Board of Visitors could join with the faculty, administrators, and students in a celebration of the spirit of cooperation that characterizes the governance system at VPI&SU. Recommendation 6-12: That a non-voting position be created for the President of the Faculty Senate on the University's Board of Visitors. 6-1.7.2 Shared Governance at the College or Equivalent Level Issues of more localized concern are typically reserved for decisions of the respective college (or equivalent) faculties. Change in the style and degree of faculty influence, however, has been rather slower to arrive at this level. Seven of the Univer- sity's eight academic colleges, as well as the library and exten- sion faculties, have faculty associations, but these are generally weak and under-utilized. Despite a recommendation of the 1965-66 Self-Study, the College of Business, in the language of the 1975-76 Self-Study, "consistently chooses not to form such an association." Each college faculty is represented on University Council and on the Undergraduate and Graduate Studies Commissions, but there is little apparent effort to coordinate the roles of these single representatives either with the governing bodies of the faculty associations, with the Faculty Senate, or with one another. One college, Human Resources, appears to have worked out an especially productive cooperative relationship between the Dean and the faculty association, but the more common pattern is one of limited consultation (if any) on matters of college policy. Concern over the role of the faculty associations is not new. The 1975-76 Self-Study suggested, for example, that these associ- ations be assigned the role of "providing forums for the discussion of matters of concern to faculty at the college level, and for communication of those concerns to appropriate levels of University governance and administration." However, such concern is not an object of widespread and intense faculty attention. Our analysis suggests that the faculty associations are positioned to deal with both issues and programs that are of substantial value and potential interest to the faculty, and that apathy regarding them is a product of their failure to exploit fully their opportunities for service and influence. It is in the best interests of the University, the colleges, and the faculty to develop further the role of these associations. Specifically, the associations should be better integrated into the professional lives of their respective faculties and should provide rigorous and meaningful lines of communication between administrators on the one hand and faculty on the other. For example, through the sponsorship of college-wide research sympo- sia and programs focusing on issues of cross-disciplinary inter- est, the associations should enhance the intellectual climate of the campus. In cooperation with their respective Deans and Directors, the associations should define for themselves a role in college- or unit-level advice-giving and decision-making not unlike that of the Faculty Senate at the University level. Finally, the leaders of the faculty associations should engage in a regular exchange of views with one another for the purposes of identifying common concerns, sharing ideas, and jointly sponsor- ing activities. In addition, these leaders should explore ways of integrating their activities with those of the Faculty Senate. The formation of a Council of Faculty Association Presidents in 1987 is a first step toward this latter objective. Recommendation 6-13: That the administration, the Faculty Senate, and the leaders of the faculty associations make a concerted effort to invigorate those associations and to increase the role of faculty in sub-University-level governance. 6-1.7.3 Governance at the Departmental Level It is at the departmental level, that closest to the daily concerns of the faculty, where the University offers the fewest provisions for, and protections of, faculty participation in decision-making. Traditionally, VPI&SU has employed a headship system in which the chief departmental administrative officer is appointed by and primarily is answerable to the Dean of the college or Director of the unit. The advantages offered by such a system include the clarity with which it assigns the responsi- bility for any departmental action, the protection it affords to a departmental administrator who must undertake unpopular actions, and the stability that it can sometimes impart to departmental leadership. Among the principal disadvantages of the headship system are the manner and degree in which it restricts faculty participation in leadership selection and evaluation, the absence of effective mechanisms to assure the accountability of academic administra- tors to the faculty, the de facto reliance it tends to place on high degrees of departmental conflict as the primary indicator of the need for leadership change, and the absence of systematic avenues at the most local levels of the University for the devel- opment and exercise of faculty initiatives. These disadvantages are reinforced in the present instance by the absence in some colleges and departments of either written procedures covering even the most basic elements of governance and decision-making or regular procedures through which the faculty are able to evaluate those administrators who serve over them. The present system of departmental governance was developed over the many years when the University was much smaller (with fewer senior faculty members), much more closely associated with a military culture, and much less diverse. Given the numerical and qualitative growth of the faculty as summarized earlier in this chapter, the much greater diversity of backgrounds and experience of that faculty, the proliferation of programs of study and research, and all the other changes that have combined over the past 20 or so years to convert VPI&SU into a major, comprehensive university, it seems appropriate that the University