Issues at the Intersection

Subcommitee on Non-Tenure-Track Instructional Faculty

Members

Background

Like other research universities, in recent times the University of Michigan has departed with increasing frequency from the one-track model. Different parts of the University, to varying extents, have granted academic credit to students for their work with faculty who are not on the tenure track. These non-tenure-track instructional faculty ("NTTI faculty") are strikingly heterogeneous, both with respect to what they bring to the classroom and also with respect to what they receive from the University.

The University assigns NTTI faculty a variety of titles, including "lecturer," "adjunct lecturer," "adjunct professor," "visiting professor," "clinical professor," and "professor of practice." (Note that in this report we are not concerned with non-instructional research faculty.) Some are paid nothing, some are paid token honoraria, some are paid salaries that are noticeably less than the salaries paid to tenured faculty, some are paid substantial fees by patients, and some are paid salaries comparable to those paid to tenured and tenure-track faculty. Some participate fully in the governance of the University and their units, whereas others have no governance rights or obligations.

NTTI faculty have different degrees of professional attachment to the University. In this regard, one important distinction to be drawn among NTTI faculty is the difference between full-time and part-time faculty members. In any given year, some faculty members claim the professoriate as their sole vocation, while others use it to supplement an ongoing career unrelated to the University. This distinction cuts across other categories of NTTI faculty, and it has strong implications for the affected faculty members, their students, and their colleagues.

Other distinctions are important as well. Some NTTI faculty members make their connection to the University an annual commitment repeated indefinitely, while others undertake a commitment for a fixed term, sporadically, or once in a career. Some employ the same pedagogical forms as their tenured colleagues, while others use entirely different forms of instruction (such as clinical supervision of student work on behalf of real patients or clients). Some publish research of similar quality to that published by tenured and tenure-track faculty. Some hold tenured positions at other institutions.

On the one hand, the variety of forms that NTTI positions can take would seem to hold great promise for the University: the opportunity to tailor a set of rights and responsibilities to any given need. On the other hand, that flexibility might also seem to carry attendant risks.

In the balance of this report, we shall first consider the benefits associated with employing NTTI faculty. We shall then enumerate the attendant risks and offer suggestions about how different units might profitably examine those risks. We shall conclude by indicating why those risks should not needlessly deter units from continuing to employ NTTI faculty, as long as there is a shared understanding of constraints and reciprocities, and as long as appropriate opportunities and respect are accorded to all faculty, both tenure-track and non-tenure-track.

Benefits Associated With Using NTTI Faculty

The institution of tenure provides a unique form of job security to those who earn it. It protects individuals who have committed their professional lives to the academy, and who are expected to engage in innovative scholarship, creative activity, and pedagogy that may at times, because of its riskiness or controversial character, expose faculty to potentially damaging retaliation. A fundamental tenet of the research university is that such faculty members should carry the primary responsibility for instructing students.

There are a number of reasons why the University might prefer to employ NTTI faculty for some instruction.

First, NTTI faculty might provide better instruction. Certain forms of instruction may be so time-intensive as to be incompatible with a sustained commitment to publishable research. Or they may simply be unlikely to have any correlation with research, so that one might not have any particular reason to believe that the best teachers will have any particular interest in or talent for research. Similarly, certain individuals of significant talent may be willing to teach only if they can maintain active professional lives apart from the University. Students who study with (and sometimes are mentored by) such faculty members can be exposed to a range of skills, perspectives, and experiences that would be unavailable if all classes were taught by tenure-track faculty. In some circumstances, the NTTI faculty member may hold such standing and prominence in a larger community that the University will benefit by being linked to that person in the public eye. Finally, some excellent tenure-track faculty have indicated a strong preference to move into the lecturer ranks because they prefer to teach and do not want the attendant research responsbilities of a tenure-track position. If the University cannot accommodate these preferences, it stands to lose excellent candidates for lecturer positions.

Second, the use of NTTI faculty may provide the University with significantly greater flexibility for nimble responses to a changing environment or curricular needs. Because NTTI faculty are not generally required to produce scholarship and creative activity, they are able to teach more students per semester. Also, if the need for the additional teaching vanishes or the NTTI faculty is not performing satisfactorily, the unit can elect not to renew the appointment. For these reasons, a department, school, or division may find that the most efficient response to an unforeseen teaching need (or reduction) is to use NTTI faculty.

