Proposal to Establish Renewable Faculty Appointments

at the Rank of Lecturer

Arts and Sciences

February 2003

 

Background

         In 1987, the Faculty Affairs Committee of the University Senate recognized the importance of having a category of full-time faculty whose responsibilities were limited to offering instruction and who met a programmatic need in specialized fields not normally associated with professorial rank faculty.  At the time, the Senate authorized such appointments only in the less-commonly taught languages, English as a second language and the teaching of musical instruments.  In 1994, the Faculty Affairs Committee extended the appointment category to include music associates and in 1996 extended it again to include all faculty who teach language.

 

         Faculty holding such appointments are appointed at the rank of associate in [discipline], lecturer in [discipline] or senior lecturer in [discipline].  They are appointed for a stated term and may be part-time or full-time.  The terms are renewable and are not subject to the limits on non-tenured service.  Those given appointment as a senior lecturer are individuals with substantial experience and noteworthy accomplishments who possess the doctorate or its professional equivalent.  Appointment at the rank of lecturer is given to officers holding the doctorate or its professional equivalent who may be earlier in their career or who have not yet attained that high level of achievement expected of a senior lecturer.  Associates are individuals who do not qualify for the title of lecturer.

 

         In 1999-00, the natural sciences departments came forward with a proposal to seek authorization to appoint lecturers in [discipline] for undergraduate laboratory teaching.  In the course of considering that proposal, it became increasingly clear to the Arts and Sciences deans, the departmental chairs (chairs) and the Executive Committee of the Arts and Sciences (ECFAS) that the University needed to consider a more comprehensive approach to the appointment of lecturers, both out of consideration for the careers of lecturers and to formulate a more rational policy.  It was felt that the piecemeal system, whereby each department or field secured separate approval, no longer made sense.  At the same time, there was no clear direction as to how the University should proceed.  To address this and to frame further discussion on the matter, a faculty committee representing ECFAS and the chairs was established in fall 2000. 

 

         The committee reviewed the University Statutes, gathered comparative data from peer institutions and held extensive discussions on the topic.  In May 2001, the committee came forward with a report to ECFAS and the chairs (Attachment 1).  Following discussion at their May and June 2001 meetings, the departmental chairs directed that a draft proposal seeking approval to change the lecturer appointment structure be prepared for further consideration in fall 2001.  The Arts and Sciences departmental chairs discussed the proposal in considerable detail and, at their September 2001 meeting, recommended that it be forwarded with their endorsement to ECFAS for its consideration.  ECFAS held a number of discussions on the proposal and, in late fall 2002, recommended that it be forwarded to the full faculty of the Arts and Sciences for discussion and thence to the Provost and the Senate for consideration.

 

Proposal

         It is proposed that all associates, lecturers and senior lecturers be eligible for part- and full-time, renewable term appointments that are not subject to the limits of service on non-tenured appointments.  This would allow the University to appoint and continue to employ valuable teachers who would otherwise be subject to the “up-or-out” rules and the ad hoc tenure review system designed for research faculty.  In the absence of this, valued and highly able faculty are unable to serve beyond the eighth year of counted full-time service. 

 

         The proposal outlines a comprehensive system for review and reappointment of lecturers.  It addresses faculty concerns that adoption of the proposal not lead to a proliferation of lecturers or to their assuming responsibility for teaching content that would normally be offered by professorial rank faculty.  It seeks to rationalize an existing situation to enhance working conditions for all lecturers through creation of a clearly-defined career track.

 

Procedures for Appointment

         It is the responsibility of the Vice President for Arts and Sciences to approve the creation of every full-time faculty position.  A department wishing to appoint a new associate, lecturer or senior lecturer must make such a request in writing to the Vice President for Arts and Sciences as part of its regular Instructional Budget Statement (IBS).  The curricular implications of the request will be considered by the deans of the Arts and Sciences as part of the normal IBS review process.  Each request must establish the need for the teaching services to be performed, demonstrate how it is an essential part of the department’s ongoing academic program and explain why the need cannot be met by a professorial rank faculty member.  The total number of full-time lecturers in the Arts and Sciences, excluding the Departments of the Arts and International and Public Affairs and the lecturers in language, shall not exceed 6% of the total professorial rank faculty FTE.[1]  Further, faculty in professorial ranks may not be transferred to the lecturer rank.

 

Terms of Appointment

         Initial appointment to the rank of associate, lecturer or senior lecturer is for one year only.  Since lecturers are hired for instructional roles, the nominal teaching load is six courses.  The first year serves as a probationary period.  Those successfully completing the probationary period will be extended for a second year.  Renewal after the second year comes only after positive evaluations from the comprehensive review process described below.  Every renewal, regardless of stage, is subject to the availability of funds.