begin to explore alternative models of departmental governance and of faculty-administrator relationships. In this regard, 69 percent of the faculty responding to the Self-Study survey expressed the view that departmental faculty should be given the option of governance by an elected Chair. It is no doubt true that some departments, in some substantive areas or circumstances, would best be served by retention of the headship system, and that some departmental faculties would prefer to retain it. Accordingly, this system should not be eliminated altogether. Many other departmental faculties, however, in other substantive areas or circumstances, would prefer, and might be better served by, conversion to a chairship system with the increased responsibility it affords to depart- mental faculty. The University is now sufficiently diverse to require, and suffi- ciently mature to tolerate, some diversity in departmental governance structures. Because it represents a significant change in the traditional patterns of University administration, however, any departmental faculty that contemplates a conversion from the headship to the chairship system should weigh carefully both the costs and the benefits of such a change, and should give substantial thought to any new procedures that it might adopt. Specifically, any such department should be required to submit to the college Dean or unit Director and to the faculty association (where one exists) for their review and comment a set of written departmental procedures incorporating, at the very least, the procedures for selecting the Chair. Recommendation 6-14: That departmental faculty be permitted to choose between the headship and chairship systems of depart- mental governance. Change in departmental leadership at regular intervals is vital for the continual renewal and spirit of the University. To assure accountability and to provide for regular periods of departmental introspection and renewal, and in accord with the preferences of 80 percent of faculty respondents to the Self- Study questionnaire, all departmental administrators, whether Heads or Chairs, should serve fixed terms and be eligible for reappointment or reelection. To assure the ability of the University to respond to changing circumstances, at the expira- tion of each term, each department should be afforded an opportu- nity to select between the headship and chairship systems. Provision should be made for conducting an outside search for either a head or a chair where the department faculty deem this appropriate and where resources permit. Recommendation 6-15: That Department Heads or Chairs serve for terms that are fixed and renewable. Because of the increasing complexity of the University and the proliferation of various rules and procedures, because the content of such rules and procedures and their implementation can have a significant impact on the professional lives of the faculty, and because, in any event, the faculty should be fully informed of all rules and procedures that apply to them and to their work, all such rules and procedures should be available to the faculty in written form. Indeed, in an era in which the decisions made by universities and their faculties are subjected to litigation with some regularity, it would seem to be in the interests of both that all such items be explicated. This is not presently the case at VPI&SU, especially at the departmental level. To achieve the stated goal, all units, including departments, should be encouraged to specify in writing and in a manner consistent with the Faculty Handbook and other applicable Univer- sity policies, their rules and procedures, such as the following: * Hiring of new faculty * Renewal or nonrenewal of untenured faculty * Promotion and tenure * Evaluation of faculty performance * Scheduling and conduct of meetings * Elections or appointments to departmental committees * Specification of voting rights in departmental matters * Allocation of resources, including funds and space * Selection of the Chair (where appropriate) * Allocation of course scheduling and curriculum planning Consistent with the spirit of shared governance and with the maturation of the faculty evidenced above, such rules and proce- dures as may be adopted at the departmental level should be subject to approval by the departmental faculty, and, as appro- priate, such rules and procedures as may be adopted at the college (or equivalent) level should be subject to approval of the respective faculties through their associations. To require that rules and procedures be specified is not the same as requiring uniformity among them. Because of the diversity of the University, various departments, colleges, and other units have more or less unique needs that must be accommodated. At the same time, these units currently have in place significantly different procedures covering common functions, with the result that some faculty work under very different conditions and expec- tations than do others. These areas of difference should be identified by the Deans, Directors, and faculty associations, who should give consider- ation to the potential benefits of working toward some greater degree of standardization. The Commission on Faculty Affairs should adjudicate any disagreements that arise between Deans or Directors and departments or faculty associations pertaining to the precedence of policies or procedures that have been specified and approved by appropriate faculty bodies. Recommendation 6-16: That policies, rules, and procedures for all units be specified in writing and that subsequent disputes will be referred to appropriate committees or commissions that include faculty representation. 6-1.7.4 Recognition of Faculty Participation in Shared Governance Faculty participation in shared governance at all levels enriches the University experience for all concerned and contributes to the development and progress of the institution. Yet fully 27 percent of the faculty do not perceive that "the University has an open, representative governance system." If the governance system is to be effective, it requires participation by many faculty members so as to change this negative perception. Some contributions, such as service on a commission, the University Council, or the Faculty Senate, require a moderate amount of time and energy and can reasonably be expected of the faculty as a matter of course. This level of participation can be adequately supported at the departmental level through normal procedures for evaluating performance. In addition to this "ordinary" level of partic- ipation, however, the system requires that a few individuals perform extraordinary service in order to coordinate and lead the total faculty contribution to University governance. Rewarding this level of service presents special problems to the Universi- ty's traditional reward system. A major contributing factor here is the amount of time and effort that must be expended in providing such leadership. For example, while it is relatively easy to determine what impact a given policy will have on oneself, it takes a great deal of time to determine what its impact will be on a large and varied faculty. Only after such a period of study, however, can intelligent suggestions on the proper course of legislation be made, and only then can the faculty point of view become a constructive force. Furthermore, it takes an enormous amount of time, effort, and talent to move an idea forward until it takes shape as a resol- ution acceptable to the University community as a whole. The process requires continued effort until the resolution is approved and implemented, and to monitor its implementation. Consequently, valuable service to the University can be made only at considerable expense to one's other activities. The net effect is to divert, sometimes substantially, the efforts these faculty members would normally expend in support of other insti- tutional missions. Specifically, an important resource is taken from the faculty members' departments and used to benefit the University as a whole. Since it is difficult to evaluate University-level activities from the departmental perspective, and since the department may have borne a cost for this contribution in any event, it is not surprising that departmental evaluations of these individuals are often negative. The University has attempted to solve this problem in the rewards system by supplementing the salary increases for the faculty members involved and by recognizing their service through the recently-established Academy of Faculty Service. These are both positive steps, but each has its limitations. For its part, the salary supplement system does not work dependably because of irregularities in the pattern of salary increments from year to year, which may result in some contributing faculty members to be overlooked. The Academy of Faculty Service, while valuable, is strictly honorific in nature. One constructive approach here would be to recognize that inten- sive service to the University interrupts progress on the research agenda of the affected faculty member, and to assist such faculty members to redirect their energies following a period of service through the selective granting of research leaves. In any event, all units of the University should commu- nicate to their faculties by word and deed that, although such activities should not dominate one's career, service to the University is positively and significantly valued. Recommendation 6-17: That service to the University receive acknowledged weight in evaluations of faculty performance, and that extraordinary service be recognized as a valued and essential contribution to the institution. 6-1.8 Sense of Community and Academic Integration The chapter on the faculty in the 1975-76 Self-Study emphasized such pragmatic topics as recruitment and selection, professional competence and development, faculty workloads and working condi- tions, participation in University governance, and professional and financial security, each of which has been treated here as well. Beyond that, however, only one brief paragraph, titled "External Climate," focused on the implications for faculty recruitment, retention, development, and professional fulfillment of the cultural and social context provided by the University and its environs. The University now has in place some components -- an impressive student body, a highly qualified and professionally active faculty -- to rank among the nation's finest comprehensive educational institutions. However, the internal and external climates -- cultural, social, and intellectual -- of University life have emerged as requiring substantial attention. These factors, in effect the finishing touches on the University's recent development, will ultimately determine the character of VPI&SU. To be, and to be perceived as, a University truly of the first rank, VPI&SU must demand from both the University and the faculty a strong commitment to the following objectives: * to continue to integrate the arts, humanities, social sciences, and scientific disciplines as befits a genuinely comprehensive university, * to create an environment within the University of mutual respect, support, and understanding for a variety of faculty roles, which include extension work, librarianship, research, and teaching, * to foster a communal spirit among faculty members with a variety of academic, cultural, and social backgrounds, * to continue to enhance the cultural and social environment of the University, and * to assure that it is the mission-defined needs of the Univer- sity -- teaching, research, and community service -- that give direction to its supporting policies and actions rather than the reverse. 