The procedures set forth in the NCSU Faculty Handbook contribute to the orderly and responsible recruitment, selection, and appointment of faculty members who are qualified, whether their highest degrees are from an accredited regional institution or not, for the performance of a faculty member's duties in the appointment field. Although the NCSU Faculty Handbook appears to be less specific regarding the process for recruitment of faculty, policies in related sections of the handbook, when taken together, form the basis for an orderly process. Proficiency in written and oral language in courses to be taught is determined by the faculty most closely associated with the program in which the instruction is to occur and affirmed by the appropriate administrative officers [4.4.1.4].
Furthermore, in almost all departments, NCSU's policies and practices more than meet the standards set out by the Faculty Handbook: Election policies and practices are more specific than those of the handbook;
search committees follow uniformly prescribed procedures; most departments have their own written personnel policies and others are in the process of writing them; faculty members make written annual reports of their work; department heads almost always review these reports (some tenured faculty may be reviewed on a three-to-five year basis); and appointments of faculty from foreign or nonaccredited schools are screened more carefully than other faculty appointments [4.4.1.1; 4.4.1.3].
On a targeted poll of the members of the self-study faculty committee, respondents said that members of their colleges "frequently" to "always" make a written report of their work for department heads (3.78 on the 1-to-4 point rating scale). In two colleges where department-by-department data are available, all faculty members with professorial rank make annual written reports (Colleges of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and Education and Psychology). Department heads review annually both non-tenured "frequently" (3.88 on 1-to-4 scale) and tenured faculty members "frequently" (3.44 on 1-to-4 scale). Tenured faculty members may be reviewed only every three to five years [4.4.10.1].
On the same targeted poll, the self-study faculty committee responded that departments "sometimes" to "frequently" have written personnel standards and procedures in addition to University and/or college ones (2.88 on a 1-to-4 point rating scale ranging from "never or hardly ever," "sometimes," "frequently," and "always or almost always"). On the same poll, respondents reported with a response of 3.0 ("frequently") that existing written personnel standards and procedures are clear. Many respondents said that their departments are currently in the process of reviewing and rewriting their own policies with an eye to clarity and usefulness.
Most of the department heads responding to the Self-Study Survey of Department Heads said that their departments follow the policy prescribed by the Faculty Handbook, but they also said that documents dealing with personnel procedures were not uniformly updated and revised to clarify and bring the written policies into congruence with practice, which was the expectation during the latter part of the 1980s.
College NCSU USDA/USDI GRA GTA ------- ---- --------- --- --- Agriculture and Life Sciences 471 43 388 68 Design 64 -- -- 1 Education and Psychology 126 -- 27 48 Engineering 278 -- 406 188 Forest Resources 71 4 85 6 Humanities and Social Sciences 413 -- 7 86 Management 108 -- 2 36 Physical and Mathematical Sciences 226 -- 135 141 Textiles 52 -- 93 -- Veterinary Medicine 100 -- 50 -- Administration 25 -- 13 4 Total 1,934 47 1,206 578
Recommendation 8.1: NCSU should clarify and update the Faculty Handbook's discussion of the policies and procedures for selection of
faculty.
Recommendation 8.2: NCSU should review departmental personnel practices as a regular part of the college and department performance reviews.
According to the Self-Study Survey of Faculty, a majority of departments follow published personnel policies and procedures. Three items on the Self-Study Survey of Faculty relate to this standard. Item 14-H addresses the extent to which faculty perceive the hiring procedures at the University as satisfactory. Over 73 percent agree that the faculty hiring procedures are satisfactory, 20 percent disagree, and the remainder had no opinion. Item 14-I addresses the extent to which faculty know the terms and conditions of appointment. Nearly 88 percent agreed and nearly 12 percent disagreed that faculty know these; less than one percent had no opinion. Item 14-J addresses the adequacy of documentation of terms of appointment. In agreement that adequate documentation exists were 57.5 percent and in disagreement were 37.5 percent, with the remainder not responding.
