STANDARD 10: FACULTY...Working Group Report: Standard 10 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 10.0 WORKING GROUP...

Working Group Report: Standard 10

STANDARD 10: FACULTY

REPO RT O F WO RK IN G GRO UP 6: A TRADITIO N O F IN STRUCTIO N , RESEARCH, AN D SERVICE

Chair: Robert B. Barat Vice Chair: Nan cy L. S tef f en -Fluhr Marg uerite Schn eider (2009-2010, on leav e 2010-2011) Adv isor: Walter Kon on Commit tee Members: Reg g ie J . Caudill , Jan ice R. Dan iel, Blake Hag g erty , An n D. Hoan g , Boris Khusid, Farzan Nadim, William V. Rapp, Judith A. Schef t , Lauren t S imon Fin al Report Submit ted: May 31, 2011

Prepared fo r the Middle S tates Commission on Hig her Educat ion Reaccreditat ion 2012 s


TABLE OF CONTENTS

10.0 W OR KI NG G R OUP A SSESSM ENT CHECKLI ST F OR ST A NDA R D 10 3

10.1 I NT R ODUCT I ON 4 10. 1. 1 Précis : T h e N JI T M is s ion an d th e F acu l ty 4 10. 1. 2 An O verv iew of Grou p 6’s Stan d ard 10 Ch arg e an d Q u es tion s Ad d res s ed 4

10.2 SELF ST UDY I NQUI R Y A ND OUT COM ES 5 10. 2. 1 T h e F orm ation of O u r F acu l ty : Q u al i f ication s , R ecru itm en t, an d D ivers i ty 5 10. 2. 1. 1 F acu l ty Q u al i f ication s an d Preparation 6 10. 2. 1. 2 D em og raph ic Portrait of th e N JI T F acu l ty AY 2002- 2011 6 10. 2. 1. 3 An al y s is 7 10. 2. 1. 4 Strateg ies for En s u rin g F acu l ty D ivers i ty 12 10. 2. 1. 5 Strateg ies for R epl acem en t of R etir in g F acu l ty 13 10. 2. 1. 6 T h e R ol e of L ectu rers an d Ad ju n ct I n s tru ctors at N JI T 14 10. 2. 2 T h e Heal th of O u r F acu l ty : R es ources , Su pport, R eten tion , an d Growth 16 10. 2. 2. 1 F acu l ty M en torin g Proces s es 16 10. 2. 2. 2 R es ou rce Al l ocation to F acu l ty 18 10. 2. 2. 3 M ain tain in g , En h an cin g , an d R ecog niz in g F acu l ty Prod u ctiv i ty 19 10. 2. 3 T h e R ol e of O u r F acu l ty in th e L i fe of N JI T : Cu rricu l u m , R es earch , Serv ice, an d Govern an ce 20 10. 2. 3. 1 T h e F acu l ty an d Ed u cation 20 10. 2. 3. 2 T h e F acu l ty , L earn in g T ech n ol og ies , an d Ed u cation As s es s m en t 20 10. 2. 3. 3 T h e F acu l ty an d R es earch 21 10. 2. 3. 4 T h e F acu l ty an d Serv ice 21 10. 2. 3. 5 T h e R ol e of F acu l ty Govern an ce 22

10.3 CR I T I CA L A NA LYSI S A ND CONCLUSI ONS 23

10.4 COLLA BOR A T I ON W I T H OT HER W OR KI NG G R OUPS 23

10.5 R ECOM M ENDA T I ONS F OR I M PR OV EM ENT 24 10. 5. 1 R ecom m en d ation s T abl e: Stan d ard 10: F acu l ty 24


10.0 WORKING G ROUP ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST FOR STANDARD 10

FUND AMENTAL ELEMENTS OF FACULTY

TEAM EVALUATI ON

(From: Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education: Requirements of Affiliation and Standards of

Accreditation (Philadelphia, PA: MSCHE, 2009)

4=EXEMPLARY 3=EMERGING EXCELLENCE 2=MEETS STANDARD 1=DEVELOPING COMPETENCY

faculty and other professionals appropriately prepared and qualified for the positions they hold, with roles and responsibilities clearly defined, and sufficiently numerous to fulfill those roles appropriately; (10.2.1.1 through 10.2.1.4)

3

educational curricula designed, maintained, and updated by faculty and other professionals who are academically prepared and qualified; (10.2.3.2)

4

faculty and other professionals, including teaching assistants, who demonstrate excellence in teaching and other activities, and who demonstrate continued professional growth; (10.2.3.2)

3

appropriate institutional support for the advancement and development of faculty, including teaching, research, scholarship, and service; (10.2.2.1 through 10.2.2.3)

3

recognition of appropriate linkages among scholarship, teaching, student learning, research, and service; (10.2.3.1, 10.2.3.3, 10.2.3.5)

4

published and implemented standards and procedures for all faculty and other professionals, for actions such as appointment, promotion, tenure, grievance, discipline and dismissal, based on principles of fairness with due regard for the rights of all persons; (10.2.2.3)

4

carefully articulated, equitable, and implemented procedures and criteria for reviewing all individuals who have responsibility for the educational program of the institution; (10.2.3.1)

3

criteria for the appointment, supervision, and review of teaching effectiveness for part-time, adjunct, and other faculty consistent with those for full-time faculty; (10.2.1.5)

3

adherence to principles of academic freedom, within the context of institutional mission; (10.2.3.4)

4


assessment of policies and procedures to ensure the use of qualified professionals to support the institution’s programs. (10.2.2.3)

3

10 .1 INTRODUCTION 10.1.1 Précis: The NJIT Mission and the Faculty In its mission as the state's technological research university, NJIT reiterates its commitment to the pursuit of excellence in undergraduate, graduate, and continuing professional education; in the conduct of applied, interdisciplinary research; in contributing to the state's economic development; and in service to both its urban environment and the broader society. The excellence of its faculty is crucial to the University's ability to meet its commitments in all four of these areas. This report describes the NJIT faculty cohort, noting demographic and other changes over the last nine years; in addition, the report documents the ways in which the University supports and engages its faculty in the pursuit of excellence. 10.1.2 An Overview of Group 6’s Standard 10 Charge and Questions Addressed Standard 10 requires that "the institution’s instructional, research, and service programs are devised, developed, monitored, and supported by qualified professionals." In addition to demonstrated excellence in academic preparation, teaching, and scholarship, the standard stresses the importance of faculty diversity; active faculty participation in institutional planning, curriculum review, and governance; the presence of transparent and equitable procedures and criteria for periodic evaluation of faculty, including the evaluation of non-tenure-track faculty; institutional support for research; and protection of academic freedom. Responding to the Standard 10 charge, Working Group 6, in collaboration with the Steering Committee, developed a set of 20 questions designed to guide us in collecting and assessing relevant data to provide evidence that the NJIT’s instructional, research, and service programs are designed, developed, monitored, and supported by qualified professionals:

1 How has the University implemented plans for faculty recruitment and retention as result of the NJIT Strategic Plan, 2004-2010? How was this plan designed to meet the needs of NJIT's academic programs? (Sections 10.2.1.3 and 10.2.1.5)

2 How do the current demographics of our faculty compare to those of our benchmark universities? If there are differences among Departments, what is the cause and effect of these differences? (Section 10.2.1.3)

3 How effective are our present strategies for ensuring a diverse faculty? (Section 10.2.1.4)

4 In light of the new Faculty Separation Incentive Program, what is the institution’s strategic plan for the replacement of retiring faculty? (Section 10.2.1.5)

5 How has the utilization of Lecturers and Adjunct faculty changed since the previous self-study? What is the impact of such changes? (Section 10.2.1.6)


6 Given expectations for scholarship and service, how effectively are faculty assignments designed regarding teaching assignment? (Section 10.2.1.6)

7 How might mentoring plans be enhanced and communicated to assist new faculty in developing and refining their skills to achieve excellence in instruction, research, and service? Are these plans developed and communicated at departmental, college-wide, and institute-wide levels? Are the plans comparable to those at our benchmark institutions? (Section 10.2.2.1)

8 How might comparable mentoring plans be put in place to assist established and mid-career faculty? (Section 10.2.2.1)

9 How sufficient are the internal resources available to help early career faculty obtain financial support for their research? (Section 10.2.2.2)

10 How might sufficient resources be made available for mid-career and senior faculty sufficient to allow exploration of new research initiatives? (Section 10.2.2.2)

11 What reasons are given for any existing imbalance in internal resource allocation, and are these reasons valid? (Section 10.2.2.3)

12 What are the mechanisms and resources in place for maintaining and supporting faculty productivity, and are these mechanisms and resources sufficient to ensure research growth? (Section 10.2.2.3)

13 How effectively is success measured in terms of faculty productivity? (Section 10.2.3)

14 How effective are the processes by which faculty are involved in academic program development, assessment, and improvement? How is such involvement recognized and encouraged? (Section 10.2.3.2)

15 To what extent are faculty members adopting new technologies to enhance instruction and curriculum delivery? Is this extent sufficient to allow students to succeed in the marketplace? (Section 10.2.3.2)

16 What mechanisms are in place to document and evaluate faculty participation in curriculum development? (Section 10.2.3.2)

17 What evidence exists that faculty research interests are considered during the formation of research plans on the departmental, college, and institute levels? (Section 10.2.3.3)

18 What are the strategies by which faculty research interests are integrated into the curriculum? (Section 10.2.3.3)

19 What is the state of faculty governance at NJIT? Is NJIT faculty governance consistent with governance at our benchmark universities? (Section 10.2.3.5)

20 How extensively does our faculty provide service to the institute? How are such efforts recognized and rewarded? (Sections 10.2.1.3 and 10.2.3.4)

10 .2 SELF STUDY INQUIRY AND OUTCOMES 10.2.1 The Formation of Our Faculty: Qualifications, Recruitment, and Diversity This section of the report describes our faculty and their dedicated, focused efforts to support the NJIT mission. The faculty consists of full and part-time, tenure and non-


tenure-track individuals, including Professors (Distinguished, Full, Associate, Assistant), University Lecturers, and Adjuncts. 10.2.1.1 Faculty Qualifications and Preparation NJIT's national reputation for academic excellence, illustrated at length elsewhere in this report, rests largely on the excellence of its faculty—their superior preparation and subsequent achievements in both teaching and scholarship. All of the University's current full-time faculty members have a doctorate or the terminal degree in their field. Ninety-one percent of part-time faculty have doctorates or the equivalent as well. (See Table 1.0 in the Digital Archive to this report.) NJIT faculty are prolific in research and scholarly publication, having produced over 7,200 journal articles during the last 10 years, in addition to books, conference papers, and patent applications. In AY 2010-2011, NJIT faculty served as principal investigators on research grants totaling over $77 million. NJIT faculty are frequent recipients of national and international recognition. In the last few years, seven early-career faculty researchers have won Presidential Early Career Awards from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Dozens of senior faculty have been elected fellows of national societies in their fields. NJIT faculty have been honored with national and international achievement awards and won prestigious fellowships including Fulbrights and Guggenheims. Both tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty have been recognized for their teaching -- e.g., in 2007, a University Lecturer in the College of Computing Sciences was named New Jersey Professor of the Year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 10.2.1.2 Demographic Portrait of the NJIT Faculty AY 2002-2011 Table 10.1 provides a demographic snapshot of the NJIT faculty from 2002 to 2011, disaggregating the data by rank, tenure status, gender, and ethnicity. (Tables in the Digital Archive provide a more detailed view, breaking down the data by academic unit—i.e., College/School and Department. Each of the tables and figures below is supported by a comprehensive analysis available in the Digital Archive.) Table 10.2 portrays the corresponding student enrollment numbers.


Table 10 .1 Demog raphic Port rait of Faculty , 2002 to 2011

A Y 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 F 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 Dist M 18 19 18 21 20 20 19 21 21 20

F 13 12 11 11 6 8 9 11 12 12 Pro f M 104 102 103 102 106 106 102 102 101 104

F 11 13 14 14 14 16 18 18 17 16 A sso c M 90 81 79 82 75 79 76 74 76 79

F 19 4 13 11 14 11 9 9 8 8 A sst M 41 47 47 55 53 42 37 40 43 35

F 45 42 41 40 38 39 39 41 40 39 T T T o ta l M 253 249 247 260 254 247 234 237 241 238

F 23 22 18 18 17 15 17 20 27 27 Le c t M 57 60 62 62 63 57 61 57 57 58

F 3 3 2 1 2 2 2 4 4 R e sh M 33 25 27 21 24 20 18 21 26 20

F 71 67 61 59 55 56 58 63 71 70 F T T o ta l M 343 334 336 343 341 324 313 336 323 317

F 37 32 44 39 39 41 58 46 48 51 A d j u nc t M 220 198 231 222 213 207 231 220 192 197

G ra nd T o ta l

671 631 672 663 648 628 660 644 635 634

#F 108 99 105 98 94 97 116 109 119 121

#UR M 28 25 29 30 32 36 37 40 42 44

%F 16.1% 15.7% 15.6% 14.8% 14.5% 15.4% 17.6% 16.9% 18.7% 19.1% %UR M

4.2% 4.0% 4.3% 4.5% 4.9% 5.7% 5.6% 6.2% 6.6% 6.9%

TT=Tenure-track FT=Full-time URM=Underrepresented Minority Resh=research professors (all ranks)

Table 10 .2 S tuden t En rollmen t (Fall), 2002 to 2011

Category 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Undergraduate 5,698 5,730 5,712 5,366 5,263 5,380 5,428 5,576 5,924 6,103

Graduate 3,164 3,098 3,058 2,883 2,795 2,829 2,860 2,822 2,916 2,831

Grand Total 8 ,862 8,828 8,770 8,249 8,058 8,209 8,288 8,398 8,840 8,934 10.2.1.3 Analysis The total number of faculty is considered in terms of total student population through the student-to-faculty ratio (SFR). Figure 10.1 shows that, over the past 10 years, SFR has been fairly steady. Coincident with the steady SFR is an approximately steady portion of the total faculty consisting of tenured and tenure-track professors of all rank (TTTF).


