Life at Mission Creep U
What can you do when your college changes focus in the middle of your career?
By Greg Dubrow, Bryan Moseley, and Daniel Dustin
Many Americans will work for multiple employers during their lifetimes, and a good many will switch careers.1 But changing employers and careers is not the only kind of shift that can occur in the work life of a faculty member. Like nonacademic employers, colleges and universities may find that their missions shift over time. As a result, faculty members will sometimes discover that their institutions no longer seem to operate the way they did when the faculty members were hired. To survive such a possibility, faculty should focus not only on consistently improving their academic skills, but also on continually re-evaluating the kind of skills most likely to be by higher education in the future.
Although the term “mission creep” was originally coined nearly a hundred years ago to describe the gradual process by which a military mission’s stated methods and goals change, it has more recently been applied to incremental organizational changes. In this article, we use the term to describe what happens when a teaching-oriented college or university moves toward a focus on research. Such a change is not necessarily sinister. On the contrary, mission creep permits many institutions to increase their national visibility and offer more services (for example, more degrees and diverse opportunities for scholarship). Faculty who position themselves well during the shift can revitalize their careers.
Inevitably, however, some problems typically accompany mission creep: (a) the institutional dilemma: how does the university define its own development? (b) the faculty dilemma: how do professors take control of their own professional development to minimize friction with the institution? and (c) the administrative dilemma: what practices and procedures facilitate faculty development in a college or university undergoing dramatic change?
To bring these problems to life, we describe a prototypical institution in transition. The stories of faculty and administrators at Mission Creep University are a composite crafted from our experiences with multiple universities in transition.
Institutional Dilemma
Until recently, Mission Creep University concentrated on teaching, service, and program building. As the first public four-year university in a growing metropolitan area, MCU’s main mission was to serve first-generation college students who wanted a low-cost public education without having to travel a great distance to get it. MCU trained and credentialed students for professional careers and depended on tuition as its major revenue source. As MCU’s enrollment grew, so did student demand for a greater variety of degrees. To keep MCU viable, professors busily created or revised programs and readied them for accreditation.
Over the past several years, new institutions and programs have begun to pop up throughout the metropolitan area. They duplicate some of MCU’s most successful professional degree programs and threaten its historical mission. To ensure its prosperity, MCU decided that instead of competing directly with the new institutions, it would move into graduate education with a research focus. MCU is now embroiled in the complex and difficult transition from a tuition-based economy to one based on research and external funding. This mission creep has significant implications for MCU’s faculty.
Faculty Dilemma
Jill, whose faculty appointment is in the sociology department, is new to MCU. Like all other recent faculty hires at MCU, she attended a major research university and was hired with the expectation that she would build a research portfolio and publish. If all goes according to plan, she will secure external funding to support not only her work but also that of the full-time graduate students that MCU’s administrators hope to lure to campus to raise the research profile of the institution and maintain its newly acquired Carnegie classification as a research-extensive university.
Jack is a tenured associate professor in public health. He has been at MCU since its founding as a student-centered, teaching institution. Although he, too, did his graduate work at a major research university, Jack sought employment in a university that did not emphasize research. His career at MCU has been devoted to teaching, program building, and service to the local community.
Jill’s Story
Jill left graduate school with a set of expectations shaped by her experience there. When Jill interviewed at MCU, she was told the university would do what it could to support her scholarship. She was warned, however, that because MCU was still in transition, its resources were somewhat limited. But the dean reassured her that taking advantage of the entrepreneurial culture developing at MCU would open up opportunities for her. Given the tight job market in her field, Jill accepted the position, negotiating a new computer and extra travel money. Her department chair told her that in her first year, she would teach two courses a semester and that he would do everything he could to maintain her teaching load at that level for as long as possible. If she bought herself out with grants, her teaching load would remain light.
By the time Jill arrived at MCU, there was a new department chair, who told her that a reduction in adjunct hires made it necessary for her to teach three courses in the spring semester. All of the courses she would teach during her first year at MCU except for one would be new preparations. In December of her first semester, Jill attended a conference in her field, where she spoke with junior professors recently hired at public and private research universities. Their experiences contrasted sharply with hers. They taught two courses a semester, or two courses one semester and one the next. In addition, they had received seed money to do research and been assigned graduate assistants. Jill, who had hoped to spend her first year carving out articles from her dissertation, was spending most of her hours in teaching-related activities.
