Table Of Content

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning Fall 2007,pp.18-31 Faculty Perceptions of Service As a Mode of Scholarship Thomas Schnaubelt andAnne Statham University of Wisconsin-Parkside The authors provide historical context related to the changing nature of scholarship and how it is rewarded,paying particular attention to the concept of service. Data collected from education faculty employed at Mississippi public universities is then used to identify how perceptions of service as a supported form of scholarship correlate to institutional policies (most notably tenure and promotion policies). Conclusions are consistent with other studies that find the service role to be neither highly valued nor well defined. However,it appears that institutional initiatives aimed at broadening the notion of service and strengthening rewards for it are reflected in faculty perceptions on individual campuses. It is not clear,however,that faculty behaviors actually conform to those perceptions. Some of the qualitative data suggest that other social,cultural,political,and contextual realities within an institution and/or discipline have an equal or greater role in the formation of these perceptions. These considerations about service are considered in the context of recent exhortations for faculty to incorporate activities immediate- ly useful for communities into their work. In announcing the 76 institutions to receive the Literature Review Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Scholarship and Service:A Historical Context Teaching new elective Community Engagement classification, Amy Driscoll, associate senior What is regarded as scholarship in higher educa- scholar and director of the pilot project,noted that, tion has evolved over time.From the beginning,there “even among the most compelling applications, has been a clash between the traditional classical few institutions described promotion and tenure (Great Books) curriculum and the idea that academe policies that recognize and reward the scholarship ought to serve a more direct utilitarian purpose in associated with community engagement” (avail- society (Flexner, 1994; Jencks & Reisman, 1968; able online: http://www.carnegie foundation.org/ Kerr, 1995; Lucas, 1994; Rudolph, 1990; Veysey, news/sub.asp?key=51&subkey=2126). Driscoll’s 1965). According to an 1829 Yale Report,the focus tempering of the Carnegie announcement is signif- of scholarship was almost entirely dedicated to pro- icant: for many advocates of postsecondary com- viding instruction until the mid- and late-1800s munity engagement and academic service-learn- (Lucas,1994). In 1866,Andrew D. White stated that ing, sustainability of efforts is linked to ensuring atCornell University,“facility and power in impart- faculty reward for efforts in these areas. Given the ing the truth are even more necessary than in discov- importance of reward structures for the future of ering it.” Less than 30 years later, William Rainey community engagement on college campuses, we Harper announced that the University of Chicago know little about faculty perceptions on this topic. would make investigation its primary work Of the nearly 200 articles published to date in the (Rudolph,1990),and Johns Hopkins’first president, Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Daniel Coit Gilman,asserted that “the best teachers approximately 13 have explored factors that moti- are usually those who are free,competent and willing vate, influence, or impact faculty involved in ser- to make original researches in the library and the lab- vice-learning or community-based research. oratory”(available online:http://www.jhu.edu/news_ However,none have focused directly on the specif- info/jhuinfo/history.html). ic issue of how faculty perceptions and behaviors At about this same time,the Wisconsin Idea,rep- may be influenced by reward structures. This arti- resenting the most complete and direct engagement cle investigates faculty perceptions of the relation- of college or university resources toward address- ship between the concepts of service and scholar- ing social problems,was established by Richard T. ship,exploring the impact of institutional attempts Ely, director of University of Wisconsin School of to modify those perceptions. Economics,Political Science,and History in 1892. Ely was instrumental in engaging faculty in a new 18 Faculty Perceptions of Service capacity:providing advisory service to governmen- decrease in time spent teaching at research univer- tal leaders (Lucas,1994). Lynton (1995) described sities, but an increase at doctoral, comprehensive, this role of faculty service at the time as, liberal arts,and community colleges. Results from several national studies over several decades show an application of the individual’s professional the ascendancy over time of research productivity expertise to problems and tasks outside the in determining faculty rewards (Blackburn & campus. It did not mean committee work on Bentley,1990; Fairweather,1996). campus,nor the work for professional or disciplinary associations; it did not mean collecting Various researchers have constructed typologies for the United Way or jury duty. (p. 8) of faculty duties and responsibilities that imply levels of importance of service. Pellino and colleagues According to Rice (1996), the current image of (1984),based on a factor analysis of the frequency the American scholar emerged during the period of of faculty and administrator responses to 32 activi- expansion in higher education after World War II, ty statements, delineated six dimensions of schol- when the view of the scholar as researcher pursu- arship:professional activity,research (publishing), ing knowledge for its own sake emerged as domi- teaching, service, artistic endeavor, and “engage- nant. In 1963,Clark Kerr described the basic reali- ment with the novel.”Sundre (1989) also used fac- ty of the American research university as being the tor analysis to delineate the most common attribut- production agent of new knowledge and that this es of scholars:(a) published articles,(b) respect by endeavor was, peers across the disciplines, (c) broad generalized the most important factor in economic and knowledge beyond the field,(d) contribution to,or social growth. We are just now perceiving that influence on, the field through research, and (e) the university’s invisible product, knowledge, sharing knowledge with others; these were orga- may be the most powerful single element in nized into four factors: (a) pedagogy, (b) publica- our culture, affecting the rise and fall of pro- tion and professional recognition, (c) intellectual fessions and even of social classes,of regions characteristics of scholars, and (d) creative and and even of nations. (Kerr,1995,p. xiv) artistic attributes. Other typologies are offered by By the 1980s, the predisposition toward and impor- Ernest Lynton (1995) and Diamond (1993, 1994, tance of knowledge production in universities had 1995a,1995b,1999). evolved so completely that the term scholarship had Catalysts for Change become synonymous with research and publication (Boyer, 1990; Rice, 1991; Sundre, 1990). Changes in perceptions of faculty roles and Scholarship had become narrowly defined as inquiry rewards over the long run seem to have been gen- that led to publications in prestigious journals erated largely by external influences rather than (Blackburn, Bieber, Lawrence, & Trautvetter, 1991; from within. The expansion of the role of the fed- Boyer, 1990; Fairweather, 1993, 1996; Pellino, eral government in academe served as one catalyst Blackburn,& Boberg,1984; Rice,1991). to changes in our modern conception of scholar- Studies of emphasis confirm these trends, often ship, beginning with the passage of the Morrill measured in terms of time spent on the various Federal Land Grant Act of 1862 and peaking with tasks involved in the tripartite faculty role: the commissioning of full-scale research agendas research, teaching and service. Looking at trends in the 1950s and 1960s, through a variety of pro- over 20 years in three national surveys,Milem and grams initiated by the National Science Berger (2000) found a growing similarity in pat- Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and ternsof time allocation,with faculty at all types of the National Defense Education Act of 1958. institutions reporting that they spend more time During World War II,sponsored research increased both doing research and teaching/preparing for the federal government’s involvement in higher teaching,and less time advising or counseling stu- education. After the War, the Servicemen’s dents. Earlier, some conflicting evidence emerged Readjustment Act of 1944 (the G.I. Bill of Rights) regarding the relationship between the time spent brought a great expansion of colleges and universi- teaching and conducting research. Fairweather ties. Finally,fear of Soviet militarydominance fol- (1993, 2002) found a high negative correlation to lowing the launch of Sputnik resulted in the exist, while Dey, Milem and Berger (1997), using National Defense Act of 1958, which authorized longitudinal data, found no relationship between the federal government to expand sponsorship of the two. The latter study also showed an increase in university-based research (Lucas,1994). the amount of time spent conducting research over Ewell and Wellman (1997) note three influences a 20 year period at all four-year institutions, a on higher education and faculty roles and responsi- decrease in time spent advising students, and a bilities:(a) direct regulation,(b) incentive systems, 19 Schnaubelt & Statham and (c) information-driven markets by the federal Huber, & Maeroff, 1997, p. 12). An overwhelming government, the states, institutional creditors and majority of CAOs asserted that definitions of schol- governing boards, disciplinary and professional arship were being broadened at their institutions to organizations, third-party information providers, encompass the full range of faculty activities. and the market. Bloland (1999) notes the overall Complexity of Assessing Effectiveness of impact of “outside” stakeholders increasingly Broadened Scholarship Reforms wielding influence on faculty lives, and Layzell (1996) referred to the issue of faculty workload and Several factors have impeded progress toward productivity as “one of the more highly charged assessing the effectiveness of these efforts. First, and controversial topics pertaining to higher educa- there seemed to be little consensus about definition today”(p. 267). There is little doubt that exter- tions of scholarship, mechanisms to assess the nal scrutiny of faculty activity and productivity has quality of service work, or appropriate ways to increased, and any discussion of faculty roles, broaden the reward structure to accommodate assessment,and reward would be incomplete were broader scholarship conceptualizations. Service is this political and economic reality unrecognized. difficult to define within a scholarly context. Boyer Although external factors have historically served (1990) wrote that “colleges and universities have as the primary catalysts for major change,attempts at recently rejected service as serious scholarship, reform have happened within the academy. During partly because its meaning is so vague and often the 1980s and 1990s,manyindividuals and organiza- disconnected from serious intellectual work.” tions within academe began to reexamine the way McCallum (1994) states, “when most faculty use faculty roles were defined and rewarded. During this the term service they often associate it with an period,nearly all major postsecondary organizations unrewarded but necessary activity distinct from created programmatic initiatives, commissioned teaching and research or scholarship” (p. 332). studies,and/or issued reports related to the changing Hawthorne (1990) concluded that “the definition of nature and definition of scholarship or how it was service is motley, suggesting the lack of scholarly rewarded. These efforts focused largely on the con- attention to this subject and the exploratory nature cept of teaching as scholarship (Shulman & of research”(p. 6). Hutchings,1999) but also included a general broad- Assessing the quality of service is difficult. ening of conceptions of scholarship. The conversa- Although Glassick, Huber and Maeroff (1997) sug- tion had traditionally been framed as teaching versus gest six specific criteria for recognizing service activ- scholarship (Burroughs,1990) but during this period ities: (a) shared goals, (b) adequate preparation, (c) began to focus more on the integrative nature of the appropriate methods,(d) significant results,(e) effec- areas of research,teaching,and service,with all three tive presentation, and (f) reflective critique (p. 25), increasingly seen as aspects of scholarship thereseemed overall to be little consensus,especial- (Blackburn, Bieber, Lawrence, & Trautvetter, 1991; ly in arguments about whether applied scholarship Diamond, 1993; Fairweather, 1996). A view of ser- (typically associated with unidirectional outreach to vice as scholarship was first embodied in Boyer’s the community) was clearly distinguished from cam- Scholarship Reconsidered(1990),which provided a pus and community citizenship. Glassick et al. note new framework for scholarship: discovery, integra- that even when public service activities are identified tion, application, and teaching. Boyer and others in faculty handbooks, there is rarely any guidance urged colleges and universities to practice “diversity regarding how to define and assess the quality of with dignity” by establishing unique missions that work in this area. Layzell (1996) reviewed faculty respond to community needs. A decade later, Rice workload studies from across the country and (2003) described the evolution of Boyer’s concept of reached the following conclusion:“the methods have a ‘scholarship of application’into a ‘scholarship of numerous drawbacks, namely, the inability to engagement.’ The chief distinction made is that account for such intangible aspects of productivity as engagement emphasizes genuine collaboration and the quality of output”(p. 277). O’Meara (2005) and moves away from the more traditional “expert” Braxton et al. (2002) identified the development and model wherein knowledge flows in one direction:out adoption (particularly by prestigious institutions) of from the university. meaningful assessment criteria as one of the greatest By 1994, the Carnegie Foundation for the challenges to institutional reform. Advancement of Teaching’s survey of chief academ- Another issue has been determining how to ic officers(CAOs) atthe nation’s four-year colleges reward these activities within a scholarly context. and universities indicated that the “most widely Diamond (1999) has written extensively about the embraced goal was to redefine suchtraditional facul- need to adjust faculty reward structures to emerging ty roles as teaching,research and service”(Glassick, modes of scholarship. In doing so,he concludes that 20 Faculty Perceptions of Service an appropriate and effective promotion and tenure ods to adequately explore the complexity and depth system must (a) align with the institution’s mission, of the meaning of service within the framework of (b) be sensitive to disciplinary differences, (c) be scholarly endeavors. The qualitative phase of this sensitive to individual differences, (d) include an investigation involved a variety of research tradi- appropriate,fair,and workable assessment program, tions as described by Borg and Gall (1996,p. 593), (e) recognize departmental needs and priorities,and including emancipatory action research, eth- (f) articulate the characteristics of scholarly work. nomethodology, ethnographic content analysis, Palmer and Collins (2006) found that faculty phenomenological epistemology, and hermeneu- emphasize recognition and access to new opportuni- tics. The quantitative phase used descriptive and ties as rewards that vie with the importance of relational approaches,with data obtained through a salary/financial rewards,and others stress the impor- survey instrument. tance of different forms of institutional support,such Throughout this study,the meaning of service was as faculty development programs,acknowledgement limited to activities that potentially occur within the from key individuals, and financial allocations framework of scholarship, as delineated by the toward logistical and administrative support University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign as pro- (Bringle et al.,2000; Driscoll et. al.,1996; Holland, fessional service—service that contributes to the 1997; Zlotkowski,1998). public welfare or common good, calls upon faculty O’Meara (2005) provides perhaps the most direct members’ academic and/or professional expertise, assessment of the impact of various reforms to date. and directly addresses or responds to real-world Through an analysis of data collected from CAOs, problems, issues, interests or concerns (Lynton, efforts to reform reward systems to encourage multi- 1995,p. 17). At the time that this data was collected, ple forms of scholarship were found to have an the term “engaged scholarship” was not commonly impact. CAOs at institutions that had initiated used; however, prior to participation focus groups reforms were significantly more likely than their members were introduced to Boyer’s reformulation counterparts to report that engagement was a consid- of scholarship into four dimensions,and survey par- eration in faculty evaluation and that a higher per- ticipants were asked to conceive of professional ser- centage of tenure and promotion cases emphasized vice within the context of their scholarly work. engagement. In addition,these individuals reported a Sample greater congruence between faculty priorities and institutional mission, and an increased focus on The population included individuals holding improving undergraduate learning. However, the full-time faculty positions in all eight schools, reforms studied “did not mute the very strong trend departments, or colleges of education at toward rising research expectations, rather they just Mississippi public four-year universities. Two sets contributed to...increasing expectations in every area of subjects participated in this investigation. In the of faculty work”(p. 505). first phase, a small set of subjects from each cam- It seems,then,that an understanding of how facul- pus were recommended by the deans at each insti- ty perceive service, especially the extent to which tution to participate in focus group interviews,with they view service as being connected to scholarly equal representation of tenured and untenured fac- efforts,and how they are influenced by institutional ulty. These data were used to construct the survey initiatives to expand faculty involvement in service, used in the second phase of the research. In that would be of use to those seeking to promote engaged phase,surveys were made available online and sub- scholarship (including academic service-learning sequently mailed to the 288 full-time faculty practitioners). Given that so little consensus on these employed within the eight schools and departments matters exists within higher education,it also seems of education at all Mississippi public universities. appropriate to focus an investigation on specific areas Data Collection (geographic and disciplinary) within higher education. Such an analysis is provided below. Focus group interviews on the meaning of service were conducted on each campus, and relevant pro- Methods motion and tenure policies were also collected and analyzed for each campus. The surveys asked about ResearchDesign attitudes and perceptions regarding service activities. This article uses data from a larger study of fac- The semi-structured faculty focus group interviews ulty perceptions of and attitudes toward service - provided a means for investigating how individuals including institutional definitions and time com- define service in a scholarly context,and these were mitments—within the discipline of Education. The used to develop a construct of how service is defined study used both qualitative and quantitative meth- by faculty of education on these campuses. In addi- 21 Schnaubelt & Statham Table 1 Classification Criteria for Analysis of Mission Statement and Promotion and Tenure Materials (adapted from Holland,1997) Classification Criteria Level One • Service is not operationally defined. Low Relevance • Service referred to solely in terms of work on committees or with disciplinary associations. • Service priorities are not identified. • Guidelines for documenting service activities are not provided. • No explicit service-related performance benchmarks or definitions. Level Two • Service is only vaguely operationally defined. Medium Relevance • Service may count in certain cases. • Service priorities are vaguely or indirectly identified; perhaps at the institutional level but not at the departmental level. • Broad guidelines for documenting service activities are provided. • Vague service performance benchmarks and definitions. Level Three • Formal guidelines for documenting and rewarding service. High Relevance • Faculty service is explicitly defined and/or