Documentation:CTLT Resources/New Faculty Achieving Your Potential

Achieving Your Potential

At the year-end retreat of the Faculty Mentoring Program, faculty from across disciplines and different levels discussed aspects of academic life that either maximized or minimized the likelihood of new faculty achieving success as academics. Approximately 70 faculty members participated in this event. The results coincided remarkably with those found in recent literature on mentoring. I am hoping you will find the following summary useful in helping you to help your new faculty achieve their potential.

Because the following comments have been compiled from various group discussions, some may appear contradictory. Other comments may not apply to all departments because of the inherent differences between departments, such as size or academic focus.

Reduced resources are the difficult reality at present. Surprisingly, the measures that help new faculty enjoy a “quick start” in their academic environment cost little: socioemotional support and clear, ongoing communications.

What Helps

At the departmental level

clearly communicated expectations and guidelines;
introduction to the departmental culture – discussions concerning the relative values accorded to teaching/research/service;
help early on in establishing individual goals and in setting priorities;
frequent informal chats with the head — new faculty particularly appreciate a head who “really listens”, recognizes the increased pressures on new faculty today (such as increased competition for grant funding), empathizes with new faculty, “discusses” timetables, teaching loads, committee work, is open to negotiating; gives frequent feedback on the strengths as well as honest and timely feedback on any problems new faculty present;
a head who knows how to give feedback in a constructive way (several new faculty suggested training for heads in this area);
a yearly, more formal, documented interview with the head where clear oral and written feedback is given with regard to attainment of goals, strengths, potential problems;
frequent and friendly social interactions with colleagues within the department;
one or more mentors or trusted colleagues in the department who can inform on the tacit “rules” of the department and give non-judgmental advice on teaching, marking, writing grant proposals. In other words, peer support. Almost all new faculty questioned their ability to assess fairly their students’ work in their new department. Every university has different norms. It is extremely helpful for new faculty to see what constitutes a first-class, second-class, pass/fail paper or test in their new department;
departmental orientation — new faculty often ”get stressed over the little stuff” – office set-up, how and when to use the photocopier, getting an e-mail address. Most new faculty expressed appreciation for the warm welcomes they received in their departments and effective administrative aid in the above areas;
clear information on technological aids that are available and instructions on using them. Many new faculty would like advice early on on the purchase of a computer – what do they need, where should they purchase it? Could each department identify an expert in this area?
introduction to professional organizations;
reduced teaching load initially;
a timetable that allows new faculty who live far from campus to use their home office;
re-assurance that it is “safe” to negotiate with the head. New faculty are often afraid of “rocking the boat, the tenure boat”.

At the university level

a mentor from outside the department, who will provide social support, act as an advocate for the new faculty member, introduce him/her to colleagues from other departments, explain the unwritten rules of the university, discuss teaching, research activities. Boice and others have found that cross departmental mentors provide added advantages to new faculty who often feel more comfortable making self-disclosures of failings and asking very basic questions with outside mentors than with members of their department;
orientations – university-wide as well as within the department;
teaching workshops – CTLT, the mentoring program, other resources on campus;
improved facilities, buildings;
funding – for grants, to attend conferences;
interaction with “successful” people;
administrative support and recognition that new faculty “are on a survival course”;
spousal hiring.

Working with graduate students

securing “good” graduate students;
information on supervising graduate students.

Setting up labs

information on hiring lab assistants or other personnel.

Beyond the university

support from family, friends, colleagues;
a life outside of work – family, hobbies, outside interests.

What Hinders

As can be expected, “what hinders” is usually the opposite of “what helps”. Faculty, in almost every small group discussion, highlighted the following hurdles. Again, these comments are not universally applicable.

Within the department

lack of clear communications with department head;
lack of supportive network for new faculty within the department;
lack of information concerning the priorities of the new faculty member, technological and office aids, norms for marking within the department;
“catch 22″: help the system, or succeed individually? Most new faculty want to provide “service to the community”, but receive conflicting messages concerning how much, where, when? New faculty are told by senior mentors to limit their committee work during the early years. How can new faculty say “no” to their head when he/she asks them to participate on committees? How do new faculty decide on which committees to serve?

Financially speaking

salary discrepancies – between information given when hired and reality after arrival;
cost of living in Vancouver/purchasing a home/commuting distances;
lack of material resources for basic work needs — chairs, telephones, voice mail, e-mail;
lack of funding for research, conferences.

Campus

lack of places to meet other faculty beyond their own academic disciplines.

Gender and generational issues

too much committee work for women faculty;
"gender politics";
aging faculty versus new hires.