 

Review Schedule

Through a system of constructive, informative and timely evaluations, professorial rank faculty advance the professional development of lecturers and, at the same time, ensure the presence of a cadre of teaching faculty of the highest quality.  This is accomplished through a series of comprehensive reviews.

 

         Developmental Review:  The first professional review takes place before the end of the second year, at which time a department may decide to make the third year a terminal appointment or to recommend continuation for three years (and, in the case of an associate, promotion to the rank of lecturer is considered where appropriate).  This first review involves evaluation by a departmental review committee appointed by the chair of the department.

 

         Critical Review:  The second review takes place before the end of the fifth year, at which time a department may decide to make the sixth year terminal or to recommend continuation for three more years, into the eighth year.  The fifth-year review involves evaluation by a review committee appointed by the departmental chair that may have membership from outside of the department.  The recommendation of the review committee is considered by the relevant departmental personnel and/or executive committee.

 

         Major Review:  The third review takes place before the end of the eighth year, at which time a department may decide to make the ninth year terminal or to recommend extension for up to an additional five years.  The eighth year review involves evaluation by a review committee appointed by the departmental chair which has at least one member from outside of the department.  The recommendation of the review committee is considered by the relevant departmental personnel and/or executive committee.

 

         All subsequent reviews are conducted at the end of each five-year cycle, with either a recommendation for up to an additional five years, or a recommendation for termination after one final year.  Reviews from the 13th year on are conducted by a departmental committee appointed by the chair of the department.  At the 13th and subsequent five-year points, the expectation is that the appointment will ordinarily be renewed.  In the event that the department recommends against further appointment or the department chair believes that a more extensive review is required, a full review using the procedures of the normal eighth year review should be conducted.  Reasons for non-renewal may be based upon, but not limited to, the following:

 

a.       A decision by Arts and Sciences not to continue funding the position.

b.      Evidence of continuing and ongoing poor performance in the classroom.

c.       Failure to maintain currency in the field as evidenced by a review.

d.      A change in the ongoing and future goals, needs, specializations, and practices of the departmental curriculum that cannot be adequately met or fulfilled by the faculty member.

 

Faculty who are not renewed are given one additional, terminal year of appointment.

 

         To recognize extraordinary pedagogical contributions as well as outstanding instructional leadership, at the time of the Major Review and subsequently, the University will consider conferral of the title of senior lecturer.  No promotions in rank or title are possible beyond senior lecturer.  Under these procedures, appointment as senior lecturer does not entail tenure but continuation, subject to review on a five-year cycle throughout the Columbia career of the lecturer or senior lecturer.

 

Procedures for Review

         In all cases, beginning with the Developmental Review at the end of the second year, there must be evidence of a full and complete departmental review of the candidate’s work.  Reviews in the second, fifth, and eighth year should include evaluation by a specially constituted review committee appointed by the chair of the department.  In all cases, evaluation of the candidate’s teaching should include observation of at least two instructional sessions.

 

The review process should include:

1)   an evaluation of the candidate’s instructional performance, based on at least two visits.  To be noted, and distinguished, are (a) the candidate’s philosophy underlying the pedagogical methods or practices employed, (b) the degree to which the candidate’s teaching methods reflect this philosophy, and (c) the quality of the philosophy, methods and practices.  The evaluation is of a candidate and not of a program or a methodology (although remarks that concretely relate a good or bad performance to the qualities or limitations of a particular pedagogical method may be helpful to a department as it evaluates its own curricular priorities, strengths and weaknesses).  Evaluations of candidates at the time of the Critical Review and subsequent reviews should explicitly describe steps taken by candidates to address any concerns raised in previous review.

2)   a discussion after the observations.  At this time the candidate should discuss the statement of philosophy, outline the overall design of the course(s), and articulate how this may fit into a sequence at various levels.  Special note should be made not only of the candidate’s instructional competence but also of contributions to ongoing discussion of pedagogical methods among the members of the department.

3)   a summary of the student evaluations must be submitted as part of the dossier.

4)   an examination of materials provided by the candidate, including:

(a)     the statement of teaching philosophy and how this is reflected in the candidate’s teaching practices (including any evidence of self-study).

(b)     an updated curriculum vitae, documenting activities both inside and outside of the classroom such as curricular planning; service on committees; lectures; training of new faculty members; participation at conferences, symposia, workshops; and other pertinent information.  Any evidence of the candidate’s contributions toward group efforts in departmental teaching should also be presented.