mentioned in mission statement and promotion and tenure materials. • Service priorities are identified for the institution and/or the department. • Guidelines for documenting service activities are clear. • Specific service-related performance benchmarks are provided. Level Four • Formal guidelines for documenting and rewarding service. Full Integration • Faculty service is explicitly defined and/or mentioned in mission statement and promotion and tenure materials. • Service-related performance benchmarks are clear for department; service is a key criterion for hiring/promotion. • Service priorities are identified for the institution/department. tion to the questions generated fromthe focus group education, and (b) at the institutional level at the interviews, the survey incorporated questions from various public four-year universities in Mississippi. the following Carnegie Foundation for the A coding scheme was developed to assign each Advancement of Teaching surveys:(a) International campus a score for the importance of faculty ser- Survey of Academic Profession (1991-93), (b) vice indicated by these items, based on Holland’s National Surveyof Faculty (1989),and (c) Surveyon (1997) typology for levels of integration of service- the Reexamination of Faculty Roles and Rewards learning within an institution (See Table 1). The (1994). Surveyquestions were also formulated from schema was also influenced by Diamond’s (1999) areview of current literature. analysis of institutional missions and their relation The Survey of Education Faculty at Mississippi to reward structures. Public Universitieswas created and piloted by sev- Data Analysis eral faculty, administrators, and other professional colleagues. All full-time faculty of education at The focus group interviews were recorded and Mississippi’s public four-year institutions were transcribed, and a classification system was estab- asked to complete the survey online. Those who lished to categorize responses for content analysis. failed to submit the informed consent form and This schema was reviewed by a committee of two complete the online survey were subsequently faculty members and an external academic affairs mailed a hard copy of the survey via regular postal administrator. This analysis focused on definitions delivery. Of the 288 full-time education faculty, of service and howthey differed by group or insti- 131 responded to the survey, a response rate of tution. This classification schema was compared to 45%. The rates for individual campuses varied typologies created by other researchers,and exam- between 33% and 56%. ples of service activities provided within the survey The first author also conducted an independent document were categorized to determine the fit of content analysis of tenure and promotion policies the responses to the typology. No existing classifi- and other published literature (i.e.,institutional and cation schema or typology proved to be sufficient- departmental catalogs and mission statements) to ly broad to capture all types of services cited by determine how service is defined (a) within respondents. Conversely, none of the existing schools, departments, divisions, and colleges of typologies provided enough definition to prevent 22 Faculty Perceptions of Service overlap between categories. parametric one-way analysis of variance that takes The first section of the survey asked faculty a vari- advantage of the ordinal nature of the data when ety of demographic questions. The second section more than two groups of subjects are involved asked faculty to provide information concerning their (Borg & Gall,1989). This test was used to examine professional activity and give examples of profes- relationships between activities and attitudes with sional service activities; the examples given were cat- institution,academic rank,and tenure status. egorized to test how well the responses fit typologies The Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze created by Lynton (1995) and by the University of data if the independent variable was dichotomous, Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Relationships so it was used to test for relationships with gender, between these professional service activities and gen- institutional size, and when comparing responses der, institution, academic rank, and tenure status as from historically black universities to historically independent variables were also examined. white institutions (Borg & Gall,1989). The third and final section of the survey asked Relationships between qualitative and quantitative faculty to describe their attitudes toward service data. Potential relationships between the qualitative and perceptions of the relative value of service at and quantitative data (i.e., the relationship between their institutions. These are the questions we use in content analysis of policies and other relevant mate- this analysis,as they were designed to tap into var- rials, focus group interview responses, and survey ious aspects of the notion of service as scholarship. data) are also examined, focusing especially on the One item directly asked faculty if they perceived overlap between scores on mission statements and service to be a form of scholarship. Others asked tenure and promotion documents and respondents’ about related aspects of service as scholarship, perceptions,attitudes,and professional activities. such as the extent to which expectations were well- Results defined and rewarded. Response categories to these questions formed a Likert scale and therefore pro- The analysis in this article focuses on determi- duced ordinal data. Frequencies were plotted nants of faculty perceptions about service and con- graphically and statistically analyzed using the siders the influence of individual characteristics Kruskal-Wallis test for independent sample,a non- (tenure status, rank, and gender) and institutional Figure 1 Variation in Responses to Survey Elements Related to Faculty Perceptions of Service. 