A Model for College Faculty

The job of a college faculty member is composed of a complex and dynamic set of tasked that vary depending on the time of the year, as well as the rank (assistant, associate, full). It is generally agreed upon (faculty manual) that these tasks fall into one of three categories: 1) Teaching, 2) Service, and 3) Scholarship. These basic categories can be used to model the job of a college faculty member.

This modeling process is similar to what is done in quantum mechanics (QM) and involves some vocabulary: wavefunction, basics functions, basis set, and linear combination of basis functions. In this particular model

- the wavefunction is equivalent to the "job,"

- there are 3 basis functions, teaching, service, and scholarship,

- the basis set references the collection of basic functions,

- and the linear combination can be thought of as a way to state how each basic function contributes to the wavefunction.

Mathematically we can write out the wavefunction as follows:

This mathematical function has weighting coefficients ("a") which are specific to the particular wavefunction or "job" of a specific individual. It is interesting to use this job “wavefunction” to contrast the differences in an individual's role within an academic community.

From the table it is clear that if we use this "basis set" to describe a faculty member's job function, that faculty come in many "flavors." I strongly believe that defining faculty in terms of this basis set would assist a personnel committee in determining if a faculty member has earned contract renewal, tenure, and/or promotion. Here is how it would work. A faculty member under review, will state in their documentation the coefficients (or % of time) of the basis functions and have these coefficients (%) confirmed within the department (by chair and dept members). If chair or members of the department do not agree with the allocation of time (coefficients), then these concerns need to be addressed in the departmental letters of evaluation. The faculty member under review will then present evidence to support these coefficients (%). The faculty member under review can then expand on this conversation in two ways: 1) define in their own words each of the basic functions (teaching, research, service), and/or 2) expand the basis set (add more job functions) and then justify.

Key points: 1) The use of this model within a department will allow stronger means of communication between departmental members. This model will also provide a structure in which to discuss allocation of departmental responsibilities and resources.

2) How one changes time allocations (coefficients/%) when transitioning from the role as an assistant professor to full professor is an interesting process and again this model will provide a structure for this process, as well as a means in which the personnel review process occurs.

Example: assistant professors should allocate significantly more time to teaching than service; full faculty should be expected to allocate more time to service or research than they did as an assistant professor; this statement is debatable, but the model provides a structure in which to discuss allocation of faculty time/resources.

3) Faculty naturally move towards one particular job function, although not all job functions are equally valued within the college environment.

Example: the chair of a faculty committee or faculty senate might be viewed by many as a prestigious position, but in reality, this means that that faculty member will be allocating significantly more time to service and less time to teaching or scholarship. Allowing/encouraging assistant faculty to chair committees might be questioned and again, this model affords a means of discussing these issues.