ArticleEducationFaculty workload calculation
Section snippets
Background
Faculty members at the UTHSC-H SON have developed a series of faculty workload policies and procedures over the years. However, because they have been very complex, have been difficult to understand, and have required a great deal of work to complete, none of these policies have been successfully embraced by the faculty members. In addition, faculty members and administrators have not reached agreement about what constitutes an appropriate workload. Several years ago, faculty members in the SON
Underlying philosophical issues
Several issues guided the development of our WLC form, and some of these issues still linger. These conflicting philosophical issues about workload calculation have been debated among faculty members and administrators. First, professionalism is often cited as a reason against quantifying workloads. As highly educated professionals, faculty members say it is demeaning to “punch a clock” and be accountable for productivity. The notion of a 40-hour workweek was established as the norm for
Workload policy development
Several underlying assumptions guided the development of the WLC. First, the university operates on a 3-semester year (i.e., fall, spring, summer). Two semesters are 15 weeks long, and the third is 12 weeks long. Therefore, only 42 weeks are accounted for in calculating workload. The 10 weeks unaccounted for can be used for vacation and as discretionary time for work and scholarship. Faculty members receive compensation for 40 hours each week for all 52 weeks. The premise of the WLC is that 1
Policy
In creating our workload policy, we addressed issues raised in other workload experiences. For example, more units are allocated for teaching larger classes, since teaching 100 or more students clearly requires more time and effort than teaching smaller classes. Work units are also generated for guest lectures from persons outside the school because our faculty members coordinate and make arrangements with the lecturer and review and/or construct tests or grade papers based on the presentation.
Piloting the workload calculator and faculty members' response
The piloting process for the new WLC took place over 2 academic years. During this time, we had to overcome difficulties such as resistance from the faculty members to yet another workload instrument and the complex nature of past instruments. For example, in 2005, the Faculty Life Council completed work on a 5-page form to compute faculty members' workload. One AD/DC even offered to have staff help faculty members complete the reports because they were so time-consuming. The intent of the
Recommendations
The SON needs to be guided by best practice for assigning work to faculty members, including establishing a partnership between administrators and faculty members to determine a distribution of work that is fair, equitable, and as transparent as possible. Accountability for the distribution of work is necessary so that resources are used responsibly and outcomes for the resources are known. Our recommendations for best practices are outlined here.
First, administrators should include faculty
Future considerations
While it is difficult for a workload assessment document to be both simple and complete, the WLC has been useful to the ADs/DCs in determining equitable workloads for faculty members within and across departments. Faculty members' complex roles require institutions to use flexible and creative methods for supporting and retaining faculty members.8 In addition, administrators have the responsibility to manage resources in partnership with faculty members. The 3 ADs/DCs share the philosophy that
Marlene Z. Cohen, PhD, RN, FAAN, was the John S. Dunn, Sr., Distinguished Professor in Oncology Nursing and Assistant Dean and Department Chair, Department of Integrative Nursing Care, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Nursing, Houston, TX. She was also a Professor in the Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
References (8)
Mission and Vision Statements
- et al.
Nursing perspective of Boyer's scholarship paradigm
Nurse Educ
(1995) - et al.
Implementing a new faculty workload formula
Nurs Educ Perspect
(2007) Faculty workload and collegial support related to proportion of part-time faculty composition
J Nurs Educ
(1995)
Cited by (0)
Marlene Z. Cohen, PhD, RN, FAAN, was the John S. Dunn, Sr., Distinguished Professor in Oncology Nursing and Assistant Dean and Department Chair, Department of Integrative Nursing Care, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Nursing, Houston, TX. She was also a Professor in the Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Joanne V. Hickey, PhD, RN, ACNP, BC, FAAN, FCCM, is a Patricia L. Starck/PARTNERS Professor in Nursing, Assistant Dean and Department Chair of Acute and Continuing Care, and Coordinator of the Doctor of Nursing Practice Program, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX.
Sandra L. Upchurch, PhD, RN, is an Associate Professor and Assistant Dean and Department Chair in the Department of Nursing Systems, School of Nursing, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX.