STANDARD 10: F ACULTY
REPO RT O F W O RK IN G GRO UP 6: A T RADIT IO N O F
IN S T RUCT IO N , RES EARCH, AN D S ERVICE
Chair: Robert B. Barat
Vice Chair: Nan cy L. S t ef f en -Fluhr
M arg uerit e S chn eider (2 0 0 9 -2 0 1 0 , on leav e 2 0 1 0 -2 0 1 1 )
Adv isor: W alt er Kon on
Commit t ee M embers: Reg g ie J. Caudill, Jan ice R. Dan iel, Blake Hag g ert y ,
An n D. Hoan g , Boris Khusid, Farzan Nadim, W illiam V. Rapp, Judit h A.
S chef t , Lauren t S imon
Fin al Report S ubmit t ed: May 31, 2011
P repared fo r t he
M iddle S t at es Commission on Hig her Educat ion  Reaccredit at ion 2 0 1 2
s
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 1
TAB LE O F C O N TEN TS
10.0 W OR KI NG G R OUP A SSESSM ENT CHECKL I ST F OR ST A NDA R D 10
3
10.1 I NT R ODUCT I ON
4
10. 1. 1 Précis : T h e N JI T M is s ion an d th e F acu l ty
10. 1. 2 An O v erv iew of Grou p 6’s Stan d ard 10 C h arg e an d Q u es tion s Ad d res s ed
4
4
10.2 SEL F ST UDY I NQUI R Y A ND OUT COM ES
5
10. 2. 1 T h e F orm ation of O u r F acu l ty : Q u al ification s , R ecru itm en t, an d D iv ers ity 5
10. 2. 1. 1 F acu l ty Q u al ification s an d Preparation
6
10. 2. 1. 2 D em og raph ic Portrait of th e N JI T F acu l ty AY 2002- 2011
6
10. 2. 1. 3 An al y s is
7
10. 2. 1. 4 Strateg ies for En s u rin g F acu l ty D iv ers ity
12
10. 2. 1. 5 Strateg ies for R epl acem en t of R etirin g F acu l ty
13
10. 2. 1. 6 T h e R ol e of L ectu rers an d Ad j u n ct I n s tru ctors at N JI T
14
10. 2. 2 T h e Heal th of O u r F acu l ty : R es ou rces , Su pport, R eten tion , an d Growth
16
10. 2. 2. 1 F acu l ty M en torin g Proces s es
16
10. 2. 2. 2 R es ou rce Al l ocation to F acu l ty
18
10. 2. 2. 3 M ain tain in g , En h an cin g , an d R ecog n iz in g F acu l ty Prod u ctiv ity
19
10. 2. 3 T h e R ol e of O u r F acu l ty in th e L ife of N JI T : C u rricu l u m , R es earch ,
Serv ice, an d Gov ern an ce
20
10. 2. 3. 1 T h e F acu l ty an d Ed u cation
20
10. 2. 3. 2 T h e F acu l ty , L earn in g T ech n ol og ies , an d Ed u cation As s es s m en t
20
10. 2. 3. 3 T h e F acu l ty an d R es earch
21
10. 2. 3. 4 T h e F acu l ty an d Serv ice
21
10. 2. 3. 5 T h e R ol e of F acu l ty Gov ern an ce
22
10.3 CR I T I CA L A NA L Y SI S A ND CONCL USI ONS
23
10.4 COL L A BOR A T I ON W I T H OT HER W OR KI NG G R OUPS
23
10.5 R ECOM M ENDA T I ONS F OR I M PR OV EM ENT
24
10. 5. 1 R ecom m en d ation s T abl e: Stan d ard 10: F acu l ty
24
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 2
1 0 . 0 W ORKING G ROUP AS S ES S M ENT CHECKLIS T FOR S TANDARD 1 0
FU N D AM EN TAL ELEM EN TS O F
FAC U LTY
TEAM
EVALU ATI O N
(From: Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education: 4=EXEMPLARY
3=EMERGING EXCELLENCE
Requirements of Affiliation and Standards of
2=MEETS STANDARD
Accreditation (Philadelphia, PA: MSCHE, 2009)
1=DEVELOPING COMPETENCY
 faculty and other professionals appropriately
prepared and qualified for the positions they hold,
3
with roles and responsibilities clearly defined, and
sufficiently numerous to fulfill those roles
appropriately; (10.2.1.1 through 10.2.1.4)
 educational curricula designed, maintained, and
updated by faculty and other professionals who are
4
academically prepared and qualified; (10.2.3.2)
 faculty and other professionals, including teaching
assistants, who demonstrate excellence in teaching
and other activities, and who demonstrate
3
continued professional growth; (10.2.3.2)
 appropriate institutional support for the
advancement and development of faculty,
3
including teaching, research, scholarship, and
service; (10.2.2.1 through 10.2.2.3)
 recognition of appropriate linkages among
scholarship, teaching, student learning, research,
4
and service; (10.2.3.1, 10.2.3.3, 10.2.3.5)
 published and implemented standards and
procedures for all faculty and other professionals,
for actions such as appointment, promotion,
tenure, grievance, discipline and dismissal, based
4
on principles of fairness with due regard for the
rights of all persons; (10.2.2.3)
 carefully articulated, equitable, and implemented
procedures and criteria for reviewing all
3
individuals who have responsibility for the
educational program of the institution; (10.2.3.1)
 criteria for the appointment, supervision, and
review of teaching effectiveness for part-time,
adjunct, and other faculty consistent with those for
3
full-time faculty; (10.2.1.5)
 adherence to principles of academic freedom,
within the context of institutional mission;
4
(10.2.3.4)
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 3
 assessment of policies and procedures to ensure the
use of qualified professionals to support the
institution’s programs. (10.2.2.3)
3
1 0 . 1 INTRODUCTION
10.1.1 Précis: The NJIT Mission and the Faculty
In its mission as the state's technological research university, NJIT reiterates its
commitment to the pursuit of excellence in undergraduate, graduate, and continuing
professional education; in the conduct of applied, interdisciplinary research; in
contributing to the state's economic development; and in service to both its urban
environment and the broader society. The excellence of its faculty is crucial to the
University's ability to meet its commitments in all four of these areas. This report
describes the NJIT faculty cohort, noting demographic and other changes over the last
nine years; in addition, the report documents the ways in which the University supports
and engages its faculty in the pursuit of excellence.