6-1.8.1 Image and Name The University's image, particularly as it is presented by the administration to the public, must be that of a comprehensive institution of higher education. Outstanding faculty members have been hired in the humanities, the performing arts, and the social sciences. Not only is it professionally demoralizing to these faculty members when it appears that their disciplines are considered merely adjunct to the traditionally strong disciplines such as those in agriculture and engineering, but it misrepre- sents and disserves the larger interests of the University. Thus while four out of five faculty members surveyed see the Univer- sity on the leading edge in many academic areas, one in three in the Colleges of Arts and Sciences and Business is dissatisfied with its image. This is a comprehensive University of broad merit, a fact which the University itself must learn to appreciate. Much of the problem arises from the name of the institution: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. This title is obviously cumbersome, and conveys the very adjunct status of the non-technical disciplines that the University has strived so hard to overcome. More than that, as the University expands its role and visibility in the international arena, the primacy of "polytechnic" in its name conveys an image of secondary status. The University has, since approximately 1980, attempted to deal with the first of these problems, the sheer length of its name, by giving added prominence to its nickname, "Virginia Tech," to the point that the nickname now appears most prominently on some University publications and materials. Although well intended, this practice, which was initiated without widespread discussion, has actually added to the problem in three ways. * First, even more than the full name of the University, the nickname conveys an image of a narrowly-based institution. * Second, in the international sphere a "tech" is even less prestigious than a "polytechnic," so that the impression created by the name among the international scholarly commu- nity is in fact demeaning to the institution. * And third, by creating a duality of names, the parallel reliance on the formal and informal titles generates consid- erable confusion. The practical results of these phenomena are that the University fails to receive full credit for its accomplishments since some are attributed in the public mind to VPI&SU and others to Virginia Tech, the affiliation of faculty members at disciplinary and other meetings is ambiguous, the University is unnecessarily burdened with doubts as to its prestige in its efforts to recruit international faculty and graduate students, and the image of the University both in the United States and abroad is not well or properly defined. Recommendation 6-18: That unless and until a change in its formal name is instituted, the University be referred to in all official documents by its current formal name, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Recommendation 6-19: That in all of its external marketing, the University emphasize its comprehensiveness and its commitment to, and excellence in, the arts, humanities, and social sciences as well as the areas of science, technology, and agriculture. 6-1.8.2 Interdisciplinary Curriculum, Teaching, and Research One mechanism for creating a comprehensive university, and an indicator of the success of such efforts, is the extent to which the activities within the various disciplines are integrated. Integration of the disciplines involves the participation and cooperation of disparate groups of faculty. It is perhaps in this area that the most progress has been made. Several cooper- ative ventures stand out in this regard: the core curriculum; a cooperative teaching arrangement involving faculty members in sociology, history, and theater arts; and the emergence of numer- ous interdisciplinary research centers. With regard to teaching and curriculum, the University offers a number of "cross-listed" courses (i.e., courses offered by more than one department and taught cooperatively) and several inter- disciplinary programs (e.g., international studies, Appalachian studies). In addition, it is not unusual for faculty assigned to one department or unit to teach courses listed by another. Clearly, the mechanics supporting such activity are in place. Because the reward structures of the University are primarily defined by traditional disciplines, however, and because faculty participation in interdisciplinary efforts may detract from pursuit of department-specific missions, the institutional value placed on interdisciplinary work seems to be a negative one. A 1978 policy statement concerning University centers gives four reasons for pursuing interdisciplinary research: * First, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University has an obligation to be responsive to the needs of the Commonwealth and nation. * Second, an increasing share of the research funding provided by Federal agencies is earmarked for interdisciplinary projects. * Third, effective interdisciplinary research strengthens the disciplines through shared insights gained by interaction between individuals from differing backgrounds. * Finally, interdisciplinary research enhances communication and mutual respect in a complex and sometimes impersonal academic environment. A 1986 study of research center policies by a subcommittee of the Commission on Research identified 51 centers, institutes, groups, and laboratories on campus that were engaged in some form of interdisciplinary activity. One administrator contacted observed that faculty who are so inclined will do interdisciplinary work regardless of all obstacles. Apparently obstacles abound. Despite the 1978 policy statement's optimistic prediction that "interdisciplinary research can flourish at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University without decreasing the integrity of the individual disciplines, departments and colleges," this has not been true according to the perception of center direc- tors, deans, and department heads. The requirements for a healthy interdisciplinary environment include (a) a shared facility or