Faculty Ranks and Reviews: One Institution's Solution

A Louisiana State University committee creates new positions for full-time teachers and researchers. Will that eliminate the exploitation of non-tenure-track faculty members?

By A. Ravi P. Rau, Michelle A. Masse, Eugene R. Wittkopf, and Ralph A. Kinney

Attacks on tenure—a concept many faculty members, not to mention those outside academe, do not understand well—are one manifestation of this dissatisfaction. During the past decade, many universities, often under outside pressure, have initiated "post-tenure" or "accountability" policies to solve the mystery of what professors do during what many people perceive as an astonishingly short work week.1  The success of such programs has been minimal at best. An enormous amount of time and energy has been spent to remove a handful of so-called deadwood professors. These efforts have diverted attention from the administrative, legislative, and funding decisions that in fact determine the availability and the quality of education on most campuses.

Against this backdrop, in 1997 the new provost at Louisiana State University and A&M College (LSU) appointed a task force of three tenured professors and three deans to draw up guidelines for post-tenure review at LSU. It quickly became clear to this group and to the provost that the exclusive focus on tenured faculty was misplaced; instead, what was required was a workable system to assess the rights and responsibilities of all faculty.2 In 1998 the Faculty Senate’s executive committee appointed the Faculty Senate Commission on the Status of Academic Ranks to explore faculty ranks, security, and review in an integrated, coherent way. The commission’s twelve members included the three members of the original task force (all of whom are coauthors of this article) as well as instructors, research-rank faculty, and tenured professors. After a year of research, discussion, and consultation, the commission made recommendations in three broad categories—instructor status, research-rank status, and ongoing faculty review—that we summarize here.

Our local scenario is, of course, part of a much larger picture. The context for this essay includes AAUP guidelines as well as national debates about faculty status. LSU’s standards for instructors and part-time faculty are far removed from the worst-case exploitation of "scholar-gypsies."3 Louisiana’s Bylaws and Regulations for the LSU Board of Supervisors declares instructors and research-rank faculty ineligible for tenure. Geographical location and principle, however, have long mandated that instructors and researcher-rank faculty at LSU work full time, have full benefits, and participate in faculty governance; many have been employed for decades. That not-unique pattern points to the inadequacy of much current nomenclature about part-time or adjunct faculty versus tenured professors. Our experience at LSU suggests that there are at least four faculty groups to consider: tenured, tenure-track, full-time non-tenure-track, and part-time or adjunct faculty. In addition, "research" or "science" faculty as a group will become increasingly important as schools seek out corporate ties and emphasize grants.

The AAUP’s guidelines on tenure present an unvarying ideal toward which many schools aim. In crafting recommendations, members of the commission were strongly influenced by the principles that support that ideal. But political realities and philosophical bent made us argue for what we thought we could get: incremental change. LSU is not alone in using that strategy. In the past year, for example, Georgia State University has received a good deal of favorable attention—including "cautious praise" from an AAUP representative—for consolidating part-time positions into full-time non-tenure-track faculty lines with benefits.4

Our proposal that LSU progress from that practice, which it has followed for many years, to multiyear contracts is another significant step. This article’s history, however, underscores how important the topic is, and how hard it is to talk about. The article was first accepted, then rejected for not representing the AAUP’s recommendations, and finally approved for publication in an issue of the magazine that presents different viewpoints on tenure.

After careful deliberation, we have decided to report our recommendations in much the same style as they were sent forth to the Faculty Senate and the administration. (None of the recommendations has been accepted yet.) We believe that the readers of Academe will be woefully familiar with the genre of commission and task force reports, and that our recommendations will be of most use to other institutions in this format. We very much hope that these recommendations will become part of a conversation that is crucial for all of our futures.

Background

LSU is a Research I, land- and sea-grant university with approximately twenty-six thousand undergraduate and five thousand graduate students.5 A growing research profile, the transition from open to selective admissions, and the inauguration of Louisiana’s "TOPS" scholarship program have increased enrollment and retention. (The TOPS program assures free tuition for students with high school grade point averages of 2.5 and minimum LSU ACT admission scores.) The faculty has not grown at the same rate as the student body, but it now numbers about 1,000 tenured or tenure-track professors, 280 instructors, and 50 faculty in research ranks.

All of these faculty ranks are necessary to fulfill LSU’s mission. The commission was concerned, however, by how the functions of the different categories had overlapped over time, so that we had "researchers" with core teaching assignments, while some "instructors" were required to publish, write grants, or handle administrative duties. But no matter how long their service or stellar their performance, all instructors and research-rank faculty receive one-year renewable contracts.

