Tag: Faculty

  • Make Faculty Writing Support Easier to Find (opinion)

    Make Faculty Writing Support Easier to Find (opinion)

    Faculty writing has never been more crucial. In an era of heightened competition for grants, promotion pressures and demands for public engagement, writing is the vehicle through which faculty share their expertise, secure funding and advance their careers. Research shows that successful academic writers aren’t necessarily better writers—they’re better-supported writers. They have systems, communities and resources that support their productivity and help sustain engagement with writing as their needs change across their roles, responsibilities and careers.

    Faculty writers are seeking support for their writing. Where do they go when they need it? Many are unsure.

    Support for faculty writing on campus is often decentralized or may vary from year to year, making it difficult to find or accessible only to those with the advantage of an informed mentor. Support for faculty writing might be offered in any number of campus locations: centers for teaching and learning, provosts’ offices, offices for faculty advancement, writing centers or academic support centers, research centers for grant writing, graduate student support centers, or individual departments. Writing support may be outsourced through institutional memberships to organizations such as the NCFDD or the Textbook and Academic Authors Association, which offers webinars, writing programs and templates for downloading.

    Department chairs and campus administrators may want to support faculty writers but aren’t sure where to begin. Or if there is a problem, it’s considered an individual faculty problem and not one that calls for a campus response.

    Perhaps there’s an underlying assumption that faculty should already know how to write and shouldn’t need support to meet basic job expectations, like publishing a certain number of articles before tenure. Establishing a faculty writing space or central resource hub might be seen as suggesting they need remedial help—much like the stigma writing centers face as places where “bad” students are sent.

    Yet today’s faculty are expected to write across more genres than ever before: grant proposals, peer-reviewed articles, public-facing pieces, social media content and policy briefs. Each involves different skills and audiences. The faculty member who can craft a compelling journal article may struggle with a foundation proposal or an op-ed. Writing support isn’t remedial—it’s strategic professional development.

    The current moment also presents unique challenges. Post-pandemic isolation has disrupted the informal networks that previously supported faculty writing. Budget constraints mean fewer resources for individual faculty development, making shared writing support more essential. New faculty arrive on campus without the professional development resources or mentor networks that previous generations took for granted, while midcareer faculty face mounting pressure to produce more with less support.

    We can do better in our support of faculty writers. If you want to help, here are ways to do better, or to get started.

    • Gather resources. Even though writing support might be available, it may not be widely known, or up-to-date, and it may be dispersed across many different units or offices on campus. Create a centralized web page gathering information for all campus resources for faculty writing. The entity that hosts the site will be different for each campus. For some, it’s the provost’s office. For others, it’s a writing or teaching center. List the resources—where faculty can go for support—and help faculty navigate the resources by providing descriptions (not just links), categories (i.e., “find a writing group”) and contact information. Collaborate with faculty to curate a list of recommended books, podcasts and writing spaces they have found helpful.
    • Make faculty writing visible. What if faculty writing support were as central to campus as student writing support? A teaching center could include a workshop on writing about teaching; the provost’s office or campus research center could offer workshops on developing institutional review board protocols. Consider reserving dedicated spaces for faculty to gather and write (such as a faculty writing room) or schedule specific writing times/days in a university writing center or campus coffee shop. Give them a name (Writing Wednesdays, Motivating Mondays). Writers can plan for these meet-ups and write in the company of others, in public rather than isolated in individual offices.
    • Organize a virtual workshop watch session and follow-up discussions. Gather faculty for a workshop watch session. After the workshop, help participants continue to discuss what they learned and how they’ll apply it through group check-ins or follow-up meetings. Try NCFDD’s core curriculum webinar “Every Semester Needs a Plan,” The Professor Is In’s “Art of Productivity,” or join a London Writers’ Salon Writers’ Hour, and talk about everyone’s work after the writing session.
    • Identify a faculty cohort to support for a year. Supporting all faculty writers with diluted support is often ineffective. Instead, focus on associate professors one year, new faculty writers the next and clinical faculty writers the next. Help them connect and be resources for each other throughout the year through writing retreats and writing groups. Build a campus writing community one cohort at a time.
    • Collaborate with campus partners. Combine campus resources to support writers. Could the library offer a meeting space? Two departments co-convene a writing group? Campus units could take turns hosting a daylong writing space once a month, helping writers learn about different spaces and writers across campus.
    • Start a writing support library. This can be virtual or in a central location on campus. Partner with the library to keep track of which books are in circulation or in high demand. Consider developing a workshop or writing group around in-demand books.
    • Ask faculty what they need and listen and respond. If we don’t ask faculty what they need, we won’t know. What some faculty need now may be different than what they needed last fall.
    • Support connectors. Every campus has them—the person or department that is a go-to for troubleshooting faculty questions and connecting them to writing resources. Amplify their reach, and support the faculty relationships and networks they’ve already established. Support the person or people who will curate that library, update the resource list, collaborate with campus partners and serve as a faculty writer point of contact.