10.1.2 An Overview of Group 6’s Standard 10 Charge and Questions Addressed
Standard 10 requires that "the institution’s instructional, research, and service programs
are devised, developed, monitored, and supported by qualified professionals." In addition
to demonstrated excellence in academic preparation, teaching, and scholarship, the
standard stresses the importance of faculty diversity; active faculty participation in
institutional planning, curriculum review, and governance; the presence of transparent
and equitable procedures and criteria for periodic evaluation of faculty, including the
evaluation of non-tenure-track faculty; institutional support for research; and protection
of academic freedom. Responding to the Standard 10 charge, Working Group 6, in
collaboration with the Steering Committee, developed a set of 20 questions designed to
guide us in collecting and assessing relevant data to provide evidence that the NJIT’s
instructional, research, and service programs are designed, developed, monitored, and
supported by qualified professionals:
1
2
3
4
5
How has the University implemented plans for faculty recruitment and retention
as result of the NJIT Strategic Plan, 2004-2010? How was this plan designed to
meet the needs of NJIT's academic programs? (Sections 10.2.1.3 and 10.2.1.5)
How do the current demographics of our faculty compare to those of our
benchmark universities? If there are differences among Departments, what is the
cause and effect of these differences? (Section 10.2.1.3)
How effective are our present strategies for ensuring a diverse faculty? (Section
10.2.1.4)
In light of the new Faculty Separation Incentive Program, what is the institution’s
strategic plan for the replacement of retiring faculty? (Section 10.2.1.5)
How has the utilization of Lecturers and Adjunct faculty changed since the
previous self-study? What is the impact of such changes? (Section 10.2.1.6)
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
10.2
Given expectations for scholarship and service, how effectively are faculty
assignments designed regarding teaching assignment? (Section 10.2.1.6)
How might mentoring plans be enhanced and communicated to assist new faculty
in developing and refining their skills to achieve excellence in instruction,
research, and service? Are these plans developed and communicated at
departmental, college-wide, and institute-wide levels? Are the plans comparable to
those at our benchmark institutions? (Section 10.2.2.1)
How might comparable mentoring plans be put in place to assist established and
mid-career faculty? (Section 10.2.2.1)
How sufficient are the internal resources available to help early career faculty
obtain financial support for their research? (Section 10.2.2.2)
How might sufficient resources be made available for mid-career and senior faculty
sufficient to allow exploration of new research initiatives? (Section 10.2.2.2)
What reasons are given for any existing imbalance in internal resource allocation,
and are these reasons valid? (Section 10.2.2.3)
What are the mechanisms and resources in place for maintaining and supporting
faculty productivity, and are these mechanisms and resources sufficient to ensure
research growth? (Section 10.2.2.3)
How effectively is success measured in terms of faculty productivity? (Section
10.2.3)
How effective are the processes by which faculty are involved in academic program
development, assessment, and improvement? How is such involvement recognized
and encouraged? (Section 10.2.3.2)
To what extent are faculty members adopting new technologies to enhance
instruction and curriculum delivery? Is this extent sufficient to allow students to
succeed in the marketplace? (Section 10.2.3.2)
What mechanisms are in place to document and evaluate faculty participation in
curriculum development? (Section 10.2.3.2)
What evidence exists that faculty research interests are considered during the
formation of research plans on the departmental, college, and institute levels?
(Section 10.2.3.3)
What are the strategies by which faculty research interests are integrated into the
curriculum? (Section 10.2.3.3)
What is the state of faculty governance at NJIT? Is NJIT faculty governance
consistent with governance at our benchmark universities? (Section 10.2.3.5)
How extensively does our faculty provide service to the institute? How are such
efforts recognized and rewarded? (Sections 10.2.1.3 and 10.2.3.4)
S ELF S TUDY INQUIRY AND OUTCOM ES
10.2.1 The Formation of Our Faculty: Qualifications, Recruitment, and Diversity
This section of the report describes our faculty and their dedicated, focused efforts to
support the NJIT mission. The faculty consists of full and part-time, tenure and non-
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 5
tenure-track individuals, including Professors (Distinguished, Full, Associate, Assistant),
University Lecturers, and Adjuncts.
10.2.1.1 Faculty Qualifications and Preparation
NJIT's national reputation for academic excellence, illustrated at length elsewhere in this
report, rests largely on the excellence of its faculty—their superior preparation and
subsequent achievements in both teaching and scholarship. All of the University's current
full-time faculty members have a doctorate or the terminal degree in their field. Ninetyone percent of part-time faculty have doctorates or the equivalent as well. (See Table 1.0
in the Digital Archive to this report.) NJIT faculty are prolific in research and scholarly
publication, having produced over 7,200 journal articles during the last 10 years, in
addition to books, conference papers, and patent applications. In AY 2010-2011, NJIT
faculty served as principal investigators on research grants totaling over $77 million.
NJIT faculty are frequent recipients of national and international recognition. In the last
few years, seven early-career faculty researchers have won Presidential Early Career
Awards from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Dozens of senior faculty have been
elected fellows of national societies in their fields. NJIT faculty have been honored with
national and international achievement awards and won prestigious fellowships including
Fulbrights and Guggenheims. Both tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty have been
recognized for their teaching -- e.g., in 2007, a University Lecturer in the College of
Computing Sciences was named New Jersey Professor of the Year by the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
10.2.1.2 Demographic Portrait of the NJIT Faculty AY 2002-2011
Table 10.1 provides a demographic snapshot of the NJIT faculty from 2002 to 2011,
disaggregating the data by rank, tenure status, gender, and ethnicity. (Tables in the
Digital Archive provide a more detailed view, breaking down the data by academic unit—
i.e., College/School and Department. Each of the tables and figures below is supported by
a comprehensive analysis available in the Digital Archive.) Table 10.2 portrays the
corresponding student enrollment numbers.
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 6
Table 1 0 . 1 Demog raphic P ort rait of Facult y , 2 0 0 2 t o 2 0 1 1
Di st
Pro f
A sso c
A sst
T T T o ta l
Lect
R e sh
F T T o ta l
A djunc t
AY
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
G ra n d
T o ta l
#F
#UR M
%F
%UR M
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
18
19
18
21
20
20
19
21
21
20
13
12
11
11
6
8
9
11
12
12
104
102
103
102
106
106
102
102
101
104
11
13
14
14
14
16
18
18
17
16
90
81
79
82
75
79
76
74
76
79
19
4
13
11
14
11
9
9
8
8
41
47
47
55
53
42
37
40
43
35
45
42
41
40
38
39
39
41
40
39
253
249
247
260
254
247
234
237
241
238
23
22
18
18
17
15
17
20
27
27
57
60
62
62
63
57
61
57
57
58
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
4
4
33
25
27
21
24
20
18
21
26
20
71
67
61
59
55
56
58
63
71
70
343
334
336
343
341
324
313
336
323
317
37
32
44
39
58
46
48
51
220
198
231
222
39
213
41
207
231
220
192
197
671
631
672
663
648
628
660
644
635
634
108
99
105
98
94
97
116
109
119
121
28
25
29
30
32
36
37
40
42
44
16.1%
15.7%
15.6%
14.8%
14.5%
15.4%
17.6%
16.9%
18.7%
19.1%
4.2%
4.0%
4.3%
4.5%
4.9%
5.7%
5.6%
6.2%
6.6%
6.9%
TT=Tenure-track FT=Full-time
professors (all ranks)
URM=Underrepresented Minority Resh=research
Table 1 0 . 2 S t uden t En rollmen t (Fall), 2 0 0 2 t o 2 0 1 1
Category
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Undergraduate
5,698
5,730
5,712
5,366
5,263
5,380
5,428
5,576
5,924
6,103
Graduate
3,164
3,098
3,058
2,883
2,795
2,829
2,860
2,822
2,916
2,831
Grand Total
8,862
8,828
8,770
8,249
8,058
8,209
8,288
8,398
8,840
8,934
10.2.1.3 Analysis
The total number of faculty is considered in terms of total student population through the
student-to-faculty ratio (SFR). Figure 10.1 shows that, over the past 10 years, SFR has
been fairly steady. Coincident with the steady SFR is an approximately steady portion of
the total faculty consisting of tenured and tenure-track professors of all rank (TTTF).
