View in portable document format.
Appendix A6-B

A6
Faculty Rules and Governance Committee

Committee Members

John R. Allison (information, risk, and operations management)
Jonathan Bard (mechanical engineering)
John Dzienkowski (law)
Sue Greninger (Faculty Council secretary)
Hillary Hart (civil, architecture, and environmental engineering) chair

Faculty Council Appointees

Lawrence Abraham (curriculum and instruction)
Neal Burns (advertising)

The full committee met four times during the 2008-09 year. The major product of this committee was a survey of non-tenure-track titles in use at UT Austin – the report is attached. The Faculty Council voted in February 2009 to change the name of this committee to General Faculty Rules and Governance Committee. Here is an excerpt of the expanded scope of the Committee:
A-6 General Faculty Rules and Governance Committee FUNCTION: To propose changes in the rules of procedure and governance structure of the General Faculty and the Faculty Council, to study all other proposed changes in and additions to the rules of procedure of the General Faculty and the Faculty Council and to submit recommendations to the General Faculty; to make the final ruling in any election dispute or on any election matter not covered by the rules; to handle questions of interpretation of rules; to determine questions of jurisdiction arising between the Faculty Council and the General Faculty.
Jonathan Bard served as vice chair and Hillary Hart was asked to chair the committee in the 2009-10 year.

Presented by Hillary Hart, chair
Faculty Rules and Governance Committee
July 2009

A Report on the use of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty titles at UT Austin
Faculty Rules Committee, Spring 2009

In order to carry forward the Faculty Council’s (and President Powers’) request for greater campus-wide uniformity in the use and understanding of non-tenure-track (N-T-T) faculty titles and positions, the Faculty Rules Committee designed a survey beginning in early February 2009. The purpose of the survey was to discover which N-T-T titles are in use across campus, what responsibilities these faculty have in their units, and what percentage of the total faculty these N-T-T faculty represent. It was hoped that these data would help the University establish clearer policies on which titles are most appropriate for which positions and what governance rights various titles do or should carry.

The committee identified relevant questions to ask of UT unit heads and framed the survey questions using the online survey tool, Survey Station, provided by UT Austin. The first round was a pilot survey sent out to a selected set of faculty in order to test usability as well as receive feedback on the survey questions. With the received responses, the questions were modified and feedback was incorporated to the survey, which was posted in late March. The final survey questions can be found in Appendix A.

Participation was solicited via an e-mail to all UT Austin faculty from then-Faculty Council Chair David Hillis (integrative biology). The survey was open was almost three weeks and then reopened for another week to accommodate more responses. In all, 20 departments/units/centers responded. The data received are presented and analyzed in this report.

Table 1 below lists the units responding to the questions about Non-Tenure-Track (N-T-T) titles, While those units do not constitute close to a majority of campus academic units, they do represent a fairly good cross-section of the University, from the Colleges of Liberal Arts and Natural Sciences to Engineering, Pharmacy, Business, and Communication. All of the N-T-T titles listed in question 4 (Q 4) are represented, with a few “other” titles thrown into the mix: visiting professor, visiting associate (in accounting) and instructor of clinical pharmacy

Results and Discussion

Appendix B, the Survey Results Overview, aggregates responses to questions 4 (about titles used) and 6-12 (on roles and responsibilities of faculty holding the various titles). As the bar chart for Q 4 shows, the N-T-T title used most frequently is lecturer: 95 percent of the survey respondents listed at least one of the lecturer titles (lecturer, sr. lecturer, distinguished sr. lecturer) as a title in use in their unit.

Survey results reveal great variation in the numbers, responsibilities, and job security of N-T-T faculty on campus. As Figure 1 shows, the percentage of fulltime-equivalent (FTE) faculty positions (including tenure-track and non-tenure-track) represented by N-T-T faculty varies widely across the University. Two of the responding units—Division of Physical Education and School of Biological Sciences—have all tenure-track faculty, while the Center for Computational Biology and Bioinformatics has no N-T-T faculty and both Departments of History and Physics have fewer than 5 percent.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Non-Tenure-Track faculty as a percent of total FTE's in each responding academic unit

Table 1 reveals that the School of Biological Sciences (BS) has the largest number of N-T-T faculty, followed closely by the Department of Mathematics and the College of Pharmacy. In these three departments, the roles and responsibilities of N-T-T faculty seem to vary widely. In BS, the three classes of titles used – lecturer track, specialist, and adjunct faculty (AF) – perform only teaching duties, and only some of the lecturers (26 percent) have multi-year contracts. Mathematics uses instructor, lecturer, clinical, and research faculty titles. The number of responsibilities vary from teaching/research only for the Instructors to teaching/field supervision/academic supervision/committee work/administrative work for the clinical faculty. The department awards fifteen multi-year contracts, fourteen of which go to instructors. In fact, the professor filling out the survey for Mathematics would like to see the Instructor title become research instructor in mathematics. In pharmacy, all titles except specialist are used and the N-T-T faculty perform most of the duties listed on the questionnaire, with three titles – lecturers, research faculty (RF) and AF – doing administrative work as well. Twenty-four of the forty-eight N-T-T pharmacy faculty have multi-year contracts, with 88 percent of those contracts going to clinical faculty. This variety in and multiplicity of duties among N-T-T faculty is reflected in many of the other responding units as well.