    What’s next? Start by mapping what already exists on your campus. Create one central hub where faculty can find all writing-related resources. Make faculty writing as visible and supported as student writing. It’s OK to start small: Try one of these strategies we’ve shared and notice what happens. And remember—supporting faculty writers isn’t about fixing deficiencies. It’s about recognizing that writing is central to faculty success and deserves the same institutional attention we give to other essential job functions. Faculty are an invaluable resource in our campus ecosystems. Let’s lower the barrier to them finding the support they need to write well. When they thrive, so do our institutions.

    Jennifer Ahern-Dodson is an associate professor of the practice in writing studies at Duke University, where she directs the Faculty Write Program.

    Christine Tulley is a professor of English at the University of Findlay and president of Defend, Publish & Lead, a faculty development organization.

    Source link

  • The Final Stretch: Designing a Meaningful Course Ending – Faculty Focus

    The Final Stretch: Designing a Meaningful Course Ending – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Duke Asked Some Faculty to Avoid Talking to Media

    Duke Asked Some Faculty to Avoid Talking to Media

    Duke University file photo

    As Duke University navigates a $108 million federal research funding freeze and multiple investigations by the Trump administration, administrators want faculty to avoid talking to the media about institutional operations, The Chronicle, Duke’s student newspaper reported Monday.

    According to an August email obtained by The Chronicle, Jenny Edmonds, associate dean of communications and marketing at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy, encouraged faculty to “continue to engage with the media to disseminate [their] research as [they] have always done,” while also cautioning that “media attention to institutions of higher education and discussions about institutional responses to policy changes have become more prominent than ever.”

    “In this moment in particular, questions about Duke and current events are being answered by Frank Tramble and his team,” Edmonds wrote. “If you are contacted by the media about overarching issues confronting the University, please forward the requests to [Sanford’s Senior Public Relations Manager Matt LoJacono] and me.”

    Although it wasn’t a universitywide directive, The Chronicle obtained emails that show some other departments also gave their faculty similar instructions to route media requests through the university’s central communications channels.

    At an Academic Council meeting in October, Duke’s president, Vincent Price, and council chair, Mark Anthony Neal, commended faculty members for not speaking to a New York Times reporter; the reporter had visited the campus while working on a story about the Trump administration targeting Duke’s diversity, equity and inclusion program.

    “It was pretty amazing that [the reporter] actually got no commentary from Duke officials and Duke faculty,” Neal continued. “Even if it wasn’t overtly communicated to the community, the community understood the stakes of that mode of inquiry.”

    At that meeting Price also called Trump’s higher education compact—which would allegedly give universities preferential funding in exchange for making sweeping institutional policy changes— “highly problematic,” according to The Chronicle. Despite public pressure, Duke hasn’t officially rejected the terms of the compact.

    Source link

  • AI In Academic Publishing: Disruption or Evolution? – Faculty Focus

    AI In Academic Publishing: Disruption or Evolution? – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Everything is Awesome: Legos® to Teach Teamwork and Communication – Faculty Focus

    Everything is Awesome: Legos® to Teach Teamwork and Communication – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Everything is Awesome: Legos® to Teach Teamwork and Communication – Faculty Focus

    Everything is Awesome: Legos® to Teach Teamwork and Communication – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • FAU Reinstates 2 Faculty on Leave for Charlie Kirk Comments

    FAU Reinstates 2 Faculty on Leave for Charlie Kirk Comments

    Sandi Smolker/Getty images

    Two professors at Florida Atlantic University are back at work after the university placed them on administrative leave for making comments related to Charlie Kirk’s death, The South Florida Sun Sentinel reported Wednesday

    After the right-wing activist was shot and killed Sept. 10 during an event at Utah Valley University, President Donald Trump and his allies sought to punish anyone who made public comments about Kirk that could be perceived as critical. Numerous universities fired or suspended professors, including three at FAU: Karen Leader, an associate professor of art history; Kate Polak, an English professor; and Rebel Cole, a finance professor. 

    While Leader’s and Polak’s comments criticized Kirk, Cole’s comments were directed at Kirk’s opponents. “We are going to hunt you down. We are going to identify you,” he wrote on social media, according to the Sun Sentinel. “Then we are going to make you radioactive to polite society. And we will make you both unemployed and unemployable.”