This analysis shows that NJIT has maintained the quality of instruction in spite of difficult financial challenges. Additional analysis of support of faculty is found in two important tables in the Digital Archive: Comparison of Unrestricted General Operations Budget to Faculty Salaries Expenses: FY2002, FY2007, FY2011, demonstrating that between 25% and 26% of the General Operating Budget has gone to faculty support; and Faculty Salary Expenses Analysis: Faculty Salary Expenses, Faculty Headcount, and Student Enrollment, demonstrating that over the past decade, there has indeed been a shift from tenure-track faculty to adjuncts, but the FTE of tenured and tenure-track faculty, Lecturers, and Adjuncts has essentially has not changed. In that enrollment has stayed approximately the same, the student ratio to faculty has remained stable.

Fig ure 10 .1 Main st ream Faculty Support of Educat ion , 2002-2011

The tenured/tenure-track faculty cohort (TTTF) is decidedly top-heavy. By 2011, the most senior ranks (Distinguished Professor and Full Professor) together constituted more than 50% of the TTTF as a whole. This seniority in rank is strongly correlated with age: By 2010, 55% of the Distinguished and Full Professors had been at the University for more than 30 years. This situation exists due to the generous benefits package afforded NJIT faculty together with no mandatory retirement age. It might be argued that 21st century students might have difficulty connecting with 20th century faculty, some of whom (8%) were hired in the 1960's. However, parents and students prefer the quality of instruction afforded by experienced, senior faculty. The seniority of the faculty is a significant source of fiscal constraint for the University: decades of salary increases have made for substantial faculty salaries. Comparative data in


2010-2011 AAUP Faculty Salary Survey reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education bears this out: among New Jersey doctoral institutions, NJIT faculty salaries are rivaled only by those of Princeton University, a private, Ivy League institution with a large endowment. Among public institutions, NJIT faculty rank as the highest paid in the nation, with an average salary of $158,700 (AAUP, 2011), shown in Table 10.3. The high salary for NJIT professors is commensurate with the well-documented high cost of living in New Jersey. The substantial compensation also encourages quality senior faculty to remain instead of moving to other universities or to industry. In addition, longitudinal analysis (see Faculty Salary Expenses Analysis: Faculty Salary Expenses, Faculty Headcount, and Student Enrollment) demonstrates that the faculty salaries consistently account for approximately 25% to 26% (21% for TTTF) of the University’s operating budget. As salaries escalate and, the percent of resources allocated to maintaining the University workforce remains fixed, there is little room for workforce expansion.

Table 10 .3 AAUP Faculty Salary Surv ey Data, 2010-2011

Highest-paid full professors, all public institutions

(Average salaries, 2010-11)

New Jersey Institute of Technology $158,700

University of California at Los Angeles $153,700

University of California at Berkeley $149,100

University of Michigan at Ann Arbor $146,900

University of Maryland at Baltimore $144,800

Note: The figures cover full-time members of the instructional staff except those in medical schools. The salaries are adjusted to a standard nine-month work year.

In order to contain the financial challenge of faculty salaries, and to maintain and grow NJIT’s position as a leading public research university, a substantial new separation offer was negotiated with the Faculty/Professional Staff union, creating an incentive for senior faculty to retire (PSA, NJIT, 2010). This Faculty Separation Incentive Program (FSIP) has, as of June 2011, been applied for by approximately 50 senior TTTF faculty – nearly 8% of the total faculty or 18% of the TTTF. The funds freed up by the FSIP will be available to hire early-career faculty in the years ahead, especially women and URM faculty. Because salaries have escalated at the levels expressed in Table 10.3, the FSIP program is needed to shift the salary structure from a large group at the very top of the scale to a smaller group at the top and a larger early-career group at the bottom. This shift will allow the University to take the same resources and expand the workforce—the


objective of the FSIP that is now in progress, with over 50 faculty members expressing interest at the present time. Diversity is an important dimension of Middle States Standard 10, and a core value of NJIT as an institution. Our diverse student population, as well as our location within the urban city of Newark, demand that NJIT strive to improve diversity among the faculty. A November 2010 NSF study notes that the 1.9% growth in total science and engineering (S&E) doctorates awarded between 2008 and 2009 was entirely accounted for by growth (4.8%) in women doctorate recipients (Fiegener, 2010). Figure 10.2 illustrates that NJIT needs to catch up to our benchmark schools.

Fig ure 10 .2 Women Faculty , 2010 (Public & Priv ate Schools) at our Ben chmarks


Fig ure 10 .3 NJIT an d Nat ion al Tren ds, Un derrepresen ted Min ority Faculty

Figure 10.3 shows that the fraction of URM within the NJIT faculty remains below national trends. Recognizing this deficiency, the University in 2005 made a commitment in its Strategic Plan (Altenkirch, 2005) to "Enhance the diversity of the faculty to mirror the percentage of African-American, Hispanic, and women terminal degree recipients working in academia by 2010." Figure 10.3 shows that progress is being made as NJIT continues to increase its percentage of URM faculty. Under-represented minority faculty members serve in several academic leadership positions at NJIT. For example, a URM male is the new Dean of the School of Management. The Otto H. York Department of Chemical, Biological, and Pharmaceutical Engineering is chaired by a URM male. Another URM male serves as the Associate Chair of MIE. The percentage of URMs among the total faculty increased from 4.2% in 2002 to 6.9% in 2011. While these numbers fall short of national benchmark data (see Figures 10.3, 4), there is a positive trend.


Fig ure 10 .4 Risin g Numbers of Women , URM Faculty , 2002-2011

Figure 10.4 also shows a definite improving trend in women representation on the NJIT faculty. The funds made available from the FSIP will help in targeting women hires. 10.2.1.4 Strategies for Ensuring Faculty Diversity While recent hiring of new faculty at NJIT has been strategic in nature, special attention is placed on enhancing faculty diversity, especially in leadership roles. For example, the SOM has just appointed a new Dean who is of African-American descent. The NCE has utilized the appointment of women and minorities in leadership roles as a means of sending a strong message that diversity is valued and essential for competitive performance of the College. For example, the present Associate Dean is a woman, and the Chairperson of the Otto H. York Department of Chemical, Biological, and Pharmaceutical Engineering (CBPE) is an African-American. Some strategies utilized by Colleges make passive attempts at increasing faculty diversity including the use of advertisements of faculty openings that encourage application from women and members of under-represented groups. In interviews conducted by the Working Group to augment the research of this report, the Deans point to recent hires of women and minorities within their Colleges as an indication of the effectiveness of the strategies for increasing diversity. In NCE, 3 out of


5 recent hires were women. In the CCS, several women were hired as University Lecturers. In the SOM, the last three faculty hires were women and the two previous University Lecturers were minorities. Despite this progress, only the Honors College refers to increasing faculty diversity as a part of its Strategic Plan (Honors Subcommittee, 2008). The Honors College Strategic Plan designates Honors College Fellows that would include NJIT faculty, faculty from other universities, and employees from industry and government. This has the potential to contribute to the diversity of “faculty” even if the appointment is for a finite period of time. In CSLA, the College relies on the University Strategic Plan (Altenkirch, 2010) as an approach for increasing faculty diversity. Given the limited number of faculty hires at the University in recent years, and the leadership changes in many Departments, the Departments have had limited experience in hiring new faculty. For this reason, Departments have less concrete approaches for promoting diversity in faculty hiring. Some Department Chairs make personal commitments to actively recruit and provide a diverse pool of candidates to bring to the faculty search committee. Other Departments pointed to diversity in hires of University Lecturers. More than one Department utilizes approaches for promoting diversity in hiring through a reliance on Human Resources and the University’s diversity statement in the advertisement for faculty positions. Some Departments indicate the primary goal in faculty hiring is quality and that enhancing diversity has no impact on recruitment. For these cases, it appears the notion of new faculty being both diverse and of quality is lost on the leaders of these Departments. Despite these cases, overall the Departments appear to be willing to promote diversity in hiring, but lack the experience and perhaps support to be able to accomplish this goal. In April of 2005, a 13-member Taskforce recommended ten new tactics to achieve this goal (Steffen-Fluhr, Daniel, 2005). In partial response to the Taskforce, in April 2007, the NJIT Board of Trustees established an Active-Service, Modified Duties Policy for TTTF, now included in the Faculty Handbook (Faculty Council, 2010). The financial challenges of the second half of this period allowed only a limited response to the other Taskforce recommendations. For example, in spite of limited resources, it was recognized that NJIT must act when an excellent faculty recruitment opportunity arises. A circulating pool of funds was established for “opportunity” hires, especially to enhance faculty diversity. This fund has now been used successfully several times. It is expected that, as hiring funds are made available by FSIP savings, this pool will increase. 10.2.1.5 Strategies for Replacement of Retiring Faculty As mentioned in Working Group Report, Standard 2, the Faculty Separation Incentive Program (FSIP) (PSA, NJIT, 2010) is designed to facilitate a phased transition to retirement for tenured and tenure-track faculty, allowing the University to reallocate strategically personnel resources. A tenured or tenure-track faculty member with at least 10 years of NJIT service and at least 55 years of age is eligible. Under the plan, the participant receives his or her salary at retirement times a multiplier. Two options exist for payout of the total: 3-years with a 1.4 multiplier, or 5-years with a 1.6 multiplier. During


these time periods, retired faculty can return as Adjuncts, as needed by the University, with preferred hiring and salary. In interviews, the Deans point to their plans to replace retiring faculty. The NCE and CoAD have well-defined plans for replacing faculty members under the FSIP. In NCE, a recruitment plan was developed by each Department within the College. The recruitment plan seeks to develop selected areas of excellence in each Department consistent with the overall Strategic Plan of the University. In the SOM, there is significant concern that the lack of new faculty hires has left the College in great difficulty of staffing core program curricula and addressing a major weakness identified by the accreditation board, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). It is fully expected that the newly hired Dean will make faculty recruitment a top priority. Similar to the Colleges, not all the Departments appear to have a plan for replacing faculty members leaving under the FSIP. A few Departments point to their strategic plans as guides for identifying the focus areas in which new faculty will be hired. One Department referred to a 5-year plan for replacing faculty by hiring junior faculty. Another Department plans to hire University Lecturers, Assistant Professors, and Research Professors from positions expected to be open by the faculty separation agreement, as well as due to previously open faculty positions that have not been filled. It is expected that faculty hiring will continue to be strategic in nature, increasing as the FSIP-derived funds grow. To date, approximately 50 TTTF have agreed to the FSIP. 10.2.1.6 The Role of Lecturers and Adjunct Instructors at NJIT University Lecturers, Senior University Lecturers, and Adjuncts are used extensively by many Departments, and play a vital role at NJIT. The Lecturers are vital because, unlike many research faculty, they carry a full teaching assignment. This resource allocation provides Departments with some flexibility by allowing tenure-track and tenured faculty to have a balanced focus on teaching and research. Table 10.4 below illustrates the salaries of these members of the instructional staff; Table 10.5 illustrates adjunct rates by college. In 2008, the position of “Lecturer” was replaced by “University Lecturer” with access to enhanced compensation.

Table 10 .4 Av erag e Salaries at NJIT f or Lecturers an d Adjun cts

Ave rage Sa lari e s Title 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Lecturer 24715 26371 27357 26250 34623 33557 Special Lecturer 45901 45814 44748 47107 49316 51204 59392 Senior University Lecturer 57788 61592 65025 80725 University Lecturer 45116 47963 49188 60674 Adjunct 4867 4662 4841 5202 5236 5006 5189 5403 5268 5073


Table 10 .5 Adjun ct Rates Per Sect ion by Colleg e

Adjunc t Rate s Pe r Se c ti on ( by Colle ge ) College Average Range

CCS $3,285 $3,285 CSLA $3,362 $2,900-$5,000 NCE $3,185 $2,900-$7,500

CoAD $7,411 $3,000-$15,000 SOM $4,250 $4,000-$5,000

EMBA $8,000 $8,000 According to the NJIT-PSA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Lecturers are assigned 12 credit hours per semester, not to exceed 16 contact hours (exception at the CoAD). Consequently, many Chairs have indicated these Lecturers are more important than Adjuncts. Many Chairs rely on Lecturers to fill holes when regular faculty members are not available. The MOA states that no more than 25% of full-time faculty positions (including tenure-track and tenured faculty, Special and University Lecturers) should be held by Lecturers. This policy is applied across the University as a whole rather than by Department or unit. As such, each Department has some leeway in how it utilizes Lecturers and Adjuncts. The PSA contract stipulates that, in lieu of course assignment, Lecturers can undertake other activities such as formal student advisement assignments, course/curriculum development, departmental and/or College administration. Some Adjuncts have also participated in course/curriculum development. Instructional Technology and Media Services has worked with a number of Adjuncts to assist them in designing and developing online courses that they then teach. The difference in how Lecturers and Adjuncts are utilized can be significant between both Colleges and Departments. For example, within the NCE, the CEE and the ET Departments rely heavily on adjuncts (45% and 55% of students being taught, respectively) with both seeing a significant increase in the number of Adjuncts used since 2003). In contrast, the CBPE Department Chair has indicated that Lecturers are important and needed there, but none are currently on staff (Table 2 in Digital Archive). The SOM has been forced to rely more heavily on Adjuncts in recent years in order to compensate for a lack of faculty hiring and the loss of 7 faculty members over the past few years due to termination or retirement. Concerns have been expressed that the over-reliance on Adjuncts at SOM will impact AACSB accreditation.