physical proximity, (b) recogni- tion by the University of the validity of interdisciplinary activities, and (c) the provision of adequate resources (faculty, staff, equipment) to support such work. At present, the University does not have the fiscal flexibility or the resources to meet these requirements for most faculty engaged in interdisciplinary research. A rigid fiscal management policy that allocates resources to colleges and, in turn, to departments, conspires against the accommodation of programs other than those within recognized, traditional disciplines. In addition, the constraints of an operating budget that has remained essentially steady since 1981 make it unrealistic to expect a generous, flexible response on the part of college and department administrators toward the interdisciplinary work of the centers. The University's tenure and promotion system, which is similarly centered in traditional departments and colleges, also provides counter-incentives for interdisciplinary work. Recommendation 6-20: That the University, in particular the Research Division, develop a plan to provide significant opportunities for interdisciplinary work; this plan must include a fiscal management policy that is more flexible and responsive than the one currently in place. 6-1.8.3 Cultural and Social Environment There has been significant growth in the number of local cultural events, and in the University's support for them, since the 1975-76 Self-Study. In addition, the university community enjoys one of America's richest regional cultures, the cultural milieu of the Southern Appalachian mountains. Nevertheless, it is a perception frequently expressed by some faculty members that cultural opportunities in Blacksburg are decidedly limited. Moreover, the campus lacks a centrally-located space set aside for faculty interaction. The University Club is available to all members of the University community, but it requires membership (which is limited by the size of the facility) and payment of various fees. Recommendation 6-21: That one or more centrally-located spaces, preferably including dining facilities, be identified for the use of faculty members to afford non-programmed opportunities for socializing with their colleagues. Seventeen percent of those responding to a 1986 analysis of faculty exit questionaires indicated that the community's living environment did not meet their social and cultural needs. While no level of University commitment or effort will satisfy the needs of all members of the University community, because of its geographic isolation, the University must maintain and extend its already substantial efforts. Already, under the auspices of the University's departments of Art and Art History, Music, and Theater Arts, there is a great deal of activity. Two art galleries are located on campus. A resident string quartet of international reputation, the Audubon Quartet, performs regularly. Numerous concerts, with all styles of music repres- ented, are scheduled. Productions by the Theater Arts department, ranging from classics to the experimental, are presented in both mainstage and studio contexts throughout the year. And the Virginia Tech Union, funded and administered by students, sponsors touring musical performers, travelling theatrical shows, and a film series. These activities will be significantly enhanced with the completion of several performance areas in the planned expansion of the student center. For all of these strengths, however, this area of endeavor is not without problems. The Virginia Tech Union, for example, has had no significant increase in funding in recent years despite the rising costs of booking quality touring units. The same is true of programming offered by the University's performing arts departments. Finally, the proliferation of cultural events clearly lacks coordination, and no attempt has been made to provide a comprehensive cultural ambiance. Throughout the 20th century, film has become an increasingly powerful means of artistic and political expression. Perhaps because the University lacks a strong film studies program, film is largely neglected as an art form on campus. Despite the irregularly scheduled film offerings by the International Club, the popular Virginia Tech Union film series, classic films shown as a component of a film class, and the mundane selection avail- able in local theaters, there is a dearth of quality cinema in the community. Recommendation 6-22: That the University significantly increase its support for the arts and other cultural events, and develop a plan for coordinated and integrated programming. For example, a film program should be established. 6-1.8.4 International Faculty In a report entitled Environmental Factors Affecting University Strategic Planning, it is noted that "the professoriate becomes more international as resident alien faculty make up an ever larger percentage of total faculty in the high tech disciplines." If this trend continues, the University must be prepared to increase its commitment to the social and cultural integration of these faculty members. For the past several years, between 150 and 200 international faculty and scholars have arrived on campus annually for visits ranging from three months to two years. Many of these persons become permanent residents. Services for international visitors, such as assistance with immigration papers, are provided by the Graduate School. In addition, a systematic attempt is made to identify and acknowledge these individuals as they arrive in Blacksburg. Thanks to the donation of a house and funds by VPI&SU alumnus William Cranwell, a new facility -- the Cranwell International Center -- was established on campus in 1986 to emphasize the international dimension of the University. The Center serves as a headquarters for international programs and activities, and a locus for interaction between the Blacksburg community and the University's international faculty. Much of the Center's