Author(s):
While faculty labor across all institutional types has become more contingent over the past 40 forty years, R1 institutions over the past decade have instituted a relatively less contingent role into the faculty labor structure in the form of the promotable teaching faculty positions. Regarded as more equitable than shorter-term contract positions, the promotable teaching faculty positions provide some level of security of employment and mechanisms for advancement and often include better compensation and benefits than non-promotable positions. In turn, the university is able to expect more from promotable teaching faculty than non-promotable teaching faculty and benefits from a more stable labor force capable of advancing the unique educational mission of R1 institutions.Over the past two years, this NSF IUSE ICT grant (NSF 21-21157) has allowed a multidisciplinary research team at Rice University to study the impact of Rice University Policy 201, which, among other reforms to faculty labor, instituted the promotable teaching ranks. Our work has sought to understand the impact of this policy on labor equity and STEM learning environments. This poster will present findings of our study based on analysis of the Survey for Non-Tenure-Track Instructors distributed to current teaching faculty in STEM and social sciences in December 2021, comparison of the NTT Survey to the Rice Tenure/Tenure-Track Climate Survey, an analysis of STEM faculty pedagogical practices as evidenced by syllabi and institutional data on student outcomes, and analysis of historical documents and oral history interviews.Our research documented the considerable role that all teaching faculty play in undergraduate STEM education and revealed the distinctive value provided by faculty in the promotable teaching track — from employing evidence-based pedagogical practices and assuming the majority of the advising load to supporting undergraduate research programs and leading department committees and curricular change efforts. Yet, our work also found that policies and practices associated with implementation of the promotable teaching faculty positions have undermined the distinct value of the role to the university’s teaching-research mission. Rather than fostering an equitable labor environment as the Faculty Senate envisioned, poor implementation of the policy (unclear standards for promotion, uneven adoption across the schools, and little distinction from non-promotable teaching faculty) have created perceptions of injustice. Our interdisciplinary understanding of the Rice context has informed development of a theory of change for achieving the interdependent aims of promotable teaching faculty and student success in R1 STEM contexts. We argue that professionalization of the promotable teaching faculty is critical given their role both in delivering and improving the STEM curriculum and in providing labor that enhances the research mission of R1 institutions. Addressing how STEM education can be accessible, inclusive, and inspiring is necessary for increasing persistence and ultimately creating a STEM workforce prepared to address the challenges of the 21st century. At many R1 institutions, the responsibility both to offer and improve STEM courses falls on promotable teaching faculty yet too little attention has been given to the labor conditions necessary to equitably and successfully implement, scale, and ultimately sustain these efforts. As institutions focused on student success rightfully turn to advancing systemic change, faculty labor conditions need to be at the center of the conversation. As a result of the capacity-building work, our team intends to establish a Networked Improvement Community focused on the professionalization of R1 teaching faculty.
Coauthors
Margaret Beier, Rice University; Janet Braam, Rice University; Elizabeth Eich, Rice University; Megan McSpedon, Rice University; Renata Ramos, Rice University; Abigail Schuh, Rice University; Matthew Taylor, Rice University