To reduce costs, some Departments are operating with reduced Adjunct budgets. With fewer instructors and more students, many Departments are reporting increased class sizes. For example, the Humanities Department has increased the maximum enrollment from 20 to 30 students for many sections. Within the SOM, the class enrollment numbers can be even higher, with Lecturers often managing these larger classes. Many of the Chairs have expressed concerns that without additional resources for Adjuncts and Lecturers, it will not be possible to reduce class sizes.


Compensation for NJIT Lecturers increased at the end of the 2007 fiscal year. Lecturers were also eligible for increases in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. Earlier, a Lecturer would max at $80,168 (AY, step 200). Lecturers can currently make $96,957 annually if they reach step 210. Adjuncts continue to earn disproportionately lower salaries when compared to Lecturers or tenured/tenure-track faculty. The minimum salary for an NJIT Adjunct is ~$2,900 per 3-credit hour course (slightly higher for certain Departments). According to the report “Reversing Course: The Troubled State of Academic Staffing and a Path Forward,” the national average salary for an Adjunct is $2,758 (JBLA, 2008). This is similar to a 2007 report prepared by the New Mexico Higher Education Department indicating that part-time faculty earns an average per-credit hour salary of roughly $1,010 (New Mexico Higher Education Department, 2007). So while NJIT is in-line with the national average, it is lower than some of its benchmark institutions such as Stevens Institute of Technology. 10.2.2 The Health of Our Faculty: Resources, Support, Retention, and Growth This section of the report provides an analysis of the overall faculty environment at NJIT. 10.2.2.1 Faculty Mentoring Processes The Promotion and Tenure (P&T) process plays an important role in assuring that standards are applied to faculty performance. Policies and procedures on appointments, promotions, tenure, and terminations are published in the NJIT Faculty Handbook (Faculty Council, 2010). According to this document, it is the responsibility of the Provost to communicate to all faculty and professional staff members “changes in procedures that may have resulted from Faculty action, the PSA Contract, or Affirmative Action, concerning: Promotion, Tenure, Appointment, reappointment, and termination or non-renewal of contract, Salary matrix range adjustments and Merit bonuses for all faculty and instructing staff.” The P&T committees of all Departments review members of the teaching staff and provide written performance evaluations. Various initiatives at the university, college, and department levels have been developed to help NJIT junior faculty understand their new environment. New faculty is introduced to “NJIT processes, the Faculty Handbook and governance, evaluations, etc. – the work of being a faculty member….” It is current practice to invite new hires to annual luncheons to “develop cohort relationships, peer mentoring and answer questions”. Early-career faculty is encouraged to enlist current faculty as mentors. In addition, the Office of the Provost finds mentors outside the respective Departments if helpful. However, at the university level, a formal mentoring program does not exist. Deans, though, are kept informed of the progress of new faculty. Some Deans have formed cohort groups to promote career development through mentoring.

The Institute Workshop Series is designed by the Office of the Provost to help faculty, especially junior members, locate research funds and write proposals. These workshops include: “The Sponsored Research Lifecycle Part 1: Finding a Sponsor” and “Engaging


Students: A Discussion with the Master Teachers.” The Teaching, Learning, and Technology (TLT) group assists faculty by providing workshops on the use of various tools that can improve teaching skills. Examples are: “PowerPoint Less: Going Beyond .ppt to Build Effective, Interactive, Online Presentations” and “Getting Started: The First Step Toward Online Teaching.” Activities are also offered to provide support to mid-career faculty members. Several programs are dedicated to aid newly-hired minority and women faculty. Through a grant from the NSF Advance, a project "More than the Sum of Its Parts: Advancing Women at NJIT through Collaborative Research Networks" is being conducted to apply social network analysis (SNA) to facilitate changes at the institutional level and to secure the full participation of women in academic science and engineering. In addition, the Murray Center for Women in Technology provides resources for the retention and recruitment of women students and faculty. A range of programs, including Women’s History Month, are sponsored by the Center to fulfill the needs of all women at the University. These events foster a mentoring environment by allowing new faculty members to learn from colleagues with similar interests. Activities, launched by the Deans of the various Colleges, have mentoring components. Although practices differ, the assignment of senior faculty to new hires and the mentoring of new faculty are important tools in some Departments. For example, the CoAD is instrumental in establishing contacts with NJ professionals. Chairs of the various Departments have programs to support new faculty hires. In the Department of Biological Sciences, a newly-hired faculty member is free from teaching- and service-related responsibilities the first year. However, the member is encouraged to take part in organizing colloquia and the seminar series to increase their visibility with the students. The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering assigns a senior faculty member to mentor a newly-hired member based on similar research and teaching interests. Similar practices are carried out by the Chemistry/Environmental Science and the Humanities Departments. Ronald Rockland, Chair of the Department of Engineering Technology and NJIT Master Teacher, attends classes taught by new faculty to give them advice afterwards. He also allows them to visit his classes. Programs designed by Department Chairs to support mid-career faculty members are not as formal. Teaching evaluations are still closely monitored and regular feedback is given. In general, the interactions are mostly through the Promotion and Tenure Committees. Typically, mentoring programs for mid-career faculty members are non-existent. The CCS states that, because technology changes every two years, a university-wide funding plan to aid mid-career faculty to explore new research initiatives would be invaluable for exploring new and developing areas. However, no current program exists. The mentoring practices are intended to meet the needs of all newly hired faculty members, including women and minority faculty members. In some cases (e.g., ECE), minority faculty are encouraged to send grant proposals to programs specifically designed for under-represented groups. In the Humanities Department, a senior female faculty member is