    While the three professors were on administrative leave, the university hired Alan Lawson, a former Florida Supreme Court justice, to investigate their comments. Lawson has since concluded that Cole’s and Leader’s comments were protected by the First Amendment and recommended they both be reinstated. 

    “The findings reflect that each professor’s social-media statements, though provocative to varying degrees, were authored in a personal capacity on matters of public concern,” Lawson wrote. Although both the FAU Faculty Senate and Cole himself objected to the investigation—Cole sued the university over an alleged First Amendment violation—Lawson’s report said the university “preserved constitutional rights while upholding its responsibility to ensure professionalism, civility, and safety within its academic community.”  

    Polak remains on leave while Lawson continues to investigate her comments.

    Source link

  • A NEST for Online Learning: Supporting Students in Virtual Education – Faculty Focus

    A NEST for Online Learning: Supporting Students in Virtual Education – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • A NEST for Online Learning: Supporting Students in Virtual Education – Faculty Focus

    A NEST for Online Learning: Supporting Students in Virtual Education – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • University of Nebraska-Lincoln faculty vote no confidence in chancellor

    University of Nebraska-Lincoln faculty vote no confidence in chancellor

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s faculty senate on Tuesday passed a no-confidence resolution in the public institution’s chancellor, Rodney Bennett, in part over allegations of poor leadership and financial management. 
    • In a 60-14 vote, faculty approved a measure calling for Bennett’s removal and formally stating no-confidence over allegations of “failures in strategic leadership, fiscal stewardship, governance integrity, external relations, and personnel management.”
    • The no-confidence vote — UNL’s first — follows fierce debate at the university over Bennett’s plan to cut a handful of academic programs as part of a broader effort to slash $27.5 million from UNL’s budget.

    Dive Insight:

    The no-confidence resolution reflects faculty pushback against Bennett since September, when the chancellor unveiled a proposal to slash six programs — which he later reduced to four — as part of a budget-reduction plan.  

    Criticisms have focused largely on what faculty say is a lack of transparency about how, precisely, programs were judged worthy of keeping or cutting. They also allege that Bennett, who joined UNL as chancellor in 2023, has largely failed to include faculty in the decision-making process. 

    The budget process and timeline precluded “meaningful faculty and departmental leadership consultation” and “undermines the possibility of completing a thorough review of evidence, consequences, and public comments,” according to a Nov. 3 memo the faculty senate circulated ahead of the no-confidence resolution. 

    As to the timeline, Bennett announced his initial proposal on Sept. 12, and roughly two months later issued his final recommendation, which the University of Nebraska System’s regents plan to vote on at a Dec. 5 meeting.

    The memo also questioned Bennett’s approach to reducing UNL’s deficit, saying that his plan relies on “immediate cost-reductions and across-the-board cuts rather than multi-year fiscal modeling or revenue diversification.”

    “This system is a $3.5 to $4 billion enterprise, and we are damaging it for $27.5 million,” Faculty Senate President John Shrader said in prepared remarks at a Nov. 4 meeting. “These cuts are going to be devastating to this campus. So damaging to be irreparable.”

    The memo further said Bennett had been “noticeably absent” from several faculty senate meetings and accused him of having periods of sparse contact with the senate’s executive committee, despite UNL bylaws calling for him to meet twice a month with the panel.

    Faculty shared governance represents one of many voices of institutions of higher education,” University of Nebraska System President Jeffrey Gold said in a statement emailed Wednesday. “We value the voice of UNL’s faculty; however, ultimate decisions rest with the Board of Regents.

    A UNL spokesperson said Wednesday that Bennett does not plan to comment on the no-confidence vote.

    In October, an academic advisory body of faculty, staff, students and administrators tasked with reviewing Bennett’s plan called for more time to consider alternatives to ending programs and voted against winding down four of the original six programs Bennett originally put forward for closure. 

    Bennett’s final plan spares two programs that were on the chopping block but still included two others that the Academic Planning Committee voted against eliminating. 

    “None of us want to be in this space, where the decisions we must make will inevitably impact the lives of individuals and change how we do some things on campus,” Bennett said in November when announcing his final proposal. “However, our reality is that UNL’s expenses have been greater than its revenue for many years.”

    The proposal would slash UNL’s statistics, educational administration, Earth and atmospheric sciences, and textile, merchandising and fashion design programs. 

    UNL’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, which has actively opposed the cuts, lauded Tuesday’s no-confidence vote by the faculty senate. 

    “The faculty has made clear that this chancellor does not have what it takes to lead our flagship institution,” UNL AAUP President Sarah Zuckerman, who is an educational administration professor at the university, said in a statement Tuesday. “We will not accept a lack of transparency, the exclusion of faculty from decision-making, or the erosion of our university’s 156-year-old mission to educate Nebraska’s students.

    Source link