Table 1. Number of N-T-T faculty in each responding academic unit

Dept./Unit
No. of N-T-T fac.
Dept./Unit
No. of N-T-T fac.
Accounting
20
IROM
19
Advertising
8 Journalism 22
Biological Sciences
54 Kinesiology & Health Edu. 22
Center Comp. Bio. & Bioinfo.
0 Linguistics 7
Civil Engineering
19 Mathematics 51
Classics
5 Parmacy 48
Economics
10 Physcial Edu. Div. 16
English and WGS
35 Physics 1
Geo. & the Environ.
5 Psychology 38
History
3 Radio-TV-Film 15

The committee would like to discover why and to whom departments award multi-year contracts; some units are using them and some are not. As Figure 2 shows, the largest percentage of these contracts goes to lecturers, followed by clinical faculty. This finding seems consistent with anecdotal and other evidence collected in a 2005 Faculty Council report—Recommendations of the Implementation Committee on the Status of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty (D 4277-4281)—that many long-term lecturers at UT Austin have qualified for greater job security and perks (lecturers are the only N-T-T faculty, for instance, to be eligible for a Faculty Travel Grant). This conclusion may need to be balanced by a closer look at the rights and responsibilities of other N-T-T faculty, especially clinical faculty, who may warrant the option of greater participation in governance at UT Austin. As it stands now, clinical faculty do not have the right to vote in University elections.

figure 2
Figure 2. Numbers of N-T-T faculty with multi-year appointments, by title

Future Work
The findings of this survey should be buttressed by additional data-gathering, especially in those units with clinical faculty. Focus groups conducted in these units would be helpful in fleshing out the picture of what these faculty do, how involved they would like to be with governance, and how independent some of them may be with regard to involvement in the life of the University. We should leave ourselves open to the possibility that the title clinical as it is currently defined may not fit all UT Austin faculty carrying that title. And perhaps other N-T-T titles may also be mismatched.

Hillary Hart, chair

Appendix A

Questions for Survey of Non-tenure-Track Faculty Titles

The UT Faculty Rules Committee has been charged with evaluating and clarifying the rights and responsibilities of all faculty on the Austin campus. One area of confusion stems from the inconsistent use of non-tenure-track titles. There is currently little agreement about which titles should be used when for which faculty or research jobs. We appreciate your help in bringing greater clarity to the non-tenure-track appointment process by filling out this survey. We will use the data to get an accurate picture of how these titles currently map to faculty responsibilities across campus, not to call attention to any particular unit’s use of the titles. Ultimately, we believe that consistent definitions of these titles will aid the non-tenure-track hiring process for administrative heads at UT.

  1. What is the name of your UT department or unit?
  2. How many non-tenure-track (n-t-t) faculty appointments (fulltime and part-time) are there in your dept./unit?
  3. What percentage of your unit’s total FTEs do these n-t-t faculty represent?
  4. Which of the following n-t-t titles are currently in use in your department or unit? Please check all that apply.

    Instructor
    Lecturer/Sr. Lecturer/Distinguished Sr. Lecturer
    Clinical Assistant/Associate/full Professor
    Specialist
    Research Faculty Affiliated
    Adjunct Faculty
    Other, please specify

  5. How many n-t-t faculty have multi-year appointments?
  6. Please indicate the duties and responsibilities of Instructors in your unit. Check all that apply.

    Teaching
    Research
    Field Supervision of students
    Academic supervision of students
    Administrative work
    Committee work
    Other
    Other, please specify

  7. Please indicate the duties and responsibilities of Lecturers in your unit. Check all that apply.

    Teaching
    Research
    Field Supervision of students
    Academic supervision of students
    Administrative work
    Committee work
    Other
    Other, please specify

  8. Please indicate the duties and responsibilities of Clinical faculty in your unit. Check all that apply.

    Teaching
    Research
    Field Supervision of students
    Academic supervision of students
    Administrative work
    Committee work
    Other
    Other, please specify

  9. Please indicate the duties and responsibilities of Specialists in your unit. Check all that apply.

    Teaching
    Research
    Field Supervision of students
    Academic supervision of students
    Administrative work
    Committee work
    Other
    Other, please specify

  10. Please indicate the duties and responsibilities of Research faculty in your unit. Check all that apply.
  11. Teaching
    Research
    Field Supervision of students
    Academic supervision of students
    Administrative work
    Committee work
    Other
    Other, please specify

  12. Please indicate the duties and responsibilities of Adjunct faculty in your unit. Check all that apply.
  13. Teaching
    Research
    Field Supervision of students
    Academic supervision of students
    Administrative work
    Committee work
    Other
    Other, please specify

  14. Please indicate the duties and responsibilities of any other n-t-t faculty in your unit. Check all that apply.
  15. Teaching
    Research
    Field Supervision of students
    Academic supervision of students
    Administrative work
    Committee work
    Other
    Other, please specify

  16. Is there any title not currently in use at UT Austin that you would like to see adopted? If so, please name it.

Appendix B (PDF)