Research

too much focus on quantity versus quality;
expectations for publishing not realistic given other teaching/service requirements.

University in general

mind-boggling rules;
variance in workload/expectations in research, teaching, across all faculties.

Mixed-messages concerning teaching

Almost all new faculty spoke of the tension they experienced with regard to the importance of teaching. Many spoke of receiving mixed messages. Some heads stressed new faculty should not spend “too much” time on their teaching; yet the reality for almost all new faculty during their first years is that “teaching takes 90% of [their] time for an estimated value of about 10%”. What is the value of teaching at UBC? Most stated that in their first years at UBC their immediate concern was with teaching. They wanted to do a good job, remembered the teachers who had inspired them. For many, however, it is their first experience in the classroom and they often feel overwhelmed. They often experience difficulty determining the amount of material to include in a class, and worry about their marking — are their standards too high, too low? The time commitment for each new class is often 6 to 7 hours of preparation for 1 hour of class. New faculty also have questions about the amount of time they should spend with students and how this is viewed in their department. At the same time, new faculty are often told by their heads to get on with their scholarly work. Sigma Most faculty (and the literature) agree that it takes about 3 years for an instructor to become proficient at teaching a course. Many new faculty are not given the opportunity to teach the same course 3 times. Many lecturers are not re-hired after 3 years. Should this unofficial policy be revisited?

Personal

ISOLATION
learning to balance career goals (teaching/service/research) and career and personal life;
ever-increasing stress, leading to poor health. The stress is directly related to the perceived lack of clear guidelines concerning the tenure process, uncertain job security (among tenure-track faculty, sessionals, post-docs and grant-tenured faculty members) and the rising “unrealistic expectations” on them;
when to have a family – after 3rd year review? after tenure? after promotion?

Special Cases

challenges for those split between 2 departments;
insufficient support for faculty with special needs. Faculty from different levels and disciplines at UBC felt students with special needs received more accommodations than faculty;

Other issues

clinical faculty and their connections with the university;
sessionals — their often tenuous situation, lack of career path, lack of recognition for their teaching;
grant tenure faculty – fear for their future;
high demands on women for committee work;
high demands on faculty in small units.

Recommendations Made by Faculty

improved communications at all levels in the university;
explicit recruitment letter that outlines the responsibilities of both the department and the new faculty member;
clear guidelines for new faculty – what are the priorities for them in their department and as individuals?;
a clearly written reference guide for new faculty, sessionals and post-docs, written in user-friendly language and explaining the role of the Faculty Association – what they can and cannot bargain for;
the various rights and regulations that concern new faculty, such as sick leave, holidays, maternity leaves, sabbaticals;
formal training for new faculty (without prior teaching experience) in teaching and dealing with students (faculty who had attended CTLT teaching seminars spoke highly of them);
special teaching positions, a reward system for those who excel at teaching and shine less in their research;
training sessions for heads, division heads, associate deans, deans:
1. in university-wide expectations on new faculty, such as workloads, timetables, flexibility. There was a plea for “standardized flexibility”. All new faculty would appreciate the flexibility that some departments accord their new faculty to choose – where feasible – reduced teaching loads and their timetables;
2. in communication skills – some heads seem to have difficulty discussing with new faculty departmental and university guidelines and the new faculty member’s goals and priorities, or as stated above, in giving new faculty constructive feedback;
  improvements made to the situation of grant-tenured faculty members and sessional lecturers;
  
  mentoring within departments as well as university-wide;
  
  ongoing friendship and support within departments and across disciplines.

In conclusion, Kay U. Herr, in her 1994 article “Mentoring Faculty at the Departmental Level”, speaks of the need to “value and to nurture our human resources” and cites the clearly articulated components of a system developed by Stephen D. Roper, the former chairperson of the Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology at Colorado State for other chairpersons, that seems to respond to the comments made by UBC faculty last April:

Provide the newly hired faculty member a clear explanation of what is expected over the next few years.
Recognize that the transition from PhD graduate or postdoctoral fellow to a new faculty member is a major change.
Protect the newly hired faculty member from an overburdensome teaching/service load in the first year.
Provide appropriate resources as start-up funds.
Assure the availability of assistance in writing grants and preparing publications.
Monitor the new faculty member’s interaction with other faculty.
Point out how a faculty member can obtain national visibility.
Explain how and when tenure evaluation will be made.
Recognize that everyone, but especially a new faculty member, needs to feel wanted and needed!
Meet with the new faculty member on a formal and informal basis.
Consider, if appropriate and necessary, the career of the new faculty member’s partner and the special concerns which women faculty of child-bearing age may have.