Third, NTTI faculty might provide less expensive instruction . Financial savings may sometimes be obtained through the use of NTTI faculty who seek part-time instructional employment out of a sense of public service or out of a belief that they will be able to reap other benefits (financial or otherwise) from the fact of their association with the University. Indeed, some departments have been able to recruit highly-regarded practitioners in this way. Moreover, some NTTI faculty generate additional funds for the University through non-teaching activities such as clinical practice.

Recommendation 1: Deans, directors, chairs, and governing faculty of individual units should consider how the employment of NTTI faculty might promote their institutional mission, either through improved teaching or by making the instructional enterprise more flexible and adaptable to changing needs. We would strongly discourage, however, any general policy that might lead to a systematic substitution of NTTI faculty for tenured and tenure-track faculty.

Risks Associated With Using NTTI Faculty

• Risks to the Faculty Member. Within the group of NTTI faculty, those who have a significant commitment to their teaching at the University are vulnerable to frustration and perhaps even a sense of exploitation if they do not have opportunities for professional growth. This is particularly likely if the structures and practices of employment, review, and governance in their units convey or seem to convey disrespect to those who are not on the tenure track.

  Recommendation 2: Deans, directors, and chairs should attend carefully to the morale of NTTI faculty with significant professional attachments to the University. Deans, directors, chairs, and governing faculty of each unit should be attentive to (a) compensation structures, (b) job security, (c) workload, (d) long-term opportunities for advancement, such as progression to higher formal rank (e.g., senior lecturer), (e) governance rights and responsibilities, and (f) opportunities for professional development. In all events, the rights and responsibilities of NTTI faculty should be specified clearly, at the beginning of an NTTI appointment.

• Risks to Students. The risks to the student derive from the possibility that NTTI faculty members might be less capable instructors. That might occur because they lack the requisite skill or preparation, or because they have too many other professional commitments to devote the necessary time to teaching and student mentoring. Or it might occur because the separation of teaching from research can lead, in fast-changing fields, to a pedagogy that becomes outdated.

  Recommendation 3: Each unit should maintain appropriate advice and review processes to signal expectations and safeguard the quality of performance by NTTI faculty.

• Risks to the Unit. The risks to the unit derive from several sources:
  • Because NTTI faculty often do not engage in research, a unit that employs large numbers of such faculty members may produce less research than it otherwise should.
  • The extension of full governance rights and responsibilities to large numbers of NTTI faculty members (especially to those whose professional commitment to the University is limited or who might not appreciate the non-instructional elements of the unit's mission) could change the character of a unit, with unforeseen consequences.
  • Certain uses of NTTI faculty might diminish continuity and reduce a sense of institutional history within the faculty
  Recommendation 4: Before increasing the number of NTTI faculty within a unit, the dean and the governing faculty should consider the risks outlined above, paying particular attention to matters of balance and proportion within the unit.
• Risks to Other Units on Campus. The risks to other units derive from two possibilities:
  • The extension of "faculty" status to some individuals may shape policies that affect faculty in other units.
  • The growth and variety of forms of NTTI faculty in some units may lead to efforts at "standardization" that ultimately restrict the freedom of other units to deploy customized forms of NTTI faculty.
  Recommendation 5: The vast forest of heterogeneous practices with respect to NTTI faculty at the University has, by and large, grown for good reasons. Absent evidence of a general crisis that is not presently discernible, the University should continue to adhere to the prevailing norm of unit independence.

Next Steps

Recommendation 6: The Office of Budget and Planning should collect and disseminate to all deans, once every two years, a report that distinguishes among the various types of instructional faculty, including NTTI faculty, by job title and by whether the faculty in question are full-time or part-time. The report should provide an overview for each unit of how many individuals fall within each category, and how many instructional hours they teach.

Recommendation 7: The University should periodically collect and disseminate a synopsis of practices and improvements with respect to the employment, rights, and responsibilities of NTTI faculty. The report should review practices among different units within the University, as well as practices at a handful of peer private and public institutions.