(c)     descriptions of professional work in progress, such as materials developed, as well as copies of all published materials (including articles, textbooks, software, audio or video tapes, etc.); and a description of the ways in which materials are used to facilitate the candidate’s stated instructional goals. 

 

 

Report to the Vice President

         At the time of the Developmental Review, for those lecturers for whom the department intends to recommend renewal, the departmental chair should forward to the Vice President for Arts and Sciences by April 30th a letter documenting the candidate’s teaching responsibilities and enrollments, the results of student evaluations, and any review reports including those that may contain a summary of observations and the post-visitation discussion.  In addition, the department chair should include the candidate’s curriculum vitae and statement of beliefs about teaching.  A vote on the appointment should be taken by the appropriate committee(s) in the department and the results of the vote included in the chair’s letter of transmittal.  The department chair should notify the Vice President in writing of departmental decisions not to renew. 

 

         The above reporting procedures are followed at the time of the Critical and Major Reviews and all subsequent five-year renewals, with the exception that dossiers for Critical and Major Reviews are due by February 15th.  At the time of the Critical and Major Reviews, and in any instance where there is a recommendation for promotion to senior lecturer, the Vice President will invite advice on the case from the Faculty Development Committee.  The Vice President will also invite the advice of the Faculty Development Committee in instances of five-year renewals where the departmental decision is not to reappoint or the department conducts a full review and then recommends reappointment.  The Committee will review the departmental recommendation and supporting materials and make a recommendation to the Vice President for Arts and Sciences. 

 

         All candidates will be sent letters informing them of their status no later than June 30.  It is the obligation of the department chair to convey to the lecturer any concerns about performance and to make clear that the candidate will be expected to demonstrate in subsequent reviews that there has been substantial improvement in those areas of activity identified as in need of improvement.

 

 

Adopted ###

Sample Review Schedule for Renewable Lecturer Appointments

 

 

If Rank                                     Review Schedule                                  Consequences

 

Associate or ...                         During year one                                    A)  Recommend for a

Lecturer                                   (internal)                                                           second year

                                                                                                            B)  Notify by March 15th that                                        will not be renewed                        

 

 

Associate or ...                         During year two                                    A)  Decision to make third Lecturer      (internal)                                                                    year terminal

B)  Recommend for a

three-year contract & consider promotion to lecturer if relevant

 

 

Associate or ...                         During year five                                    A)  Appoint only 1 more year

Lecturer                                   (internal and external)                            B)  Appoint 3 more years &

consider promotion to lecturer if relevant

 

 

Associate or ...                         During year eight                                   A)  Appoint only 1 more year

Lecturer                                   (internal and external)                            B)  Renew for 5 more years

B)     Consider promotion to                    lecturer or senior

            lecturer if relevant

 

 

All ranks                                   During thirteenth year and                     A)  Appoint only 1 more year

                                                at subsequent five-year                         B)  Renew for 5 more years

                                                intervals (internal)                                  C)  Consider promotion to                                                                                      lecturer or senior                                                                       lecturer if relevant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment A

 

 

Draft Report from the Committee on Lecturers, Adjuncts, and Research Scientists/Scholars

 

 

At the request of the Arts and Sciences Chairs, a small ad hoc committee was formed this spring to look into issues surrounding members of our intellectual community who teach and perform research, but who are not in one of the standard professorial ranks.  We outline here our findings derived from review of Columbia's statutes, comparative data on peer institutions, and our own Committee discussions.  We present each of the three principal categories -- Research Scientists/Scholars, Adjunct faculty, and Lecturers -- in order of the increasing complexity of the issues involved.

 

Research Scientists/Scholars

 

There are currently a number of PhDs holding the ranks of Associate Research Scientist/Scholar, Research Scientist/Scholar, and Senior Research Scientist/Scholar in the Arts and Sciences, and a much larger number in other divisions and schools of the University.  Such persons are appointed as "Officers of Research" (as distinct from the faculty category of "Officers of Instruction"); the titles are meant to parallel those of Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor, although there is no possibility of tenure; virtually all are reappointed annually and are supported with external funds.  In many departments there are few, if any, such positions, while in others such as DEES, there are far more such positions than there are regular faculty lines.

 

We were asked by the Chairs to consider whether or not the titles for these positions should be changed to Research Professor.  A survey of peer practices shows that Stanford and Penn both have Assistant, Associate, and Senior Research Professor titles, but Princeton and Yale have titles similar to ours, and at Harvard such appointments are not considered faculty ranks at all.