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 7
This analysis shows that NJIT has maintained the quality of instruction in spite of difficult
financial challenges. Additional analysis of support of faculty is found in two important
tables in the Digital Archive: Comparison of Unrestricted General Operations Budget to
Faculty Salaries Expenses: FY2002, FY2007, FY2011, demonstrating that between 25%
and 26% of the General Operating Budget has gone to faculty support; and Faculty Salary
Expenses Analysis: Faculty Salary Expenses, Faculty Headcount, and Student Enrollment,
demonstrating that over the past decade, there has indeed been a shift from tenure-track
faculty to adjuncts, but the FTE of tenured and tenure-track faculty, Lecturers, and
Adjuncts has essentially has not changed. In that enrollment has stayed approximately
the same, the student ratio to faculty has remained stable.
Fig ure 1 0 . 1 M ain st ream Facult y S upport of Educat ion , 2 0 0 2 -2 0 1 1
The tenured/tenure-track faculty cohort (TTTF) is decidedly top-heavy. By 2011, the most
senior ranks (Distinguished Professor and Full Professor) together constituted more than
50% of the TTTF as a whole. This seniority in rank is strongly correlated with age: By
2010, 55% of the Distinguished and Full Professors had been at the University for more
than 30 years. This situation exists due to the generous benefits package afforded NJIT
faculty together with no mandatory retirement age. It might be argued that 21st century
students might have difficulty connecting with 20th century faculty, some of whom (8%)
were hired in the 1960's. However, parents and students prefer the quality of instruction
afforded by experienced, senior faculty.
The seniority of the faculty is a significant source of fiscal constraint for the University:
decades of salary increases have made for substantial faculty salaries. Comparative data in
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 8
2010-2011 AAUP Faculty Salary Survey reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education
bears this out: among New Jersey doctoral institutions, NJIT faculty salaries are rivaled
only by those of Princeton University, a private, Ivy League institution with a large
endowment. Among public institutions, NJIT faculty rank as the highest paid in the
nation, with an average salary of $158,700 (AAUP, 2011), shown in Table 10.3. The
high salary for NJIT professors is commensurate with the well-documented high cost of
living in New Jersey. The substantial compensation also encourages quality senior faculty
to remain instead of moving to other universities or to industry. In addition,
longitudinal analysis (see Faculty Salary Expenses Analysis: Faculty Salary Expenses,
Faculty Headcount, and Student Enrollment) demonstrates that the faculty salaries
consistently account for approximately 25% to 26% (21% for TTTF) of the University’s
operating budget. As salaries escalate and, the percent of resources allocated to
maintaining the University workforce remains fixed, there is little room for workforce
expansion.
Table 1 0 . 3 AAUP Facult y S alary S urv ey Dat a, 2 0 1 0 -2 0 1 1
Highest-paid full professors, all public institutions
(Average salaries, 2010-11)
New Jersey Institute of Technology
$158,700
University of California at Los Angeles
$153,700
University of California at Berkeley
$149,100
University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
$146,900
University of Maryland at Baltimore
$144,800
Note: The figures cover full-time members of the instructional staff except those in medical schools.
The salaries are adjusted to a standard nine-month work year.
In order to contain the financial challenge of faculty salaries, and to maintain and grow
NJIT’s position as a leading public research university, a substantial new separation offer
was negotiated with the Faculty/Professional Staff union, creating an incentive for senior
faculty to retire (PSA, NJIT, 2010). This Faculty Separation Incentive Program (FSIP)
has, as of June 2011, been applied for by approximately 50 senior TTTF faculty – nearly
8% of the total faculty or 18% of the TTTF. The funds freed up by the FSIP will be
available to hire early-career faculty in the years ahead, especially women and URM
faculty. Because salaries have escalated at the levels expressed in Table 10.3, the FSIP
program is needed to shift the salary structure from a large group at the very top of the
scale to a smaller group at the top and a larger early-career group at the bottom. This shift
will allow the University to take the same resources and expand the workforce—the
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 9
objective of the FSIP that is now in progress, with over 50 faculty members expressing
interest at the present time.
Diversity is an important dimension of Middle States Standard 10, and a core value of
NJIT as an institution. Our diverse student population, as well as our location within the
urban city of Newark, demand that NJIT strive to improve diversity among the faculty. A
November 2010 NSF study notes that the 1.9% growth in total science and engineering
(S&E) doctorates awarded between 2008 and 2009 was entirely accounted for by growth
(4.8%) in women doctorate recipients (Fiegener, 2010). Figure 10.2 illustrates that NJIT
needs to catch up to our benchmark schools.
Fig ure 1 0 . 2 W omen Facult y , 2 0 1 0 (P ublic & P riv at e S chools) at our
Ben chmarks
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 10
Fig ure 1 0 . 3 NJIT an d Nat ion al Tren ds, Un derrepresen t ed M in orit y Facult y
Figure 10.3 shows that the fraction of URM within the NJIT faculty remains below
national trends. Recognizing this deficiency, the University in 2005 made a
commitment in its Strategic Plan (Altenkirch, 2005) to "Enhance the diversity of the
faculty to mirror the percentage of African-American, Hispanic, and women terminal
degree recipients working in academia by 2010." Figure 10.3 shows that progress is being
made as NJIT continues to increase its percentage of URM faculty. Under-represented
minority faculty members serve in several academic leadership positions at NJIT. For
example, a URM male is the new Dean of the School of Management. The Otto H. York
Department of Chemical, Biological, and Pharmaceutical Engineering is chaired by a
URM male. Another URM male serves as the Associate Chair of MIE. The percentage of
URMs among the total faculty increased from 4.2% in 2002 to 6.9% in 2011. While these
numbers fall short of national benchmark data (see Figures 10.3, 4), there is a positive
trend.
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 11
Fig ure 1 0 . 4 Risin g Numbers of W omen , URM Facult y , 2 0 0 2 -2 0 1 1
Figure 10.4 also shows a definite improving trend in women representation on the NJIT
faculty. The funds made available from the FSIP will help in targeting women hires.
10.2.1.4 Strategies for Ensuring Faculty Diversity
While recent hiring of new faculty at NJIT has been strategic in nature, special attention
is placed on enhancing faculty diversity, especially in leadership roles. For example, the
SOM has just appointed a new Dean who is of African-American descent. The NCE has
utilized the appointment of women and minorities in leadership roles as a means of
sending a strong message that diversity is valued and essential for competitive
performance of the College. For example, the present Associate Dean is a woman, and
the Chairperson of the Otto H. York Department of Chemical, Biological, and
Pharmaceutical Engineering (CBPE) is an African-American. Some strategies utilized by
Colleges make passive attempts at increasing faculty diversity including the use of
advertisements of faculty openings that encourage application from women and members
of under-represented groups.
