Ars Technica, MA
09-25-06
Bringing flexibility to science
As a result of our coverage of the NAS report on women in science and
technology, I was able to take part in a press conference call organized by the
American Council on Education. In conjunction with the Families and Work
Institute, they were announcing the awarding of grants to a number of research
institutions designed to further career flexibility for faculty. The funding for the
grants was provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The timing of these
grants near the release of the NAS report was fortuitous, as they represent an
attempt to address many of the problems highlighted in that report.
The motivation for both of these efforts was the sense that, for the US to remain
competitive in the global economy, it will continue to rely on its research
institutions. The most important resource in these institutions are their human
components—the loss of extensively trained and productive individuals, or a
narrowing of the pipeline that produces them, represents a significant national
problem. The three organizations involved got together to promote career
flexibility at these institutions, believing that it is far better to retain existing staff
through the various difficulties that life presents, rather than needing to replace
them.
To that end, they invited institutions to submit descriptions of their existing
programs that allow career flexibility. A total of 55 responded, and their
responses were evaluated by an academic advisory committee that included
several former university presidents. Those with efforts that were rated highly
were asked to have their faculty complete surveys about the topic; those with a
response rate of greater than 40 percent were scored, and the top five received
funding to expand their programs. Institutions with winning programs were Duke,
Lehigh, and the Universities of California, Florida, and Washington. The grants,
each worth $250,000, will go to accelerate and expand existing programs at the
schools.
A speaker from the University of Florida described the overall goal of these
programs as allowing a career with multiple exit and entry points, so that faculty
may cope with various challenges in their lives without penalty or ending their
careers. Several clear themes emerged as the programs were described in
detail. Three institutions were using the money to set up coordinating groups with
neighboring institutions to facilitate the hiring of couples where both halves are
on the academic track. Once hired, the emphasis was on allowing various forms
of leave in the face of newly arrived children (including via adoption), family
emergencies, and illness. These leaves included relief from teaching duty,
suspension of the tenure track time line, creation of a part-time faculty position,
and even small "productivity maintenance" grants to help faculty stay on top of
the field while on leave. One other aspect that received attention is the transition
out of the lab and into retirement; several institutions planned on creating
positions that allow faculty to either exit gradually or to continue to work at a
reduced level.
All of these institutions already have programs along these lines, but there are
several barriers to their use. The first is simply knowledge of their existence; at
California, a survey found that most faculty was unaware of their programs two
years after they were instituted. As a result, many of the institutions were using
part of their grants to increase awareness of what is available to faculty. A
second, and rather critical barrier to the use of these programs, is a fear that
faculty taking advantage of them will be viewed as not taking their work seriously
enough when they are evaluated for promotion. The Universities of both
California and Washington were planning on tracking whether use of leave has
any impact on the future careers of their faculty. Most of the universities were
also putting effort into ensuring that departments were aware of how the
programs were structured and that the university administration supports their
use. Florida was also planning on establishing an advisory panel that would be
available to consult with committees evaluating candidates for promotion in order
to provide departments with objective advice regarding whether a candidate's
use of leave programs was appropriate.
If various campuses are experimenting with different programs, how are the
successful ones supposed to make their way out into the academic system at
large? Part of that question is answered by a program at Iowa State University,
which is receiving a smaller, $25,000 grant. This program will create a database
that tracks various career flexibility programs, and will enable a cost/benefit
analysis of how a temporary loss of productivity from faculty on some form of
leave compares to the price of recruiting and equipping a new one. One of the
participants also noted that schools will add programs due to a sort of
enlightened self-interest. When recruiting faculty, they will be competing against
other schools that may provide appealing programs, and will necessarily adopt
similar programs if they feel it will help them recruit the best people. The survey
performed as part of this grant review process, the results of which were returned
the participating universities, already has made many of them aware of what their
fellow institutions are doing. If the recommendations in the NAS report are
followed, similar surveys will be performed on a regular basis, and will help keep
institutions aware of what their competitors are doing.