assigned as a mentor to a junior female faculty member. The ADVANCE program is developing tools to assist in the building of research networks. Because mid-career faculty members are facing new challenges, the currently-implemented mentoring program should be more systematic. Survival tools that help the member become Associate Professor with tenure may not be satisfactory for creating and keeping a very active research group or for making significant contributions in an ever-changing environment. Teaching evaluations and performance still need to be closely watched as the research-teaching balance may be tilted in one direction. For minority and women faculty, projects, such as the one funded by NSF ADVANCE, can lead to evidence (or the lack thereof) that some adjustments are warranted for the mentoring of these groups. Conversations with minority and women faculty would be useful for ascertaining if, in fact, they are faced with challenges beyond (or below) those experienced by their non-minority colleagues. Mentoring programs at our benchmark institutions are fairly comparable with those here. Drexel offers resources for faculty through the Instructional Technology Center, similar to the TLT at NJIT. Mentoring is done by experienced faculty. Academic policies from the Provost’s Office suggest that a formal procedure should be used for all new faculty: “… Upon entering a new department, faculty will be assigned a senior faculty member who will serve as an adviser/mentor for the duration of the junior faculty's probation years. Senior faculty who serve in these mentoring posts, will receive service credit …” NJIT should make efforts to move in this direction and institutionalize such a formal program. Career development awards are conferred to encourage junior faculty or mid-career faculty to seek outside collaboration (to complement their work) or begin a new research area. At Rutgers, the Office of the Vice President for Research assists new and junior faculty to compete successfully for new funding and offers assistance in the form of individual counseling and new faculty funding workshops. In addition, they point new hires to potential collaborators. Web resources are also made available (e.g., NSF CAREER Proposal Writing Tips (Pei, 2007)). 10.2.2.2 Resource Allocation to Faculty The hiring of new faculty members requires adequate funding for the type of research performed in that field. At NJIT, depending on specialization, there is a variance in resource allocation across the Colleges and Schools. Submitted to the hiring Chair and Dean, the process begins with a candidate submitting a proposal articulating research plans and identifying specific resources needed for starting his or her new research program. The Dean works with the Senior Vice President for Research and Development in support of the proposed new hire’s research needs. Generally, this process yields the desired results. At some Colleges and Schools the needs are modest and easily met; other requests, particularly in experimental areas, can—at times—prove challenging given the post 2008 financial climate.


As is the case nationally, faculty members often become invested in their established research after tenure, and they may not readily embrace opportunities to participate in cutting-edge multidisciplinary research. There is nevertheless agreement that it is desirable to have a mechanism in place to allow mid-career and senior faculty to explore new research initiatives. Some possible methods for supporting mid-career and established researchers to venture into new areas include competition for internal seed funding for new ideas and faculty exchange with other benchmark universities. While some faculty members tend to believe that internal funding is a mark of institutional commitment to research, it is the position of the University that such internal funding is only the basis for the sustainable external research needed to advance the mission of the University. 10.2.2.3 Maintaining, Enhancing, and Recognizing Faculty Productivity The University provides several means to maintain and enhance faculty productivity in both research and teaching. For example, the Institute Workshop Series is conducted by the Provost’s Office to help faculty with their professional and personal development. The Teaching, Learning, and Technology (TLT) group assists faculty in improving the quality and accessibility of education to ensure that students receive the most effective and efficient education possible. The Sponsored Research Administration (SRA) advises and assists faculty and staff members in all aspects of externally funded research projects and other scholarly activities. The means of addressing faculty research and teaching productivity depend on the specific College or Department. Performance-based salary increases allows for Deans to work with the Department Chairs to facilitate and reward faculty productivity in teaching, research, and service. The Digital Measures system is presently in its second year. Activity Insight by Digital Measures uses templates to collect data on teaching, scholarship, research, and service by faculty. The information can be used for faculty activity reports in these areas. Faculty accomplishments and productivity can now be digitally maintained and evaluated for various reports at the level of an individual, an academic unit, or faculty as a whole. Such analyses can be stored for future use to examine historical trends among the NJIT faculty. The Faculty Performance-Based Salary Increase Distribution System was developed by the PSA/AAUP Governing Board and the University administration (Altenkirch, Golub, 2010). It focuses on NJIT's mission and stands on four areas of activity of the faculty: teaching, scholarship, funded research, and service to the University, the profession and the community. The system was implemented for the evaluation of faculty performance in AY2009/2010. Every College developed standards of achievements for activities within the University's four primary areas of focus. The Department P&T Committees recommended standards that are compatible with the College standards for consensus adoption by the P&T Committee, the Chair, and the Dean. Based on the Department


standard, the Department Chair reviews faculty annual reports that are submitted on a standard digital template. The scores are weighted using agreed upon factors to produce a composite score using the Performance Assessment Algorithm score sheet. The composite score is then used to determine individual salary increases. Ninety percent of the performance pool is automatically computed by the system, while the remaining 10% is assigned to individual faculty at the discretion of the Dean. The results of the faculty evaluation for AY2009/2010 are under analysis, and the system is expected to continue. 10.2.3 The Role of Our Faculty in the Life of NJIT: Curriculum, Research, Service, and Governance This section of the report analyzes the ways that the faculty contributes to NJIT mission penetration. 10.2.3.1 The Faculty and Education Faculty members are deeply involved in all aspects of academic program development, from instruction and assessment to program development and evaluation. Within a well-defined process, Department curriculum committees review proposed new programs or courses. New offerings are then considered by the Undergraduate Curriculum Review Committee (UCRC) or the Graduate Council. Programs are considered by the Committee on Academic Affairs (CAA) (Graduate Studies, 2009). Teaching assignments, determined by the overall mission of the Department and the specific activities of the faculty member, are consistent with practices at benchmark universities, in agreement with the PSA contract. The teaching assignments of research-active faculty are no more than 3 to 4 courses per academic year to insure NJIT faculty are not at a disadvantage in scholarly productivity and competition for external research funding. Faculty that have significant research activities teach 2 courses or fewer per semester, depending on external research funding (Faculty Council, Provost, 2008). 10.2.3.2 The Faculty, Learning Technologies, and Education Assessment For most Schools and Departments, teaching is part of the faculty member’s overall productivity assessment along with research and service. The University takes a point of pride in the fact that research-active faculty educate and interact with students in the classroom and laboratory as core focus. Reflecting the importance of teaching, learning, and assessment on the campus, 45% of the performance-based salary increase is earmarked for such activities. Equally important is the fact that the P&T process treats teaching effectiveness as critical part of faculty performance. Teaching effectiveness is measured through student evaluations, faculty evaluations, and student learning assessment techniques. All these are used to evaluate teaching effectiveness. Consistent with NJIT Assessment of Student Learning Program, the Schools and Departments are directly measuring student learning in regards to


Institutional Learning Goals and Core Competencies, and are then using those findings for curricular improvement as well as communicating the results to all shareholders. New learning technologies in use at NJIT include Moodle (Learning Management System), Camtasia Relay (lecture capture), iTunes U (multimedia distribution), Mahara (ePortfolio), and Wimba (synchronous communication). Several Departments use the Center for Academic and Personal Enrichment (CAPE) and technology infrastructure such as Moodle to track student performance including administering Common Exams so that correction schemes can be implemented on a semester by the semester basis. 10.2.3.3 The Faculty and Research The current NJIT Mission Statement commits the University to the pursuit of research excellence as “New Jersey’s science and technology university.” Since 2002, the amount of research conducted at NJIT has increased 36.3% from $69.1M to $94.2M (FY2011 estimate). The greatest dollar increase has been in federally funded programs. (See Working Group Report, Standard 2, Table 2.2). These increases are a measure of the enhanced quality of faculty research. NJIT continues to demonstrate its support for research. As part of the 2010-2015 Strategic Planning initiative, core areas were identified that are guiding both research and learning programs. NJIT is to “be nationally recognized for thematic core areas of integrated research and learning in: Sustainable Systems; Life & Healthcare Science and Engineering; Digital ‘Everywhere’” (NJIT Strategic Plan, 2010-2015). An expansion of the College of Architecture to include the design professions, thus becoming the College of Architecture and Design, is one example of the renewal and expansion of teaching programs to stay relevant to meet the needs of both students and researchers. There was significant participation on the part of faculty in committee brainstorming that identified both University-wide and College / Department strategic research initiative areas. These areas came from an examination of the current faculty research with a view toward opportunities for cross College / Department collaborations. The Deans and Chairs encourage faculty to bring their research experiences to the classroom through the offering of special topics courses, and the practice of embedding research into existing courses. Thus the research-base of the faculty is carried into the classroom at all levels. 10.2.3.4 The Faculty and Service Faculty service to the NJIT community and the profession at the local, national and international levels is one of the primary mission elements at NJIT. Service activities at NJIT are diverse. At the departmental level, each of the academic Departments at NJIT have committees structured to support departmental activities, guide programs, set curricula, and recruit students, and mentor junior faculty. Department Chairs strive to assign committee


responsibilities to each faculty member, as a way to not only share the assignments within the Department, but to also mentor early-career faculty. At the college level, service at the college level involves a variety of committees aimed at multidisciplinary activities and strategic planning initiatives in which faculty participation is critical. At the university level, faculty members serve on committees and councils that impact the entire academic community, and form the basis for faculty governance at NJIT. Frequently, University committees provide the opportunity to forge strong relationships and close collaboration between faculty and the administration. One of the key institute committees is the Institute Research Committee. Each member of the Institute Research Committee is also a member of the College Research Committee and chairs the Department Research Committee, creating a communication and action link. Service to the profession is reflected in the many faculty members at NJIT who are active with professional societies and serve as leaders at the national and international levels—organizing conferences, chairing sessions and building relationships. In addition, faculty serve frequently on program review committees for the National Science Foundation and other government organizations, peer review journal manuscripts, and participate in workshops to set research priorities and scope new research directions. 10.2.3.5 The Role of Faculty Governance Shared governance through collegial decision-making is one of the core characteristics that distinguish academic institutions from other organizations. The importance of strong faculty leadership and broad faculty participation in the governance process cannot be understated. At NJIT, the basic structure for faculty governance has been established primarily in the activities of two faculty-led bodies: the NJIT Faculty Meetings with guidance and leadership provided by the Faculty Council, and the P&T committees at both the department and institute levels. The Faculty Council consists of faculty representatives from each of the University’s academic Departments. As described in the Council Bylaws, the mission of the Faculty Council is “to make the spirit of the faculty felt and its voice heard on all matters of concern to the Institute community.” To enhance faculty governance, the Council provides leadership for Faculty Meetings and serves as a working committee bringing forward important issues for discussion, providing background information, and presenting action items and motions for consideration. To increase communications, the Faculty Council conducts information forums to provide faculty with information and an opportunity to share ideas on important topics being considered at upcoming meetings. Over the last three years, the Faculty Council has been engaged in an effort to reorganize and revise the Faculty Handbook. Progress has been made in this effort in accordance with the 2007 Periodic Review Report, and the recommendations for revision made in the


Periodic Review have now been completed and approved by the faculty. Specifically, the Council has brought several revisions before the Faculty for consideration and discussion, including a recent change affecting the role of the Deans in the promotion and tenure process; procedures for restructuring Departments and Colleges; and, other items directly associated with faculty governance. There has been recognition that, in order for NJIT to more nimbly respond to various challenges as we strive to achieve our strategic goals, a more inclusive form of University governance is desirable. The NJIT Board of Trustees, the ultimate legal authority at the University, agreed with this premise in an April 2011 initiative that authorized the study of how such broader governance might be accomplished. At present, a committee formed of all NJIT shareholders, including faculty and administrators, is investigating this issue. This committee is charged with recommending a new governance structure for consideration by the Board in the fall 2011. 10 .3 CRITICAL ANALY SIS AND CONCLUSIONS Upon an examination of the current state of the NJIT faculty, we conclude that the institution’s instructional, research, and service programs are devised, developed, monitored, and supported by qualified professionals dedicated to the NJIT mission. All Colleges and Schools are developing plans to address the changing needs of education in the 21st century. These plans are in harmony with the University Strategic Plan and take into consideration the expected wave of retirements that will occur as part of the faculty separation process. The University has made progress in enhancing faculty diversity over the last seven years. Recruitment of top faculty prospects will require competitive startup packages for researchers in specialized scientific areas. Funding made available from the separations will enhance the “opportunity” faculty hiring already in place, especially in thematic areas and to enhance faculty diversity, especially within leadership roles, as indicated in Working Group Report, Standard 3. A new form of shared governance is currently under development wherein all NJIT shareholders – faculty, administration, students, alumni, staff – are represented. In this way, future jointly investigated and agreed upon initiatives, developed in a timely manner, will be forwarded to the NJIT Board of Trustees for action in the fall of 2011. 10 .4 COLLABORATION WITH OTHER WORKING G ROUPS In scheduled meetings hosted by the Rapid Assessment and Steering Committee, our Working Group collaborated with other groups. Collaboration was also strengthened through meetings with the self study consultant (Robert Clark). Asynchronous communication was fostered through the open source content management system (Moodle); in that platform, the Working Groups collaboratively reviewed each stage of


the planning and reporting process, from question design to outlines of the Working Group Reports, to edited review, to final copy. Collaboration between this and other working groups during the preparation of this report was very nevertheless limited. One meeting was held between the Chair of this committee and that of Working Group 3 to discuss common ground. As a result of that meeting, files were shared pertaining to faculty mentoring. 10 .5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT The shifting demographics of the NJIT faculty present a significant challenge to the University in the coming years. A serious effort at the identification and adoption of “best practices” in hiring and mentoring of faculty is needed. This policy must also address the need to bring the NJIT faculty up to the standard of diversity that is widely held at other universities, and even to our own stated Strategic Plan. Standing University committees on mentoring and diversity should be created and recognized. Financial resources are constrained across the University as they are across the nation. However, just as investments are needed to improve infrastructure in order to attract new students, investments are needed in the faculty in order to retain the students once they are on campus. Funds must be allocated to improve startup offers to prospective faculty, and to foster productivity for mid-career faculty in research. Even more efforts are needed to encourage and assist mid-career faculty to adopt new teaching technologies and techniques. The University should continue to examine its form of faculty governance. In order to ensure faculty representation, and the completion of important tasks such as the Faculty Handbook and clarification of the role of Deans in the P&T process, consideration should be given to alternative forms of shared governance, such as a University Senate. 10.5.1 Recommendations Table: Standard 10: Faculty RECOMMENDATI ON 1

I ntroduc e a formal, “be st prac ti c e s” me ntori ng program to e nhanc e fac ulty re te nti on, produc ti vi ty, and advanc e me nt.