23 Schnaubelt & Statham factors (institutional size, initiatives to expand ulty ranged from nebulous (“service is using one’s notions of scholarship,and appropriate rewards for leadership potential to help others”and “a willing- specific activities). The authors regret that space ness and a desire to share your knowledge”), to constraints preclude sharing the full analysis of the exclusionary (“where you utilize your professional focus group data. However,salient lessons learned expertise outside of class and outside of investiga- from the qualitative work are shared as we report tive research...to benefit any other outside group,” on the results from the survey data. “anything that is not teaching and research,” and “acts above and beyond the activities that are stat- Demographic Information ed in your job description”). However,when asked The average age of survey respondents was 50.2, to provide examples of service activities, the vast and 63% of faculty reported having been employed majority of faculty described activities with clear at their current institution for fewer than 11 years. disciplinary connections that benefited either the Female faculty responded in lower proportions community or their academic discipline (only one than present within the faculty. While 52% of fac- focus group participant described faculty gover- ulty in these departments were female,41% of sur- nance and committee work as an example of ser- vey responses came from female faculty members. vice). All of the examples provided that benefited Tenured faculty members responded to the survey the community or society as a whole had some in slightly higher proportions than they represent- connection to the respondent’s area of expertise. ed:53% of respondents were tenured,whereas only Responses included activities such as developing 48% of education faculty had tenure at the time of and providing in-service training for teachers,cur- the study. riculum development, counseling and crisis inter- Faculty Perceptions of Service vention,serving on the boards of education-related community agencies, and grant writing for a day Five questions provide information about faculty care facility. Using Lynton’s (1995) typology of perceptions of service. After the survey was col- professional service, more than half (52%) of the lected responses were collapsed into two cate- examples provided fell into the classifications of gories—agreed/important anddisagreed/not impor- technical assistance or organizational development. tant—and a chi-square test was conducted to deter- The same pattern emerged within the examples of mine whether differences were significant. Figure service provided within the written survey. Of the 1 gives the results of answers to faculty assess- 121 individuals who provided an example of a ser- ments of service as scholarship and their percep- vice activity, 97 focused on activities that directly tions that expectations are well-defined and activi- benefited the larger community and was connected ty is rewarded. A majority of respondents agreed to their academic discipline. with four of the items included—that service is a The issue of service-related rewards and com- mode of scholarship,that it is important in faculty pensation was a point of contention in most focus evaluation at their respective institutions,and that it groups. In some cases, service was defined as an is important in both disciplinary and university- activity provided gratis (i.e., “everything you do wide contexts for tenure and promotion. The great- outside of your salaried job”), while others reject- est agreement occurred with the importance of ser- ed this notion (service is providing “expertise vice in faculty evaluation in general and the impor- whether it is paid or not”). Of the written policies tance of service within a discipline when being reviewed, only one institution specifically considered for tenure and promotion, followed by addressed this issue and allowed for service to be the importance of service to the university at large. “nominally priced or gratuitous.” However, the majority disagreed that expectations While there was no consensus around the ques- for service activities were clearly articulated with- tion of compensation,there was general consensus in the university more generally or their depart- that service expectations were often unclear and a ments in particular.1 difficult activity to evaluate. One faculty member The results of the qualitative analyses add depth remarked that “service is the easiest to get high to the survey results. All eight institutions had for- marks in...because the definitions are so broad in mal definitions of service that included references general.”Another opined that service expectations to three different beneficiaries of service activities: were learned through “osmosis” and that “nobody the institution,academic discipline,and communi- sits you down and says these are your service ty or society as a whole. Only three universities, responsibilities.” Finally, one non-tenured faculty however, specified that service activities must member atalargeinstitution poignantlystated, relate to a faculty member’s academic discipline or area of expertise. The definitions provided by fac- [It] is hardfor me to separate these areas...it is 24 Faculty Perceptions of Service hard for me to say that service is ‘this,’teach- of an institution were notsignificant factors in per- ing is ‘this,’scholarly productivity is ‘this.’ For ception-related survey elements. However, these me it is all part of a puzzle that fits as a uni- perceptions varied significantly across all five ele- versity employee...service only counts if I ments by both institution and institution size. don’t do it. Institution size is to some extent a proxy for insti- We next explored if these trends differed by indi- tution type. At the time this data was collected the vidual or institutional factors. Tests were performed three institutions with enrollments greater than to ascertain the impact of academic rank,tenure sta- 10,000 maintained the “Doctoral/Research tus, gender, institution, institution size, and type of Universities–Extensive” Carnegie classification institution on these responses. Responses were ana- and institutions with enrollments under 10,000 had lyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test of significance a variety of classifications. In 2005, the Carnegie when the grouping variable consisted of two inde- Foundation revised its classification schema and pendent samples. The Kruskal-Wallis test for signifi- Jackson State University currently shares the cance was used when the grouping variable consist- “Research University-High Activity”classification ed of more than two independent samples. The with the larger institutions. The variation in results are reported in Table 2. responses by size of institution is presented in These results show that tenure status, academic Figure 2. rank, gender, and the historical racial composition Figure2reveals that faculty at small institutions Table 2 Results of Tests of Significance (p values) for Survey Elements Related to Faculty Perceptions Grouping Variable Question Service is con- Service is impor- Service expecta- How important is How important is sidered a mode tant in faculty tions areclearly service within service within of scholarship at evaluation atthis articulated in the university your discipline this institution. institution. institutional and community for for granting departmental granting tenure tenureand pro- tenure/promotion and promotion in motion in your policies. your department? department? TenureStatusa .782 .731 .224 .912 .973 (Kruskal-Wallis) Academic Rankb .226 .336 .142 .229 .227 (Kruskal-Wallis) Genderc .322 .910 .162 .801 .413 (Mann-Whitney U) Institutiond .000** .000** .029* .002** .000** (Kruskal-Wallis) Institution Sizee .000** .000** .048* .002** .000** (Mann-Whitney U) Institution Typef .588 .062 .343 .221 .371 (Mann-Whitney U) Notes. aTenurestatus variables were tenured,non-tenured,non-tenure track. bAcademic rank variables were instructor,assistant professor,associate professor,professor,and emeritus. cGender variables were male and female. dInstitution variables included all eight public universities. eInstitution size variables included small (less than 10,000 full-time equivalent students) and large (10,000 or more full-time equivalent students). fInstitution type variables were historically black institutions or historically white institutions. *p<.05 **p<.005 25 Schnaubelt & Statham Figure 2 Variation by Size of Institution in the Mean Responses to Survey Elements Related to Faculty Perceptions of Service. Note.1=Strongly Agree/Very Important; 2 = Important/Agree; 3 = Disagree/Fairly Unimportant; 4 = Strongly Disagree/Very Unimportant generally responded more positively than faculty at within their university community was either unim- large institutions when asked if service was consid- portant or very unimportant. Similar variation was ered a mode of scholarship, if service was impor- found when reviewing faculty perceptions of the tant in evaluation, or if service expectations were importance of service within their academic disci- clear. The largest variation in perceptions related to pline when making tenure and promotion deci- faculty perceptions of service as a mode of schol- sions. Eighty-three percent of faculty from small arship. While 75% of faculty from small institu- institutions responded that service within their dis- tions either strongly agreed or agreed with the cipline was important or very important,while only statement “service is considered a mode of schol- 52% of faculty from large institutions felt this way. arship,”only 41% of faculty from large institutions Here again, qualitative data adds depth to the responded this way. Similarly,88% of faculty from survey results. For instance, faculty at small insti- small institutions agreed or strongly agreed that tutions made several comments that revealed the service