Linear combination 01

The Linear Combination for Academic Faculty

Although quantum mechanics (QM) is viewed by most as an esoteric formulation of science, there are many concepts in QM that allow us to model a variety of personal situations. In QM, the concept of a "basis function" can be equated to job duty or task and the combination of these basis functions is a way of viewing our job as a whole. All job tasks (basis functions) are collectively referred to as a "basis set" (a basis set is a collection of basis functions).

To apply these concepts to our job as a faculty member, it is helpful to introduce another QM term, wavefunction. In QM, because we view particles/electrons as waves, and there is a function that describes the motion of these particles, we then use the term "wave-function" to describe the behavior of this particle/electron. When describing a personal situation, we could use the term "function" as opposed to wavefunction, but to make this more descriptive, let's use the term jobfunction.

A jobfunction can be viewed as a weighted average of the basis functions; additionally this can be referred to as a linear combination of basic functions.

As a faculty member, your jobfunction at a minimum includes teaching, scholarship/research, and service. Teaching is a clear part of your job function; scholarship/research can take on many forms; service is most likely the least clear part of your jobfunction.

It is interesting to use this jobfunction to contrast the differences in individual’s roles within a variety of academic communities.

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.