During Jill’s second year, she again had to teach two courses one semester and three the next. But at least her prep time was less, because she was assigned courses she had already taught. In the fall term, she did more writing than she had been able to do the previous year. She was, however, assigned to a time-consuming standing committee for her college and an ad hoc departmental committee. She wanted to start looking for funding for her work but was unsure about how and where to look for grants. Unfortunately, the university office created to help professors administer grants was not particularly effective at helping secure them. Veteran departmental colleagues mentored Jill by offering tips on teaching and handling campus politics. But few of the senior professors had significant research experience.
Jill fears being evaluated for promotion and tenure based on expectations shaped by a new research model while having to work under conditions created by a discarded model. At the end of her third year, she will have to submit her portfolio to the provost for review. A fair to middling review could negatively affect her chances at tenure. Jill has begun to look for another position, but given her relatively low number of publications compared with other junior scholars on the job market, a move from MCU to a more established research university may prove difficult.
Jack’s Story
Jack, meanwhile, has different concerns. He began his MCU career in the College of Education but migrated to the College of Public Health when programs in his area, allied health education, moved there. The new college is also home to programs from other MCU units, as well as degree programs created specifically for the new entity. Such wholesale movement and creation of schools, colleges, and programs has typified life at MCU. During Jack’s tenure, new programs have been created each year. He helped develop a doctoral program and three master’s degree programs. He also helped create, revise, and even shut down numerous baccalaureate programs.
Jack is most proud of a healthcare initiative he developed with the county school board, which places MCU health-education students into K–12 schools to provide health-education counseling. Jack worked to secure public and foundation funding, put together the service module, and got the program up and running in schools across the county. He has also served in campus leadership roles, including as chair of the Faculty Senate, and he was named department chair when the allied health programs moved to the College of Public Health.
One thing Jack has not managed to do, however, is to attain the rank of full professor. He was too busy to put his materials together when he first had the chance, after which he was asked to become department chair. When Jack finally submitted his materials for promotion, he passed muster at the department and college levels, only to be denied by the provost’s office on the grounds of insufficient publications in the major journals in his field and a lack of grant activity. The following year, he submitted again, only to be denied once more. Jack was frustrated.
He requested a meeting with the provost, who informed Jack that he should have seen the changes coming and set himself up for promotion under the new rules. Jack countered that he had accepted his service roles out of his dedication to the MCU mission. He reminded the provost that the new promotion requirements differ from those in his initial job description. The provost, in turn, pointed to a few recently hired junior faculty members in the College of Engineering, applauding not only their success at publishing in the top journals in their fields, but also their achievement in bringing in research funding that fully supports their work. Jack countered that the university had targeted the engineering programs for growth and that those professors benefited from new university initiatives designed to ensure their research and grant success.
Jack was demoralized after meeting with the provost. He had helped build a university that was leaving him behind. He could not even count on junior faculty thinking well of him, because they saw him and his ideas as antiquated. What, if anything, did Jack have to offer this “new” university?
Administrative Dilemma
Jack and Jill require different incentives and rewards to stay productive in a changing academic culture. If the incentives and rewards are not packaged properly, widespread unrest will develop at MCU, because Jack and Jill are not unique. Jack is not the only senior faculty member to meet with the provost after having been denied promotion. His cohort feels increasingly alienated. Senior faculty members who are unsuited for the new research mission resent being asked to do more teaching and service. Junior and senior faculty members have begun to regard one another with suspicion, and administrative attempts to inspire unity and collegiality come across as disingenuous.
Administrators now fear that senior faculty members will rebel by blocking tenure candidates and refusing heavier teaching and advising loads to free junior faculty members for more research. In one department, senior faculty have declined to teach introductory courses with large enrollments so that newer faculty can teach smaller classes and concentrate on their scholarship.
Meanwhile, junior faculty worry that they have become part of a new system that is not fully in place and whose success appears to depend on their being overworked and under-funded. They must walk a tenuous tenure tightrope, not daring to risk raising the ire of senior faculty. They cannot refuse too many service calls or beg off too many survey courses. They must spend sufficient time in their offices so as to be a visible part of the MCU community. MCU may well become a successful research university, but at what cost? Will the first wave of recent hires be the ones to make that change, or will Jill be gone? And what about Jack? Will he get an honest chance to earn the full professor rank?