In interviews conducted by the Working Group to augment the research of this report,
the Deans point to recent hires of women and minorities within their Colleges as an
indication of the effectiveness of the strategies for increasing diversity. In NCE, 3 out of
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 12
5 recent hires were women. In the CCS, several women were hired as University
Lecturers. In the SOM, the last three faculty hires were women and the two previous
University Lecturers were minorities. Despite this progress, only the Honors College
refers to increasing faculty diversity as a part of its Strategic Plan (Honors Subcommittee,
2008). The Honors College Strategic Plan designates Honors College Fellows that would
include NJIT faculty, faculty from other universities, and employees from industry and
government. This has the potential to contribute to the diversity of “faculty” even if the
appointment is for a finite period of time. In CSLA, the College relies on the University
Strategic Plan (Altenkirch, 2010) as an approach for increasing faculty diversity.
Given the limited number of faculty hires at the University in recent years, and the
leadership changes in many Departments, the Departments have had limited experience
in hiring new faculty. For this reason, Departments have less concrete approaches for
promoting diversity in faculty hiring. Some Department Chairs make personal
commitments to actively recruit and provide a diverse pool of candidates to bring to the
faculty search committee. Other Departments pointed to diversity in hires of University
Lecturers. More than one Department utilizes approaches for promoting diversity in
hiring through a reliance on Human Resources and the University’s diversity statement in
the advertisement for faculty positions. Some Departments indicate the primary goal in
faculty hiring is quality and that enhancing diversity has no impact on recruitment. For
these cases, it appears the notion of new faculty being both diverse and of quality is lost
on the leaders of these Departments. Despite these cases, overall the Departments appear
to be willing to promote diversity in hiring, but lack the experience and perhaps support
to be able to accomplish this goal.
In April of 2005, a 13-member Taskforce recommended ten new tactics to achieve this
goal (Steffen-Fluhr, Daniel, 2005). In partial response to the Taskforce, in April 2007, the
NJIT Board of Trustees established an Active-Service, Modified Duties Policy for TTTF,
now included in the Faculty Handbook (Faculty Council, 2010). The financial challenges
of the second half of this period allowed only a limited response to the other Taskforce
recommendations. For example, in spite of limited resources, it was recognized that NJIT
must act when an excellent faculty recruitment opportunity arises. A circulating pool of
funds was established for “opportunity” hires, especially to enhance faculty diversity. This
fund has now been used successfully several times. It is expected that, as hiring funds are
made available by FSIP savings, this pool will increase.
10.2.1.5 Strategies for Replacement of Retiring Faculty
As mentioned in Working Group Report, Standard 2, the Faculty Separation Incentive
Program (FSIP) (PSA, NJIT, 2010) is designed to facilitate a phased transition to
retirement for tenured and tenure-track faculty, allowing the University to reallocate
strategically personnel resources. A tenured or tenure-track faculty member with at least
10 years of NJIT service and at least 55 years of age is eligible. Under the plan, the
participant receives his or her salary at retirement times a multiplier. Two options exist for
payout of the total: 3-years with a 1.4 multiplier, or 5-years with a 1.6 multiplier. During
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 13
these time periods, retired faculty can return as Adjuncts, as needed by the University,
with preferred hiring and salary.
In interviews, the Deans point to their plans to replace retiring faculty. The NCE and
CoAD have well-defined plans for replacing faculty members under the FSIP. In NCE, a
recruitment plan was developed by each Department within the College. The recruitment
plan seeks to develop selected areas of excellence in each Department consistent with the
overall Strategic Plan of the University. In the SOM, there is significant concern that the
lack of new faculty hires has left the College in great difficulty of staffing core program
curricula and addressing a major weakness identified by the accreditation board, the
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). It is fully expected that
the newly hired Dean will make faculty recruitment a top priority.
Similar to the Colleges, not all the Departments appear to have a plan for replacing
faculty members leaving under the FSIP. A few Departments point to their strategic
plans as guides for identifying the focus areas in which new faculty will be hired. One
Department referred to a 5-year plan for replacing faculty by hiring junior faculty.
Another Department plans to hire University Lecturers, Assistant Professors, and Research
Professors from positions expected to be open by the faculty separation agreement, as well
as due to previously open faculty positions that have not been filled. It is expected that
faculty hiring will continue to be strategic in nature, increasing as the FSIP-derived funds
grow. To date, approximately 50 TTTF have agreed to the FSIP.
10.2.1.6 The Role of Lecturers and Adjunct Instructors at NJIT
University Lecturers, Senior University Lecturers, and Adjuncts are used extensively by
many Departments, and play a vital role at NJIT. The Lecturers are vital because, unlike
many research faculty, they carry a full teaching assignment. This resource allocation
provides Departments with some flexibility by allowing tenure-track and tenured faculty
to have a balanced focus on teaching and research. Table 10.4 below illustrates the salaries
of these members of the instructional staff; Table 10.5 illustrates adjunct rates by college.
In 2008, the position of “Lecturer” was replaced by “University Lecturer” with access to
enhanced compensation.
Table 1 0 . 4 Av erag e S alaries at NJIT f or Lect urers an d Adjun ct s
Ave ra ge Sa la ri e s
Title
Lecturer
Special Lecturer
Senior
University
Lecturer
University
Lecturer
Adjunct
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
24715
45901
26371
45814
27357
44748
26250
47107
34623
49316
33557
51204
59392
4867
4662
4841
Working Group Report: Standard 10
5202
5236
5006
2009
2010
2011
57788
61592
65025
80725
45116
5189
47963
5403
49188
5268
60674
5073
Page 14
Table 1 0 . 5 Adjun ct Rat es P er S ect ion by Colleg e
Adjunc t Ra te s Pe r Se c ti o n ( b y C o lle ge )
College
Average
Range
CCS
CSLA
$3,285
$3,362
$3,285
$2,900-$5,000
NCE
CoAD
SOM
EMBA
$3,185
$7,411
$4,250
$8,000
$2,900-$7,500
$3,000-$15,000
$4,000-$5,000
$8,000
According to the NJIT-PSA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Lecturers are assigned
12 credit hours per semester, not to exceed 16 contact hours (exception at the CoAD).
Consequently, many Chairs have indicated these Lecturers are more important than
Adjuncts. Many Chairs rely on Lecturers to fill holes when regular faculty members are
not available. The MOA states that no more than 25% of full-time faculty positions
(including tenure-track and tenured faculty, Special and University Lecturers) should be
held by Lecturers. This policy is applied across the University as a whole rather than by
Department or unit. As such, each Department has some leeway in how it utilizes
Lecturers and Adjuncts. The PSA contract stipulates that, in lieu of course assignment,
Lecturers can undertake other activities such as formal student advisement assignments,
course/curriculum development, departmental and/or College administration. Some
Adjuncts have also participated in course/curriculum development. Instructional
Technology and Media Services has worked with a number of Adjuncts to assist them in
designing and developing online courses that they then teach.
The difference in how Lecturers and Adjuncts are utilized can be significant between both
Colleges and Departments. For example, within the NCE, the CEE and the ET
Departments rely heavily on adjuncts (45% and 55% of students being taught,
respectively) with both seeing a significant increase in the number of Adjuncts used since
2003). In contrast, the CBPE Department Chair has indicated that Lecturers are
important and needed there, but none are currently on staff (Table 2 in Digital Archive).