Basic Principles

Research I universities support an enormous range of activities, however, and they also need a small core of faculty who specialize in either teaching or research. These faculty members should not be exploited through year-to-year appointments that provide no identifiable job security or opportunity for career advancement, but neither should the number of these positions grow without control relative to those of the tenure-track faculty. Exploiting people because of the current tight academic market is not morally acceptable. However attractive one-year contracts might seem when following market or business principles, they are at odds with academic culture. Universities will suffer in the long run if the next generation avoids academic careers, and the current generation of teachers and scholars becomes embittered by the loss of academic freedom and unfair labor practices.

Instructors

Commission members agreed that the duties of instructors lie primarily in teaching; their job assignments therefore should not require research. Teaching, teaching-related activities, professional development, and service are legitimate assigned duties. Some instructors may choose to engage in research, but their performance evaluations will focus exclusively on their assigned duties.

To provide stability and career advancement for instructors who continue in their positions for many years, the commission recommended three ranks: Instructor I, Instructor II, and Senior Instructor, as well as rolling contracts of three and five years for the latter two ranks. These rolling contracts will be renewable annually, subject to performance evaluation and university need.

After three annual renewals in the Instructor I rank, the faculty member will be eligible to be considered for promotion to Instructor II. This promotion, as well as the one to Senior Instructor, which recognizes exceptional performance, will be governed by careful review and accompanied by a step increase in salary. (The creation of these ranks emphasizes the importance of thorough evaluation when hiring into the Instructor I rank.)

The commission further recommended that instructors in the upper two ranks participate in and vote on certain undergraduate curricular issues and on some personnel matters. They would also be able to supervise graduate students after satisfying the requirements of their departments and the Graduate School.

Because fluctuations in student numbers necessitate flexibility in faculty hiring, the commission recommended creation of a new category, Interim Instructor, a one-year position renewable for no more than three years. Interim Instructors will be eligible to apply for Instructor I positions, but their appointments should not become open-ended. The university should frequently assess whether higher enrollment or retention rates are long-term trends requiring additional tenure-track appointments.

Commission members recommended that LSU maintain its historical standard of instructors making up about 15 percent of the total faculty. Our university, along with many others, has seen a gradual increase in recent years to a current total of 22 percent. There may seem to be no incentive to replace or add tenure-track positions when people whose credentials would have mandated tenure-track status a decade ago can now be hired as instructors. But such short-term gains prove costly to universities over time, as the conclusion of the AAUP’s "Guidelines for Good Practice: Part-Time and Non-Tenure-Track Faculty" trenchantly observes.6 The university’s loss of service and research in teaching-specific positions, and the loss of faculty who have high stakes in the long-term well-being of the university, offset any putative gains.

In considering the status of instructors, the commission members concluded that titles such as "professor-teaching," which was proposed, should be avoided so as not to encourage the de facto separation of teaching and research. Business and political leaders in some states have actually advocated such a separation and argued that most faculty should do only classroom teaching.

The strength of U.S. higher education depends on the training of future generations in conditions that integrate teaching and scholarship and thrive upon the synergy resulting from such integration. That strength would be lost if teaching and research were separated.

Research Ranks

Like other Research I universities, LSU needs faculty besides those who are tenured or on the tenure track to support its research effort, particularly in science and engineering. Although fewer in number than instructors, these faculty members also serve a valuable function. Federal or other grants and contracts support some, while others are paid employees of LSU. The variety of these positions has led to confusion, however, and year-to-year appointments have precluded security for those who have longer-term commitments to and from the university.

In its proposal, the commission recommended that these faculty members have no required classroom teaching: their performance standards should be confined to research, research-related activities, and appropriate service. If some choose to engage in classroom teaching, it should be on a temporary or occasional basis.

Faculty members whose primary responsibility is research now hold the titles of Assistant Professor-Research, Associate Professor-Research, and Professor-Research. The commission recommended "grandparenting" the titles of faculty currently in those ranks and creating three new titles and ranks: Research Scientist I, Research Scientist II, and Senior Research Scientist. Further, within each of these ranks, budget designations will distinguish those whose salaries are provided by LSU from those who are paid by grants. Faculty members in the Research Scientist II category who are paid by LSU will receive three-year rolling contracts; those in the Senior Research Scientist ranks will have five-year contracts. After a faculty member receives five annual reviews as a Research Scientist I, he or she will be eligible for promotion to Research Scientist II. All promotions will be subject to rigorous review by tenure-track faculty in the appropriate departments and units as well as by promotion committees at the college and university levels. Salary increases should accompany any promotions.

Commission members agreed that research scientists will not vote on undergraduate curriculum matters. They can, however, vote on graduate curricula and supervise graduate students after fulfilling the requirements of the department and the Graduate School.

One issue of special concern to the commission was temporary loss of support for faculty members employed through grants. The commission recommended that a body such as the LSU Council on Research establish a system of "bridging" such gaps in support, particularly for those with long records of service.