Friendly Words of Advice
For those in Jill’s circumstances, here is what we recommend. When considering a position, make sure you understand the university’s aspirations and decide if those aspirations match your own goals. During interviews, ask the right questions and read between the lines. Make sure that the department chair there in March will remain in August. Take a mental survey of departmental colleagues—who was hired in recent years? Listen to what they say, but listen closer to what they do not say. Who is happy and “gets it”? Who is putting on a brave front to get you on board? Who is miserable and has an axe to grind?
Once aboard, align yourself with those who get it. It does no good to commiserate with disillusioned faculty members who are embittered about the university’s direction. Expand your scholarly network, seek out interdisciplinary relationships, and collaborate. Enhance your marketability. Work harder than you expected to. Remember, though, that faculty at Harvard and Virginia work just as hard to reach a tenure bar that may also be set unreasonably high, despite the more generous resources available to them.
If mission creep is happening at your institution, you have four options. You can fight it, adjust to it, be embittered by it, or leave. Adjusting or leaving are the healthiest options for you and the institution. This opportunity is your first shot at a career for which you have trained long and hard. It may be your only shot if you get embroiled in petty and destructive bickering and complaining.
For those in Jack’s circumstances, we suggest the following. Strive to be one of the people who get it. Don’t commiserate with colleagues who are disillusioned. Ensure that the programs you developed remain relevant by working with new faculty members to align the programs with the new mission. Expand your scholarly network, seek out interdisciplinary relationships, and collaborate. Be a positive influence on new colleagues. They represent the future: be willing to learn from them and to help them achieve their goals. You will feel better about yourself, and you will enhance your legacy. Work harder. Think of it as an opportunity to reinvigorate yourself in the autumn of your career.
If mission creep is happening at your institution, you have the same four options that Jill has. You can fight it, adjust to it, be embittered by it, or leave. Adjusting or leaving are the healthiest options for you and the institution as well. Riding off into retirement as a respected senior colleague will be better for your health and your legacy. Who knows? The institution may even name a classroom after you.
For administrators of a university such as MCU, we would say the following. Make sure your faculty members have the institutional support necessary to help the university successfully transform itself. To raise expectations without providing the necessary lab space, equipment, support staff, and teaching relief borders on abuse.
Create grace periods within which senior faculty have time to retool to meet your changing expectations, and provide resources for career development. Holding faculty accountable to higher standards adopted overnight devalues their past contributions and fosters a sense of betrayal.
Be clear about your aspirations, and make sure your actions reinforce those aspirations. Actions that contradict your stated goals will only confuse and alienate your faculty, junior and senior alike. Requiring professors to teach larger classes while simultaneously evaluating them for promotion and tenure based on scholarship and grant writing sends a mixed message.
Honor veteran faculty who have brought the institution to the point where the transition was made possible. Without their years of program building, curriculum design, teaching, advising, and mentoring, the “creep” to research status would have been impossible.
Everyone must move in the same direction to ensure the success of the enterprise. One day, faculty and administrators will sit together at commencement and marvel at the changes at MCU. They will talk to alumni who are proud of the increased value of their degrees even as they wonder if they could have qualified for admission under the new ground rules. Senior faculty will point with pride to the research facilities and institutes dotting the MCU campus—monuments to the work they did during the university’s more tumultuous years. At the same time, they will recognize that they do not fully understand the newest changes—but they won’t be afraid to ask junior faculty colleagues to bring them up to speed. ¨
Note
1. Our observations are drawn from our collective experiences at the following institutions: California State University–Northridge, Florida International University, San Diego State University, Temple University, and the universities of California, San Diego; California, Santa Barbara; Michigan; Minnesota; Pennsylvania; and Southern California. Back to text.
Greg Dubrow is director of policy, planning, and analysis in the Office of Admissions and Enrollment at the University of California, Berkeley. Previously, he was assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies at Florida International University. Bryan Moseley is assistant professor of and program leader for educational psychology at Florida International University. Daniel Dustin is professor of parks and recreation and chair of the Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation at Florida International University.
Comment on this article.
|