The SOM has been forced to rely more heavily on Adjuncts in recent years in order to
compensate for a lack of faculty hiring and the loss of 7 faculty members over the past
few years due to termination or retirement. Concerns have been expressed that the overreliance on Adjuncts at SOM will impact AACSB accreditation.
To reduce costs, some Departments are operating with reduced Adjunct budgets. With
fewer instructors and more students, many Departments are reporting increased class
sizes. For example, the Humanities Department has increased the maximum enrollment
from 20 to 30 students for many sections. Within the SOM, the class enrollment
numbers can be even higher, with Lecturers often managing these larger classes. Many of
the Chairs have expressed concerns that without additional resources for Adjuncts and
Lecturers, it will not be possible to reduce class sizes.
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 15
Compensation for NJIT Lecturers increased at the end of the 2007 fiscal year. Lecturers
were also eligible for increases in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. Earlier, a Lecturer
would max at $80,168 (AY, step 200). Lecturers can currently make $96,957 annually if
they reach step 210. Adjuncts continue to earn disproportionately lower salaries when
compared to Lecturers or tenured/tenure-track faculty. The minimum salary for an NJIT
Adjunct is ~$2,900 per 3-credit hour course (slightly higher for certain Departments).
According to the report “Reversing Course: The Troubled State of Academic Staffing and
a Path Forward,” the national average salary for an Adjunct is $2,758 (JBLA, 2008). This
is similar to a 2007 report prepared by the New Mexico Higher Education Department
indicating that part-time faculty earns an average per-credit hour salary of roughly $1,010
(New Mexico Higher Education Department, 2007). So while NJIT is in-line with the
national average, it is lower than some of its benchmark institutions such as Stevens
Institute of Technology.
10.2.2 The Health of Our Faculty: Resources, Support, Retention, and Growth
This section of the report provides an analysis of the overall faculty environment at NJIT.
10.2.2.1 Faculty Mentoring Processes
The Promotion and Tenure (P&T) process plays an important role in assuring that
standards are applied to faculty performance. Policies and procedures on appointments,
promotions, tenure, and terminations are published in the NJIT Faculty Handbook
(Faculty Council, 2010). According to this document, it is the responsibility of the
Provost to communicate to all faculty and professional staff members “changes in
procedures that may have resulted from Faculty action, the PSA Contract, or Affirmative
Action, concerning: Promotion, Tenure, Appointment, reappointment, and termination
or non-renewal of contract, Salary matrix range adjustments and Merit bonuses for all
faculty and instructing staff.” The P&T committees of all Departments review members
of the teaching staff and provide written performance evaluations.
Various initiatives at the university, college, and department levels have been developed
to help NJIT junior faculty understand their new environment. New faculty is introduced
to “NJIT processes, the Faculty Handbook and governance, evaluations, etc. – the work of
being a faculty member….” It is current practice to invite new hires to annual luncheons
to “develop cohort relationships, peer mentoring and answer questions”. Early-career
faculty is encouraged to enlist current faculty as mentors. In addition, the Office of the
Provost finds mentors outside the respective Departments if helpful. However, at the
university level, a formal mentoring program does not exist. Deans, though, are kept
informed of the progress of new faculty. Some Deans have formed cohort groups to
promote career development through mentoring.
The Institute Workshop Series is designed by the Office of the Provost to help faculty,
especially junior members, locate research funds and write proposals. These workshops
include: “The Sponsored Research Lifecycle Part 1: Finding a Sponsor” and “Engaging
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 16
Students: A Discussion with the Master Teachers.” The Teaching, Learning, and
Technology (TLT) group assists faculty by providing workshops on the use of various tools
that can improve teaching skills. Examples are: “PowerPoint Less: Going Beyond .ppt to
Build Effective, Interactive, Online Presentations” and “Getting Started: The First Step
Toward Online Teaching. ” Activities are also offered to provide support to mid-career
faculty members.
Several programs are dedicated to aid newly-hired minority and women faculty. Through
a grant from the NSF Advance, a project "More than the Sum of Its Parts: Advancing
Women at NJIT through Collaborative Research Networks" is being conducted to apply
social network analysis (SNA) to facilitate changes at the institutional level and to secure
the full participation of women in academic science and engineering. In addition, the
Murray Center for Women in Technology provides resources for the retention and
recruitment of women students and faculty. A range of programs, including Women’s
History Month, are sponsored by the Center to fulfill the needs of all women at the
University. These events foster a mentoring environment by allowing new faculty
members to learn from colleagues with similar interests.
Activities, launched by the Deans of the various Colleges, have mentoring components.
Although practices differ, the assignment of senior faculty to new hires and the
mentoring of new faculty are important tools in some Departments. For example, the
CoAD is instrumental in establishing contacts with NJ professionals.
Chairs of the various Departments have programs to support new faculty hires. In the
Department of Biological Sciences, a newly-hired faculty member is free from teachingand service-related responsibilities the first year. However, the member is encouraged to
take part in organizing colloquia and the seminar series to increase their visibility with the
students. The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering assigns a senior
faculty member to mentor a newly-hired member based on similar research and teaching
interests. Similar practices are carried out by the Chemistry/Environmental Science and
the Humanities Departments. Ronald Rockland, Chair of the Department of Engineering
Technology and NJIT Master Teacher, attends classes taught by new faculty to give them
advice afterwards. He also allows them to visit his classes.
Programs designed by Department Chairs to support mid-career faculty members are not
as formal. Teaching evaluations are still closely monitored and regular feedback is given.
In general, the interactions are mostly through the Promotion and Tenure Committees.
Typically, mentoring programs for mid-career faculty members are non-existent. The
CCS states that, because technology changes every two years, a university-wide funding
plan to aid mid-career faculty to explore new research initiatives would be invaluable for
exploring new and developing areas. However, no current program exists. The mentoring
practices are intended to meet the needs of all newly hired faculty members, including
women and minority faculty members. In some cases (e.g., ECE), minority faculty are
encouraged to send grant proposals to programs specifically designed for underrepresented groups. In the Humanities Department, a senior female faculty member is
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 17
assigned as a mentor to a junior female faculty member. The ADVANCE program is
developing tools to assist in the building of research networks.
Because mid-career faculty members are facing new challenges, the currentlyimplemented mentoring program should be more systematic. Survival tools that help the
member become Associate Professor with tenure may not be satisfactory for creating and
keeping a very active research group or for making significant contributions in an everchanging environment. Teaching evaluations and performance still need to be closely
watched as the research-teaching balance may be tilted in one direction. For minority and
women faculty, projects, such as the one funded by NSF ADVANCE, can lead to evidence
(or the lack thereof) that some adjustments are warranted for the mentoring of these
groups. Conversations with minority and women faculty would be useful for ascertaining
if, in fact, they are faced with challenges beyond (or below) those experienced by their
non-minority colleagues.
Mentoring programs at our benchmark institutions are fairly comparable with those here.
Drexel offers resources for faculty through the Instructional Technology Center, similar to
the TLT at NJIT. Mentoring is done by experienced faculty. Academic policies from the
Provost’s Office suggest that a formal procedure should be used for all new faculty: “…
Upon entering a new department, faculty will be assigned a senior faculty member who
will serve as an adviser/mentor for the duration of the junior faculty's probation years.