work is accomplished through volunteer efforts. For instance, one of the major program components is the University-Community Interna- tional Council (UCIC), which organizes such activities as the International Host Program and classes in English as a second language. In 1986, UCIC received a grant from the United States Information Agency to support a pilot project entitled "Building Bridges Within a Community." The University can be proud of its commitment to its interna- tional constituency. In particular, the staff of the Graduate School is to be commended for the dedication and energy with which they coordinate volunteer efforts and seek funding. However, programs that rely on occasional grants and the work of volunteers are not sufficient. The professional integration taking place in University laboratories and departments must be matched by a sustained form of social and cultural integration within the University and the Blacksburg communities. Recommendation 6-23: That support be made available to ensure not only continuity but growth in programs and activities which encourage the integration of international faculty with the campus and Blacksburg communities. 6-1.8.5 Part-Time and Nonpermanent Faculty Although for purposes of data collection part-time and nonperma- nent faculty have been treated as a single group in this Self- Study, it is necessary to clarify the differences between the two. In most instances, part-time faculty members assume instructional responsibilities, their status permitting them to continue teaching as long as there is a need for their services. Nonpermanent faculty, for the most part, work as Research Associ- ates on research projects under the supervision of a senior faculty member, typically on outside "soft" money. In both instances, appointment is on an annual basis and can be indefi- nitely renewed. Tenure cannot be earned by either group. Unlike part-time faculty, however, nonpermanent full-time faculty members are eligible to receive employee benefits. A recent headline in the Chronicle of Higher Education (28 January 1987) referred to part-time faculty as "academic stepchildren." The article implied that nationally, as a group, such faculty are exploited with respect to salary, fringe benefits, and working conditions. These problems relative to part-time faculty do exist to some extent at VPI&SU, though the absence of fringe benefits results not from University policy, but from a state prohibition. The number of part-time, nonpermanent faculty at VPI&SU has remained relatively stable over the past five years, with the University employing 324 such persons in 1986. A demographic comparison of part-time, nonpermanent faculty with full-time faculty using data compiled by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning Analysis shows significant differences between the two groups. Part-time faculty have greater racial diversity, fewer years of experience, fewer terminal degrees, include a higher percentage of women (35 percent part-time as opposed to 15 percent full-time), and earn lower salaries than do their full-time counterparts. In several instances, part-time faculty responses to the Self-Study questionnaire vary consider- ably from those of full-time faculty. In general, these differ- ences indicate that part-time faculty are relatively less satisfied with the working environment provided by the University than are full-time faculty. It should be noted, however, that many of the part-time faculty members employed by the University are persons who would other- wise be unable to find work in their areas of specialization in southwest Virginia. Hiring these individuals provides them with suitable employment while at the same time allowing the Univer- sity and its full-time faculty a greater flexibility in workload assignments. This arrangement is mutually beneficial. Recommendation 6-24: That the University review the working conditions and employment circumstances of part-time, nonper- manent faculty, and encourage their inclusion in appropriate departmental and other activities. 6-1.8.6 Extra-Collegiate Faculty For purposes of designation within the University, the General Faculty is divided into five categories: * the Collegiate Faculties, * the Library Faculty, * the Extension Faculty not holding an appointment in a collegiate faculty, * the Administrative Faculty, and * Research Associates. The second and third of these groups are considered "extra- collegiate," although these persons are assigned standard faculty ranks. Since 1983, however, the successful termination of their probationary period of employment has been termed "continued appointment" rather than "tenure." This change was the product of the administration's determination that the service-oriented work of the extra-collegiate faculty is not comparable to the research and teaching of the collegiate faculty. It does not represent a difference in the level of performance expected of such faculty. Indeed, the extra-collegiate faculty are held to the highest professional standards for continued employment and promotion, including a sustained record of publication. The change in status may, however, provide a rationale for a failure adequately to support scholarly activity undertaken by such faculty. The distinction among classes of faculty inherent in this decision is reinforced in many subtle ways. Extra-collegiate extension faculty, for example, are excluded from representation in the Faculty Senate, and the Library Faculty is accorded proportionately less representation than other groups. Similarly, the Faculty Handbook fails to recognize the existence of non-collegiate faculty associations. Finally, as pointed out in the 1975-76 Self-Study, it is likely that the teaching and research faculty, who greatly outnumber the extra-collegiate faculty, do not understand or appreciate the work of their extra- collegiate colleagues. The net effect of these practices and attitudes is to undermine the morale of