was important in faculty evaluation,where- attitude or opinion that service was more important as a minority (47%) of faculty from large institu- or more valued at their particular institution than at tions responded similarly. Finally, 56% of faculty larger institutions. A non-tenured faculty member from small institutions agreed or strongly agreed at a small institution stated, “At the larger institu- that service expectations were clearly articulated, tions that are research oriented, they probably while only 39% of faculty from large institutions wouldn’t spend a lot of time to hash out what ser- responded this way. vice things arebecause research is what drives their Of faculty from small institutions, 77% felt that budget.”A similar attitude was expressed by a fac- service within their university community was ulty member from a small institution that purpose- either important or very important in making fully connected the value of service at the institu- tenure and promotion decisions. At large institution to the needs of the region: “I think it is real tions a majority (51%) of faculty felt that service important,personally,to understand that [this insti- 26 Faculty Perceptions of Service tution] lies in the middle of a very rural area. We be documented. Conversely, institutions rated as don’t have the opportunities that many of the other level three (high relevance)had specific operational schools in Mississippi have.” This non-tenured definitions of service,specific performance bench- faculty member went on to state that the adminis- marks and priorities for service activities, and tration was very supportive of service efforts and established guidelines for documenting service. No that “we feel pretty good about the fact that they institution was rated as a level four (full integra- place value on service.” A non-tenured faculty tion). Table 3 identities institutions’levels of inte- member from a large institution somewhat con- gration or relevance of service. firmed the suspicions of the faculty member from a Faculty perceptions of service were related to smaller institution when stating, “I think we get these relevance ratings as an independent variable. criticized for being an ivory tower—isolated from Figure 3 reveals that faculty at institutions with low the real world—and so I think service can be the relevance ratings had more negative perceptions bridge to bring us to the real world...I think that it about service than faculty at institutions with high- should be counted as a more valuable component.” er relevance ratings. Not surprisingly, faculty at This person went on to state, institutions rated high in relevance perceived service expectations as being most clearly articulated, Service can feed the research and teaching while faculty at institutions with low relevance rat- because service is giving outside the usual classroom realm or the sitting at your desk ings perceived service expectations to be least working on your computer. To me,I get ideas clearly articulated. Faculty from institutions rated and I get rejuvenated by being in the outside as medium in relevance had the most positive per- world and seeing what my topic,which is sci- ceptions of service as a mode of scholarship and ence and math education, why it is important the importance of service in faculty evaluation. in the real world—so I do bring that back to Although there appears to be little difference my teaching and research. between responses from faculty from institutions rated as medium and high relevance, faculty from Institutional Guidelines,Performance institutions rated as low relevance generally Benchmarks,and Perceptions of Service responded more negatively to questions relating Institutional mission statements, faculty hand- service to the university and within a discipline to books, and departmental tenure and promotion the tenure and promotion process. documents were analyzed. The previously During one focus group session a tenured faculty described factors were used to assign each institu- member from a small institution cautioned against tion a level of relevance,based on Holland’s (1997) relying too heavilyon an analysis of the relevance of typology of the integration of service at various institutional policies. This individual felt that depart- institutions. Institutions that were identified as mental culturewas often atodds with written policies level one (low relevance) had only vague opera- and the predisposition of the membersof the promo- tional definitions of service,did not specify perfor- tion committee was far more important than formal mance benchmarks and priorities for service activ- policies. Other members of this focus group subse- ities,and had no guidelines for howservice was to quentlyconcurred with this assessment. Table 3 Relevance of Institutional Mission Statements and Tenure and Promotion Policies to Professional Service Level of Relevance Institution Level One:Low Relevance Mississippi State University Mississippi University for Women Level Two:Medium Relevance Delta State University Jackson State University Mississippi Valley State University University of Mississippi Level Three:High Relevance Alcorn State University University of Southern Mississippi Level Four:Full Integration No institution was identified as having achieved full integration. 27