Senior faculty who serve in these mentoring posts, will receive service credit …” NJIT
should make efforts to move in this direction and institutionalize such a formal program.
Career development awards are conferred to encourage junior faculty or mid-career
faculty to seek outside collaboration (to complement their work) or begin a new research
area. At Rutgers, the Office of the Vice President for Research assists new and junior
faculty to compete successfully for new funding and offers assistance in the form of
individual counseling and new faculty funding workshops. In addition, they point new
hires to potential collaborators. Web resources are also made available (e.g., NSF CAREER
Proposal Writing Tips (Pei, 2007)).
10.2.2.2 Resource Allocation to Faculty
The hiring of new faculty members requires adequate funding for the type of research
performed in that field. At NJIT, depending on specialization, there is a variance in
resource allocation across the Colleges and Schools.
Submitted to the hiring Chair and Dean, the process begins with a candidate submitting a
proposal articulating research plans and identifying specific resources needed for starting
his or her new research program. The Dean works with the Senior Vice President for
Research and Development in support of the proposed new hire’s research needs.
Generally, this process yields the desired results. At some Colleges and Schools the needs
are modest and easily met; other requests, particularly in experimental areas, can—at
times—prove challenging given the post 2008 financial climate.
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 18
As is the case nationally, faculty members often become invested in their established
research after tenure, and they may not readily embrace opportunities to participate in
cutting-edge multidisciplinary research. There is nevertheless agreement that it is desirable
to have a mechanism in place to allow mid-career and senior faculty to explore new
research initiatives. Some possible methods for supporting mid-career and established
researchers to venture into new areas include competition for internal seed funding for
new ideas and faculty exchange with other benchmark universities.
While some faculty members tend to believe that internal funding is a mark of
institutional commitment to research, it is the position of the University that such
internal funding is only the basis for the sustainable external research needed to advance
the mission of the University.
10.2.2.3 Maintaining, Enhancing, and Recognizing Faculty Productivity
The University provides several means to maintain and enhance faculty productivity in
both research and teaching. For example, the Institute Workshop Series is conducted by
the Provost’s Office to help faculty with their professional and personal development. The
Teaching, Learning, and Technology (TLT) group assists faculty in improving the quality
and accessibility of education to ensure that students receive the most effective and
efficient education possible. The Sponsored Research Administration (SRA) advises and
assists faculty and staff members in all aspects of externally funded research projects and
other scholarly activities.
The means of addressing faculty research and teaching productivity depend on the specific
College or Department. Performance-based salary increases allows for Deans to work with
the Department Chairs to facilitate and reward faculty productivity in teaching, research,
and service.
The Digital Measures system is presently in its second year. Activity Insight by Digital
Measures uses templates to collect data on teaching, scholarship, research, and service by
faculty. The information can be used for faculty activity reports in these areas. Faculty
accomplishments and productivity can now be digitally maintained and evaluated for
various reports at the level of an individual, an academic unit, or faculty as a whole. Such
analyses can be stored for future use to examine historical trends among the NJIT faculty.
The Faculty Performance-Based Salary Increase Distribution System was developed by the
PSA/AAUP Governing Board and the University administration (Altenkirch, Golub,
2010). It focuses on NJIT's mission and stands on four areas of activity of the faculty:
teaching, scholarship, funded research, and service to the University, the profession and
the community. The system was implemented for the evaluation of faculty performance
in AY2009/2010. Every College developed standards of achievements for activities within
the University's four primary areas of focus. The Department P&T Committees
recommended standards that are compatible with the College standards for consensus
adoption by the P&T Committee, the Chair, and the Dean. Based on the Department
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 19
standard, the Department Chair reviews faculty annual reports that are submitted on a
standard digital template. The scores are weighted using agreed upon factors to produce a
composite score using the Performance Assessment Algorithm score sheet. The composite
score is then used to determine individual salary increases. Ninety percent of the
performance pool is automatically computed by the system, while the remaining 10% is
assigned to individual faculty at the discretion of the Dean. The results of the faculty
evaluation for AY2009/2010 are under analysis, and the system is expected to continue.
10.2.3 The Role of Our Faculty in the Life of NJIT: Curriculum, Research, Service, and
Governance
This section of the report analyzes the ways that the faculty contributes to NJIT mission
penetration.
10.2.3.1 The Faculty and Education
Faculty members are deeply involved in all aspects of academic program development,
from instruction and assessment to program development and evaluation. Within a welldefined process, Department curriculum committees review proposed new programs or
courses. New offerings are then considered by the Undergraduate Curriculum Review
Committee (UCRC) or the Graduate Council. Programs are considered by the
Committee on Academic Affairs (CAA) (Graduate Studies, 2009).
Teaching assignments, determined by the overall mission of the Department and the
specific activities of the faculty member, are consistent with practices at benchmark
universities, in agreement with the PSA contract. The teaching assignments of researchactive faculty are no more than 3 to 4 courses per academic year to insure NJIT faculty are
not at a disadvantage in scholarly productivity and competition for external research
funding. Faculty that have significant research activities teach 2 courses or fewer per
semester, depending on external research funding (Faculty Council, Provost, 2008).
10.2.3.2 The Faculty, Learning Technologies, and Education Assessment
For most Schools and Departments, teaching is part of the faculty member’s overall
productivity assessment along with research and service. The University takes a point of
pride in the fact that research-active faculty educate and interact with students in the
classroom and laboratory as core focus. Reflecting the importance of teaching, learning,
and assessment on the campus, 45% of the performance-based salary increase is earmarked
for such activities. Equally important is the fact that the P&T process treats teaching
effectiveness as critical part of faculty performance.
Teaching effectiveness is measured through student evaluations, faculty evaluations, and
student learning assessment techniques. All these are used to evaluate teaching
effectiveness. Consistent with NJIT Assessment of Student Learning Program, the
Schools and Departments are directly measuring student learning in regards to
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 20
Institutional Learning Goals and Core Competencies, and are then using those findings
for curricular improvement as well as communicating the results to all shareholders.
New learning technologies in use at NJIT include Moodle (Learning Management
System), Camtasia Relay (lecture capture), iTunes U (multimedia distribution), Mahara
(ePortfolio), and Wimba (synchronous communication). Several Departments use the
Center for Academic and Personal Enrichment (CAPE) and technology infrastructure
such as Moodle to track student performance including administering Common Exams
so that correction schemes can be implemented on a semester by the semester basis.
10.2.3.3 The Faculty and Research
The current NJIT Mission Statement commits the University to the pursuit of research
excellence as “New Jersey’s science and technology university.” Since 2002, the amount
of research conducted at NJIT has increased 36.3% from $69.1M to $94.2M (FY2011
estimate). The greatest dollar increase has been in federally funded programs. (See
Working Group Report, Standard 2, Table 2.2). These increases are a measure of the
enhanced quality of faculty research. NJIT continues to demonstrate its support for
research. As part of the 2010-2015 Strategic Planning initiative, core areas were identified
that are guiding both research and learning programs. NJIT is to “be nationally
recognized for thematic core areas of integrated research and learning in: Sustainable
Systems; Life & Healthcare Science and Engineering; Digital ‘Everywhere’” (NJIT
Strategic Plan, 2010-2015). An expansion of the College of Architecture to include the
design professions, thus becoming the College of Architecture and Design, is one example
of the renewal and expansion of teaching programs to stay relevant to meet the needs of
both students and researchers. There was significant participation on the part of faculty in
committee brainstorming that identified both University-wide and College / Department
strategic research initiative areas. These areas came from an examination of the current
faculty research with a view toward opportunities for cross College / Department
collaborations.
The Deans and Chairs encourage faculty to bring their research experiences to the
classroom through the offering of special topics courses, and the practice of embedding
research into existing courses. Thus the research-base of the faculty is carried into the
classroom at all levels.
10.2.3.4 The Faculty and Service
Faculty service to the NJIT community and the profession at the local, national and
international levels is one of the primary mission elements at NJIT. Service activities at
NJIT are diverse.
At the departmental level, each of the academic Departments at NJIT have committees
structured to support departmental activities, guide programs, set curricula, and recruit
students, and mentor junior faculty. Department Chairs strive to assign committee
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 21
responsibilities to each faculty member, as a way to not only share the assignments within
the Department, but to also mentor early-career faculty.
At the college level, service at the college level involves a variety of committees aimed at
multidisciplinary activities and strategic planning initiatives in which faculty participation
is critical.
At the university level, faculty members serve on committees and councils that impact
the entire academic community, and form the basis for faculty governance at NJIT.
Frequently, University committees provide the opportunity to forge strong relationships
and close collaboration between faculty and the administration. One of the key institute
committees is the Institute Research Committee. Each member of the Institute Research
Committee is also a member of the College Research Committee and chairs the
Department Research Committee, creating a communication and action link.
Service to the profession is reflected in the many faculty members at NJIT who are active
with professional societies and serve as leaders at the national and international levels—
organizing conferences, chairing sessions and building relationships. In addition, faculty
serve frequently on program review committees for the National Science Foundation and
other government organizations, peer review journal manuscripts, and participate in
workshops to set research priorities and scope new research directions.
10.2.3.5 The Role of Faculty Governance
Shared governance through collegial decision-making is one of the core characteristics
that distinguish academic institutions from other organizations. The importance of
strong faculty leadership and broad faculty participation in the governance process cannot
be understated. At NJIT, the basic structure for faculty governance has been established
primarily in the activities of two faculty-led bodies: the NJIT Faculty Meetings with
guidance and leadership provided by the Faculty Council, and the P&T committees at
both the department and institute levels.
The Faculty Council consists of faculty representatives from each of the University’s
academic Departments. As described in the Council Bylaws, the mission of the Faculty
Council is “to make the spirit of the faculty felt and its voice heard on all matters of
concern to the Institute community.” To enhance faculty governance, the Council
provides leadership for Faculty Meetings and serves as a working committee bringing
forward important issues for discussion, providing background information, and
presenting action items and motions for consideration. To increase communications, the
Faculty Council conducts information forums to provide faculty with information and an
opportunity to share ideas on important topics being considered at upcoming meetings.
Over the last three years, the Faculty Council has been engaged in an effort to reorganize
and revise the Faculty Handbook. Progress has been made in this effort in accordance
with the 2007 Periodic Review Report, and the recommendations for revision made in the
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 22
Periodic Review have now been completed and approved by the faculty. Specifically, the
Council has brought several revisions before the Faculty for consideration and discussion,
including a recent change affecting the role of the Deans in the promotion and tenure
process; procedures for restructuring Departments and Colleges; and, other items directly
associated with faculty governance.
There has been recognition that, in order for NJIT to more nimbly respond to various
challenges as we strive to achieve our strategic goals, a more inclusive form of University
governance is desirable. The NJIT Board of Trustees, the ultimate legal authority at the
University, agreed with this premise in an April 2011 initiative that authorized the study
of how such broader governance might be accomplished. At present, a committee formed
of all NJIT shareholders, including faculty and administrators, is investigating this issue.
This committee is charged with recommending a new governance structure for
consideration by the Board in the fall 2011.
10.3
CRITICAL ANALY S IS AND CONCLUS IONS
Upon an examination of the current state of the NJIT faculty, we conclude that the
institution’s instructional, research, and service programs are devised, developed,
monitored, and supported by qualified professionals dedicated to the NJIT mission. All
Colleges and Schools are developing plans to address the changing needs of education in
the 21st century. These plans are in harmony with the University Strategic Plan and take
into consideration the expected wave of retirements that will occur as part of the faculty
separation process. The University has made progress in enhancing faculty diversity over
the last seven years.
Recruitment of top faculty prospects will require competitive startup packages for
researchers in specialized scientific areas. Funding made available from the separations will
enhance the “opportunity” faculty hiring already in place, especially in thematic areas and
to enhance faculty diversity, especially within leadership roles, as indicated in Working
Group Report, Standard 3.
A new form of shared governance is currently under development wherein all NJIT
shareholders – faculty, administration, students, alumni, staff – are represented. In this
way, future jointly investigated and agreed upon initiatives, developed in a timely
manner, will be forwarded to the NJIT Board of Trustees for action in the fall of 2011.
10.4
COLLABORATION W ITH OTHER W ORKING G ROUP S
In scheduled meetings hosted by the Rapid Assessment and Steering Committee, our
Working Group collaborated with other groups. Collaboration was also strengthened
through meetings with the self study consultant (Robert Clark). Asynchronous
communication was fostered through the open source content management system
(Moodle); in that platform, the Working Groups collaboratively reviewed each stage of
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 23
the planning and reporting process, from question design to outlines of the Working
Group Reports, to edited review, to final copy.
Collaboration between this and other working groups during the preparation of this report
was very nevertheless limited. One meeting was held between the Chair of this
committee and that of Working Group 3 to discuss common ground. As a result of that
meeting, files were shared pertaining to faculty mentoring.
1 0 . 5 RECOM M ENDATIONS FOR IM P ROVEM ENT
The shifting demographics of the NJIT faculty present a significant challenge to the
University in the coming years. A serious effort at the identification and adoption of
“best practices” in hiring and mentoring of faculty is needed. This policy must also
address the need to bring the NJIT faculty up to the standard of diversity that is widely
held at other universities, and even to our own stated Strategic Plan. Standing University
committees on mentoring and diversity should be created and recognized.
Financial resources are constrained across the University as they are across the nation.
However, just as investments are needed to improve infrastructure in order to attract new
students, investments are needed in the faculty in order to retain the students once they
are on campus. Funds must be allocated to improve startup offers to prospective faculty,
and to foster productivity for mid-career faculty in research. Even more efforts are
needed to encourage and assist mid-career faculty to adopt new teaching technologies and
techniques.
The University should continue to examine its form of faculty governance. In order to
ensure faculty representation, and the completion of important tasks such as the Faculty
Handbook and clarification of the role of Deans in the P&T process, consideration should
be given to alternative forms of shared governance, such as a University Senate.
10.5.1 Recommendations Table: Standard 10: Faculty
REC O M M EN D ATI O N
1
I ntro duc e a fo rm a l, “b e st pra c ti c e s”
m e nto ri ng pro gra m to e nha nc e fa c ulty
re te nti o n, pro duc ti vi ty, a nd a dva nc e m e nt.