VISION: The desired future for the recommendation

The data-driven, results-oriented program gives mentors a stake in the success of their mentees, increasing retention, tacit knowledge-sharing, and research collaboration.

STRATEGY: The methodology recommended to achieve the vision

Create a rigorously assessed, university-wide mentoring program for both junior (untenured) and mid-career tenured faculty based on best practices from industry. The mentoring policy would be laid out in the Faculty Handbook.

TACTIC: The specific action recommended to implement the strategy

Use junior (peer) mentors to increase lateral networking support and rotating senior mentors to help forge high-level connections between the mentee and various institutional players. The Provost’s Office, the Master Teachers, and the Research Office could announce


the new initiative, and create guidelines and approaches. The P&T process could take into consideration the recommendation of the mentor.

ASSESSMENT: The metric recommended to measure achievement of the vision

Use social network analysis to track real-time increases in mentee social capital, along with traditional participant surveys and IRP P&T data collection, including ongoing cohort analyses of promotion and tenure rates, disaggregated by Department, gender, and ethnicity.

RECOMMENDATI ON 2

Work wi th, and support, the ne w share d gove rnanc e mode l.


Important recommendations on numerous issues would be made in a timely manner by an informed group representing all shareholders at NJIT including faculty, administration, staff.


Create a University Senate or similar structure, with Standing Committees. This body would replace the existing structure of a Faculty Council and its general faculty meetings.


Create a formative group with representatives from all shareholders to meet, deliberate, and recommend to the NJIT Board of Trustees a shared governance structure according to a strict timeline.


The NJIT Board of Trustees would call for an annual activity summary from the governance structure, and then comment on the apparent effectiveness of the body.

RECOMMENDATI ON 3

Estab li sh ne w fac ulty hi ri ng plan wi th de monstrate d i nsti tuti onal c ommi tme nt to stre ngthe n c ore are as and de ve lop fac ulty di ve rsi ty ac ross the Uni ve rsi ty


A strong, synergistic faculty base supporting the University’s core values and foundational strengths, reflecting a commitment to excellence in teaching and research across the institution and beyond, thus accelerating innovation.


Develop a robust faculty hiring plan that considers faculty needs across the University, especially regarding diversity, demonstrates commitment to innovative academic learning environments, fosters continuous improvement in faculty professional development, and provides opportunities for sustained scholarship. Adopt these “best practices” for recruitment across NJIT.


Increase data transparency and accountability, periodically disseminating detailed faculty demographic data to the University community; require search committees to submit a recruitment plan for the Provost’s approval; refuse to accept results from search committees that have not been proactive in their outreach to diverse candidates; hold Deans and Chairs accountable for meeting faculty diversity benchmarks.


Relationship between student-to-faculty ratio, student feedback session assessments, teaching performance, and faculty research accomplishment, success of search committees in meeting diversity targets.


RECOMMENDATI ON 4

Bri dge the gap be twe e n the Uni ve rsi ty’s s tate d strate gi c c ommi tme nt to i nc re ase d fac ulty di ve rsi ty and the Uni ve rsi ty’s s tandi ng i n nati onal be nc hmark data on fac ulty di ve rsi ty.

• VISION: The desired future for the recommendation

The university’s commitment to faculty diversity is clearly demonstrated in its demography.

• STRATEGY: The methodology recommended to achieve the vision

Create a Standing Executive Committee on Faculty Diversity (CFD), charged with coordinating NJIT’s efforts to recruit and retain excellent women and minority faculty.

• TACTIC: The specific action recommended to implement the strategy

The CFD will coordinate efforts to recruit and retain excellent women and minority faculty, helping to establish appropriate recruitment targets, creating discipline-specific recruitment and retention toolkits; ensuring that “best practices” are employed; and acting as ombudsman for prospective faculty and new hires.

• ASSESSMENT: The metric recommended to measure achievement of the vision

The CFD and the Provost will track the success of each Department in meeting the target already established in the University’s Strategic Plan: “Actively recruit women and minority faculty to achieve a hiring rate of at least 25% women and minorities among qualified candidates.”


Ref eren ces AAUP (American Association of University Professors). Faculty Salaries. Washington DC: The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 2011. Web. Altenkirch, Robert and Eugene Golub. Memorandum of Agreement: Faculty Performance Based Salary Increase Distribution System. Newark: NJIT, 2010. Altenkirch, Robert et al. 2004-2010 Strategic Plan. Newark: NJIT, 2004. Web. Altenkirch, Robert et al. NJIT Strategic Plan 2010-2015. Newark: NJIT, 2010. Web. Altenkirch, Robert. Strategic Plan Revision Memorandum. Newark: NJIT, November 28, 2005. Web. Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education: Requirements of Affiliation and Standards of Accreditation. Philadephia, PA: MSCHE, 2009. Faculty Council, Provost (Faculty Council and the Office of the Provost). Teaching Assignment Process. Newark: NJIT, 2008. Web. Faculty Council. Faculty Handbook Revisions. Newark: NJIT, 2010. Web. Faculty Council. Proposed Revision to 2007 Faculty Handbook. Newark: NJIT, 2010. Web. Fiegener, Mark. Numbers of Doctorates Awarded Continue to Grow in 2009; Indicators of Employment Outcomes Mixed. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, November 2010. Graduate Studies (Office of Graduate Studies). New Program Approval Process. Newark: NJIT, 2009. Web. Honors Subcommittee (Strategic Planning Subcommittee). Albert Dorman Honors College Strategic Plan, 2008-2012. Newark: NJIT, July 2008. Web. JBLA (JBL Associates, Inc.). Reversing Course: The Troubled State of Academic Staffing and a Path Forward. Washington D.C.: JBLA, 2008. Web. Pei, ZJ, ed. NSF Career Proposal Writing Tips. Kansas: Kansas State University, 2007. Web. PSA and NJIT (Professional Staff Association/American Association of University Professors and New Jersey Institute of Technology). Faculty Separation Incentive Program. Newark: NJIT, April 2010.


Steffen-Fluhr, Nancy and Janice Daniel. Recommended Tactics for Achieving Increased Faculty Diversity. Newark: NJIT, 2005.

STANDARD 10: FACULTY...Working Group Report: Standard 10 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 10.0 WORKING GROUP...

Documents

Transcript of STANDARD 10: FACULTY...Working Group Report: Standard 10 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 10.0 WORKING GROUP...