Ongoing Academic Review

We have already emphasized the critical role and importance of tenure. It is equally important, however, that tenure not be abused. The primary responsibility for ensuring against abuse must rest with faculty peers, and must begin with rigorous hiring practices. Commission members agreed that all faculty members, not just tenured professors, should undergo regular evaluations and remain responsible for their academic performance. In our proposal, we refer to these regular evaluations as "ongoing academic review" (OAR). OAR will replace any proposed post-tenure review.

A variety of reviews already take place for all faculty. Since meaningful reviews involve substantial time and effort, they should build on already existing systems of review whenever possible. A thorough cumulative review need not be conducted more frequently than every five or six years. Peer faculty members in the academic unit should conduct the evaluation, which will then be reviewed by the department chair and at the college level. Revocation of tenure should be seen as an extraordinary step and clearly separated from any ongoing reviews. It should be handled according to established procedures, such as those for "dismissal for cause."

The annual reports that are already required for all faculty should be the foundation for OAR. These reports evaluate research, teaching, and service appropriate to the faculty member’s job. At LSU, five-year graduate faculty reviews address the research and scholarly activities of a large proportion of the faculty. Accreditation, board of regents, and program reviews, which are on five- or ten-year cycles, assess the academic performance of every unit. If the unit as a whole is deemed to be performing satisfactorily, no further review involving individual faculty members may be necessary.

If a review concludes that a faculty member’s performance is superior, he or she will get special recognition and reward. Reviews should stress faculty development and not be solely punitive. In universities with regular and healthy merit increases, merit reviews would themselves serve as regular individual assessments of all faculty. No separate review would be needed.

When an individual receives reports noting persistent deficiencies, these, too, should trigger special attention. When that happens, the chair and a committee of peers drawn from the department and from other units in the college will examine all previous annual reports as well as other evidence. If deemed necessary, the committee and the faculty member will formulate a three-year developmental plan. Evidence of continued unsatisfactory performance at the end of that period will lead a similar committee to recommend a further two-year plan, with the understanding that continued underperformance after that could lead to nonrenewal of rolling contracts or, for tenured faculty members, dismissal-for-cause proceedings. These proceedings would be completely separate, of course, from the OAR process.

To deal with such situations, the university must maintain a dismissal-for-cause procedure that conforms to certain basic principles, such as those specified in the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings prepared by a joint committee representing the AAUP and the Association of American Colleges (now the Association of American Colleges and Universities). The LSU Faculty Senate has recently approved a revision of LSU’s dismissal-for-cause policy, and the document is now under administrative review.

The recommendations of the Commission on the Status of Academic Ranks are now under review by the full Faculty Senate at LSU.

Acknowledgment

The authors based this article on work done by all active members of the Commission on the Status of Academic Ranks. We would like to thank our fellow members on the commission: Judith Caprio, William Cooper, Jr., Klaus Fischer, Joy Irwin, Joseph Ricapito, John Scott, Jill Suitor, and George Voyiadjis. We also benefited from discussions with many colleagues and administrators at LSU, and thank all of them, with special thanks to the members of the Faculty Senate’s executive committee:

Katie Cherry, John Collier, Jerry Draayer, Alan Fletcher, Dominique Homberger, and Malcolm Richardson. Finally, Daniel Fogel, LSU provost and executive vice chancellor, played an important part in initiating some of the discussion and in providing us with feedback and advice.

Notes

2. For a thorough rehearsal of the pros and cons of post-tenure review, as well as useful cautions and guidelines, see "Post-Tenure Review: An AAUP Response," Academe (September–October 1998): 61–67. Back to text

3. For an overview of the increase in the use of part-time, adjunct, and nontenured full-time faculty nationally, as well as a cogent criticism of the implications of this growth, see "The Status of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty," Policy Documents and Reports, 8th ed. (Washington, D.C.: AAUP, 1995), 72–81. See also "Statement from the Conference on the Growing Use of Part-Time and Adjunct Faculty," Academe (January–February 1998): 54–60. Back to text

4. Robin Wilson, "How a University Created 95 Faculty Slots and Scaled Back Its Use of Part-Timers," Chronicle of Higher Education, 22 October 1999, A18–19. See also the lively responses in the following week’s issue, which variously praised or damned the decision, as well as "Protests Prompt Shift Toward Full-Time Faculty at Georgia State," Academe (September–October 1999): 10. Back to text

5. "Research I" refers to the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, which groups U.S. institutions according to their institutional missions. For details, see www.carnegiefoundation.org/cihe/. Back to text

6. "Guidelines for Good Practice: Part-Time and Non-Tenure-Track Faculty" is a brochure published by the AAUP.

 Printer-Friendly Page