VISION: The desired future for
the recommendation

STRATEGY: The methodology
recommended to achieve the
vision

TACTIC: The specific action
recommended to implement the
strategy
The data-driven, results-oriented program gives mentors a stake in
the success of their mentees, increasing retention, tacit knowledgesharing, and research collaboration.
Create a rigorously assessed, university-wide mentoring program
for both junior (untenured) and mid-career tenured faculty based on
best practices from industry. The mentoring policy would be laid
out in the Faculty Handbook.
Use junior (peer) mentors to increase lateral networking support
and rotating senior mentors to help forge high-level connections
between the mentee and various institutional players. The Provost’s
Office, the Master Teachers, and the Research Office could announce
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 24

ASSESSMENT: The metric
recommended to measure
achievement of the vision
the new initiative, and create guidelines and approaches. The P&T
process could take into consideration the recommendation of the
mentor.
Use social network analysis to track real-time increases in mentee
social capital, along with traditional participant surveys and IRP
P&T data collection, including ongoing cohort analyses of
promotion and tenure rates, disaggregated by Department, gender,
and ethnicity.
REC O M M EN D ATI O N
2
W o rk wi th, a nd suppo rt, the ne w sha re d
go ve rna nc e m o de l.

VISION: The desired future for
the recommendation

STRATEGY: The methodology
recommended to achieve the
vision
TACTIC: The specific action
recommended to implement the
strategy
ASSESSMENT: The metric
recommended to measure
achievement of the vision
Important recommendations on numerous issues would be made in
a timely manner by an informed group representing all
shareholders at NJIT including faculty, administration, staff.
Create a University Senate or similar structure, with Standing
Committees. This body would replace the existing structure of a
Faculty Council and its general faculty meetings.
Create a formative group with representatives from all shareholders
to meet, deliberate, and recommend to the NJIT Board of Trustees a
shared governance structure according to a strict timeline.
The NJIT Board of Trustees would call for an annual activity
summary from the governance structure, and then comment on the
apparent effectiveness of the body.


REC O M M EN D ATI O N
3
Esta b li sh ne w fa c ulty hi ri ng pla n wi th
de m o nstra te d i nsti tuti o na l c o m m i tm e nt
to stre ngthe n c o re a re a s a nd de ve lo p
fa c ulty di ve rsi ty a c ro ss the U ni ve rsi ty

VISION: The desired future for
the recommendation

STRATEGY: The methodology
recommended to achieve the
vision

TACTIC: The specific action
recommended to implement the
strategy

ASSESSMENT: The metric
recommended to measure
achievement of the vision
A strong, synergistic faculty base supporting the University’s core
values and foundational strengths, reflecting a commitment to
excellence in teaching and research across the institution and
beyond, thus accelerating innovation.
Develop a robust faculty hiring plan that considers faculty needs
across the University, especially regarding diversity, demonstrates
commitment to innovative academic learning environments, fosters
continuous improvement in faculty professional development, and
provides opportunities for sustained scholarship. Adopt these
“best practices” for recruitment across NJIT.
Increase data transparency and accountability, periodically
disseminating detailed faculty demographic data to the University
community; require search committees to submit a recruitment
plan for the Provost’s approval; refuse to accept results from search
committees that have not been proactive in their outreach to diverse
candidates; hold Deans and Chairs accountable for meeting faculty
diversity benchmarks.
Relationship between student-to-faculty ratio, student feedback
session assessments, teaching performance, and faculty research
accomplishment, success of search committees in meeting diversity
targets.
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 25
REC O M M EN D ATI O N B ri dge the ga p b e twe e n the U ni ve rsi ty’s
4
sta te d stra te gi c c o m m i tm e nt to i nc re a se d
fa c ulty di ve rsi ty a nd the U ni ve rsi ty’s
sta ndi ng i n na ti o na l b e nc hm a rk da ta o n
fa c ulty di ve rsi ty.
•
VISION: The desired future for
the recommendation
The university’s commitment to faculty diversity is clearly
demonstrated in its demography.
•
STRATEGY: The methodology
recommended to achieve the
vision
TACTIC: The specific action
recommended to implement the
strategy
Create a Standing Executive Committee on Faculty Diversity (CFD),
charged with coordinating NJIT’s efforts to recruit and retain
excellent women and minority faculty.
The CFD will coordinate efforts to recruit and retain excellent women
and minority faculty, helping to establish appropriate
recruitment targets, creating discipline-specific recruitment and
retention toolkits; ensuring that “best practices” are employed; and
acting as ombudsman for prospective faculty and new hires.
The CFD and the Provost will track the success of each Department in
meeting the target already established in the University’s Strategic
Plan: “Actively recruit women and minority faculty to achieve a
hiring rate of at least 25% women and minorities among qualified
candidates.”
•
•
ASSESSMENT: The metric
recommended to measure
achievement of the vision
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 26
Ref eren ces
AAUP (American Association of University Professors). Faculty Salaries. Washington
DC: The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 2011. Web.
Altenkirch, Robert and Eugene Golub. Memorandum of Agreement: Faculty Performance
Based Salary Increase Distribution System. Newark: NJIT, 2010.
Altenkirch, Robert et al. 2004-2010 Strategic Plan. Newark: NJIT, 2004. Web.
Altenkirch, Robert et al. NJIT Strategic Plan 2010-2015. Newark: NJIT, 2010. Web.
Altenkirch, Robert. Strategic Plan Revision Memorandum. Newark: NJIT, November 28,
2005. Web.
Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education: Requirements of Affiliation and
Standards of Accreditation. Philadephia, PA: MSCHE, 2009.
Faculty Council, Provost (Faculty Council and the Office of the Provost). Teaching
Assignment Process. Newark: NJIT, 2008. Web.
Faculty Council. Faculty Handbook Revisions. Newark: NJIT, 2010. Web.
Faculty Council. Proposed Revision to 2007 Faculty Handbook. Newark: NJIT, 2010.
Web.
Fiegener, Mark. Numbers of Doctorates Awarded Continue to Grow in 2009; Indicators of
Employment Outcomes Mixed. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, November
2010.
Graduate Studies (Office of Graduate Studies). New Program Approval Process. Newark:
NJIT, 2009. Web.
Honors Subcommittee (Strategic Planning Subcommittee). Albert Dorman Honors
College Strategic Plan, 2008-2012. Newark: NJIT, July 2008. Web.
JBLA (JBL Associates, Inc.). Reversing Course: The Troubled State of Academic Staffing
and a Path Forward. Washington D.C.: JBLA, 2008. Web.
Pei, ZJ, ed. NSF Career Proposal Writing Tips. Kansas: Kansas State University, 2007.
Web.
PSA and NJIT (Professional Staff Association/American Association of University
Professors and New Jersey Institute of Technology). Faculty Separation Incentive
Program. Newark: NJIT, April 2010.
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 27
Steffen-Fluhr, Nancy and Janice Daniel. Recommended Tactics for Achieving Increased
Faculty Diversity. Newark: NJIT, 2005.
Working Group Report: Standard 10
Page 28