the extra-collegiate faculty and to limit their integration into the University commu- nity. Recommendation 6-25: That the University administration and the collegiate faculty adopt and encourage a more inclusive attitude toward not only the extra-collegiate, but also non-continuing appointment faculty and that the adminis- tration assure that adequate resources are allocated to provide for the professional development of, and for sustained professional activity by, all faculty including those with continuing and non-continuing appointments 6-1.8.7 Off-Campus Faculty The University employs approximately 85 off-campus faculty members. This number includes extension faculty scattered throughout the Commonwealth and more than 40 faculty members who are in residence at the Northern Virginia Graduate Campus, where the University offers graduate programs in several fields. The degree to which these off-campus faculty are integrated into the University community varies with the college or unit to which they are attached. The Northern Virginia administration feels that an important factor in this is program size, with the larger programs making a greater effort to integrate their faculty with life on the main campus. Since off-campus instruction has been an area of rapid growth in the past three years, the integration of faculty participating in it with the larger University has emerged as an area warranting further study. This is especially important since decisions regarding the possible promotion and tenure of off-campus faculty will be made by colleagues in on-campus units. Recommendation 6-26: That the University review the status of faculty assigned to off-campus programs to ensure that they are sufficiently integrated into the main campus in order to assure fair consideration during deliberations on promotion and tenure. 6-1.9 Conclusion As will be evident from the data and analysis reported in this chapter, both the University and its faculty are in fundamentally sound condition. The issues of academic survival -- salaries, high proportions of tenured faculty, minimal levels of financial support, and the like -- are not prominent at VPI&SU at this time. That is not to say that everything is perfect, but it does indicate that the administration and the faculty have much with which to be pleased. Indeed, it is precisely because these elements of institutional subsistence are not at issue that the University is free to turn to questions that are in many ways more interesting and certainly no less challenging than those pertaining to our institutional sense of identity. In effect, the question which must be asked is: What kind of University do we wish to be? At one level, that question was answered more than 20 years ago when the decision was made to convert Virginia Polytechnic Insti- tute into a high-quality comprehensive university. Much of the growth and development documented here and in the 1975-76 Self- Study is testimony to the degree of commitment that accompanied that decision. But at a second, and higher level, the question remains unanswered. For in its confusion of names, in its dependence on traditional patterns of administration-centered governance at the collegiate and departmental levels, in its under-appreciation of existing strength in people-oriented disciplines, in its somewhat single-minded emphasis on funded research as an indicator of faculty accomplishment, and in a host of other ways, this Univer- sity has not yet demonstrated a full recognition of just what it means to be a comprehensive university. For many of its faculty, the University fails to provide a sense of professional fulfillment, not because their work is not worthy, but because its worth is not recognized. For many of its faculty, the University fails to support their sense of professionalism in the inelegant and unsophisticated manner in which it often presents itself to the world. For many of its faculty, the University presents itself as an adversary to be served and benefitted despite its policies and actions. And for many of its faculty, the goals and directions of the University are not well understood in the absence of unified and widely accepted definitions. Although these may sound, on first reading, to be harsh criti- cisms, that is not how they are meant. No institution of the size and complexity of VPI&SU can be perfect, let alone after a period of a mere 20 years, and those who have brought our Univer- sity to its present state are to be commended for their foresight, their hard work, and their many evident accomplish- ments. To the contrary, the posing of these issues, and the asking of the questions that they imply, is a testimony to all that has been accomplished to date. This University now has the potential for greatness, and has reached a point in its development where the questions change and the challenges and opportunities become more complex. The University community, administrators, faculty, the Board of Visitors, and others, must look beyond the mundane questions that have so governed our professional lives in years past, and work in concert to develop a vision of what the University and its faculty can achieve and a plan to achieve it. The faculty see in this University's future a faculty drawn from the best minds in all the disciplines, working for the betterment of the University as a whole. The faculty see the University welcoming, valuing, and supporting diverse interests and contrib- utions to its welfare and to the achievement of all its missions. That is a goal worthy of any institution of higher education, and it is one whose attainment is at hand if the entire University community chooses to reach for it. 6-2.0 To Be Added 1. Executive Summary 2. List of Committee and Subcommittee Members 3. List of Materials Compiled 4. Bibliography of Documents and Literature Cited 5. Bibliography of Documents and Literature Reviewed but Not Cited 6. List of Persons Interviewed 7. SACS Checklist with References