These responses show that more problems exist regarding the faculty's perception of adequate documentation of terms of appointment than with the faculty's satisfaction with hiring procedures or with the communication of conditions of appointment. This suggests that there is room to improve the dissemination of published policies.
In almost all instances (respondents to the self-study survey indicated 3.67 on a 1-to-4 point scale), faculty selection and appointment are made with the review and approval of qualifications by an appropriate faculty committee. Open faculty positions are advertised in appropriate academic and professional journals; special efforts are made to recruit minority and women candidates. A position description is developed by the faculty search committee in consultation with the department head and dean.
Typically, the search committee receives and screens applications, checks references, and designates the names of applicants to be interviewed. This short list of potential candidates must be approved by the University affirmative action officer before any applicant may be invited to the campus for an interview. Campus visits of candidates include meetings with the search committee and interested faculty and interviews with appropriate administrators and others as needed. Typically, an applicant makes a presentation to which faculty in the department and/or college are invited. A search committee may recommend the appointment of one or more of the individuals interviewed, sometimes ranking them in order of preference (usually three); or the committee may recommend continuing the search. Before an offer may be made by the administrator responsible for the department or academic unit, the faculty's recommendation must be approved by the appropriate administrators and the University affirmative action officer. The search committee must compile and maintain records including the committee's recommendations regarding each applicant's qualifications, the committee's findings, and the final disposition of each application [4.4.1.1].
As table 8.3 shows, in fall 1992, 9.8 percent of the faculty at NCSU were nonwhite. Table 8.4 shows that the proportion of nonwhite faculty has been increasing in recent years. Moreover, the proportion and rate of increase is relatively large in the assistant professor ranks, which will contribute to NCSU's efforts to build a more diverse faculty as they, in time, move to higher ranks. The increasing diversity of the faculty also indicates relative success in recruiting efforts, a success that should be nurtured and built upon.
Year Professor Associate professor Assistant professor Other Total---- --------- ------------------- ------------------- ----- ----- 1984 5.2% 8.8% 8.1% 10.2% 8.1%
1988 6.8% 9.0% 12.3% 7.5% 8.5%
1992 7.5% 10.4% 16.1% 7.6% 9.8%
Table 8.3 also shows the number of male and female faculty members in fall 1992. In 1992, 22.1 percent of the faculty were female. Table 8.5 shows a trend toward increasing numbers of female faculty members. This increasing trend, both overall and in all ranks, indicates success in recruiting and success in moving through the system. Of some concern, however, is the relatively large proportion of female faculty in the "other" category, which includes part- and full-time appointments as well as visiting faculty of all ranks. Females in the "other" category have increased from 31.6 percent in 1984 to 45.8 percent in 1992. This trend may reflect the more flexible schedules of females, who may be seeking less than full-time employment, or it may reflect the paucity of employment opportunities in the geographical area for professionally prepared females. The "other" category is not the only category that shows increasing presence of females, however. The data also show percentage increases of females from 1985 to 1992 at the three higher ranks of assistant, associate, and professor. However, only in the "other" category does the proportion of females approach 50 percent, indicating the need for continued efforts in recruiting and retaining female faculty who are successful in moving through the ranks.
Year Professor Associate professor Assistant professor Other Total---- --------- ------------------- ------------------- ----- ----- 1984 3.9% 12.4% 27.2% 31.6% 18.7% 1988 4.6% 17.6% 29.5% 43.8% 20.6% 1992 5.6% 22.2% 31.9% 45.8% 22.1%
The data show that NCSU has made progress toward a more diverse faculty, but they do not show the cost of this progress. Progress is the result of policy implementation and faculty commitment. The more involved and wider recruitment process being followed in recent years has demanded both financial resources and faculty and staff time. As position descriptions have become more inclusive, the number of applications has increasedand all applications must be considered seriously. Search committees often have little or no staff support, and simply following up applicants (who may number in excess of hundreds for a single open position) can involve overly burdensome clerical activities. Likewise, recruitment activities sometimes exact increased demands on faculty time and financial resources.
Recommendation 8.3: NCSU should provide increased staff support for assisting in faculty recruitment to build on the positive trend of a building more diverse faculty.
Table 8.6 shows the distribution of faculty FTEs among tenure-track and non-tenure-track appointments for the years 1984, 1988, and 1992. The dependence on non-tenure-track appointments in the distribution of faculty FTEs has decreased in percentages from 36 percent in 1984 to 25 percent in 1988 to 24 percent in 1992. As table 8.7 shows, however, some colleges may currently be overdependent on such faculty.
1984 1988 1992
Tenure Non-tenure Tenure Non-tenure Tenure Non-tenure
College track track track track track track
------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
Agriculture and Life Sciences 448.0 100.8 454.0 33.3 438.0 28.1
Design 37.0 9.7 39.0 8.8 40.0 12.0
Education and Psychology 73.5 12.4 76.5 16.1 88.5 22.4
Engineering 147.0 60.2 185.0 57.0 211.0 51.5
Forest Resources 59.0 24.0 60.0 2.7 61.5 5.2
Humanities and Social Scie 237.0 163.8 259.0 190.3 219.8 140.3
Management -- -- -- -- 51.0 37.6
Physical and Mathematical Sciences 196.0 67.4 185.0 26.7 189.0 29.6
Textiles 38.0 6.1 40.0 2.8 42.0 5.8
Veterinary Medicine 77.0 13.6 78.0 12.9 89.0 10.4
Administration 9.0 18.5 4.0 3.0 8.0 16.5
Total 1,321.5 476.6 1,380.5 353.4 1,437.8 359.3
Percent 64% 36% 75% 25% 76% 24%
Table 8.7 shows the college-by-college distribution of semester credit hours delivered by tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty for fall 1992. The data show that in 1992 one third of the credit hours delivered at NCSU were delivered by the one fourth of its FTEs on non-tenure-track appointments. Attention should be given by colleges and departments where credit hours delivered by non-tenure track appointments are relatively high. The long-range plans of both the Colleges of Humanities and Social Sciences, and Management have addressed correction of this overdependence.
Recommendation 8.4: NCSU should review appointments of faculty in the professorial category of "other" to avoid an overdependence in some colleges and departments on faculty in this category.
SCH delivered Percentage
Non-tenure Tenure Non-tenure Tenure
College track track All track track
------- ---------- ------- ------ -------- -----
Agriculture and Life Sciences 4,492 22,985 27,477 16% 84%
Design 1,653 5,406 7,059 23% 77%
Education and Psychology 3,284 14,192 17,476 19% 81%
Engineering 12,077 30,363 42,440 28% 72%
Forest Resources 426 3,734 4,160 10% 90%
Humanities and Social Sciences 43,780 39,813 83,593 52% 48%
Management 11,517 9,264 20,781 55% 45%
Physical and Mathematical Sciences 12,929 46,158 59,088 22% 78%
Textiles 328 5,110 5,438 6% 94%
Veterinary Medicine -- 5,930 5,930 0% 100%
Administration 1,452 50 1,502 97% 3%
Total 91,938 183,005 274,944 33% 67%
According to the faculty subcommittee's targeted poll, many NCSU faculty feel that the University may be overdependent on part-time and non-tenure-track faculty to deliver its teaching (2.38 on the 1-to-4 scale). Clearly, NCSU should strive to appoint only qualified faculty who are given sufficient notice and opportunity for timely preparation for instructional duties in connection with an appointment. However, selection of the
most qualified is often hampered by changing or increasing student demographics and inadequate budgets, which may cause unplanned and last-minute appointments. Furthermore, departments may not know their budgets for a new academic year until mid-semester, long after classes have begun. A more orderly and financially secure process of appointing faculty is needed.
Recommendation 8.5: NCSU should institute a more orderly and financially secure process of appointing faculty in order to avoid last-minute appointments of temporary faculty.