 

While we have not solicited opinions from among our Research Scientists and Scholars, and thus have not entertained all the arguments, we see no compelling reason to change our current titles -- which accurately portray the holders' positions -- into ones that imply a role they do not, in general, fulfill: that of professing.  In some cases, Research Scientists/Scholars of all ranks do teach; in those instances they should be appointed as Adjunct Professors (see below).  Given their different responsibilities, appointment structure, and salary sources, we believe maintaining the current distinctions between pure researcher and faculty titles is appropriate.

 

Adjunct Faculty

 

The Columbia statutes allow for Adjunct Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors to be appointed to these titles only in the semesters in which they are teaching a course.  This is also the stated practice at Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Chicago, and Penn; only Stanford among the peer group studied allows for continuing appointments.  However, in practice, many adjuncts are listed in various University Bulletins independent of whether they are teaching a course, and we suspect that practice elsewhere may also be less strict.  In any event, the Committee saw legitimate reasons for considering a change in current policy to allow for continuing adjunct appointments which are at least partially decoupled from the teaching function.

 

We use as an example the relationship between the Department of Astronomy and the new Department of Astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History; we imagine this relationship is similar to that for many other departments with close connections to other City institutions.  In this case, the Chair of the AMNH Department of Astrophysics and the Assistant Professor there both hold adjunct appointments in Astronomy at Columbia.  Both mentor and financially support graduate students undertaking dissertation research, both help to run a joint colloquium series, and the Chair serves on the Graduate Admissions Committee and attends Departmental meetings. While neither has taught a course at Columbia this year, their full participation in these other departmental activities warrants, in our view, a formal, ongoing association with the Department.

 

While we are sensitive to the concern that we not dilute the value of a Columbia appointment, we believe considerable paperwork could be saved, and our intellectual community enhanced, by allowing for a limited number of adjunct appointments that were not strictly tied to teaching. We envision a system in which a case is made for year-long appointments subject to recertification by the department Chair each June, with a more extensive justification required perhaps once every three years.  Such appointments should be limited to individuals with an ongoing, active participation in substantive departmental activities, and should NOT be conferred as honorary positions or even in the case where an individual simply teaches one peripheral department course on a frequent basis; these latter cases should continue to require reappointment during each term in which a course is taught.

 

Again, we have not consulted widely on this matter, and could well be unaware of some issues which might confound such a procedure.  However, we offer it as possibility for discussion among the Chairs and ECFAS expecting that, if there is widespread support, ways of implementing such a procedure could be found.

 

Lecturers

 

Associates, Lecturers, and Senior Lecturers are full members of the Columbia faculty, albeit governed by somewhat different rules of appointment and promotion (not to mention their different salaries and teaching obligations).  In 1970, the Senate reviewed these ranks and decided to continue the policy then extant of having all teaching appointments on the tenure clock.  Thus, in contradistinction to all of our peer institutions, the standard ranks of Lecturer have a seven-year up-or-out rule; those still on appointment after the seven-year limit has expired achieve permanence of appointment.  This has been known to happen in the past for lack of attention to such details, although we are assured it will not happen in the future.

 

An unwillingness to allow valuable members of the teaching staff to be fired for the crime of having served admirably for seven years led first the Medical School, then Law and Journalism, and, in 1986, Arts and Sciences to initiate new lecturer titles that allow for multi-year, renewable contracts.  The first such appointments in A&S, Language Lecturers, were initially found only in the non-western language departments, but have spread to virtually all language departments (in addition to the staff of the ALP), and now number 49, a group 15% the size of the tenured faculty.  Associates work under similar terms in the Departments of Music and Chemistry.  Many science departments now house lecturers under the classic definition, although there is a proposal to introduce yet a new title to allow renewable contracts there as well.  In all, there are now 73 occupied positions, equal to 21% of the tenured faculty.  In addition, there are growing numbers of Professors of Practice in the School of the Arts and SIPA operating under similar renewable contracts.  In summary, these categories now include a number of positions in excess of one quarter of the tenured faculty.

 

Our peer institutions use Lecturers on renewable, multi-year appointments in all departments of instruction.  There are no limits on the number of such positions with the exception of Penn which requires that the number of Senior Lecturers not exceed 3% of the standing faculty, and that the number of Lecturers in Foreign Language (a separate category) not exceed 6% of the faculty.  In all of our peer institutions, the positions are explicitly non-tenure track.

 

The salaries for these positions range from $23,000 to $62,000.  For the Language Lecturers, we have partially complete comparative data from a number of peer institutions; both our high and low salary extremes are within +/- 10% of those found at these other institutions.  The nominal teaching load is six courses per year.

 

We understand that the Provost's office is not unsympathetic to eliminating our anomalous position with respect to our peers and turning all categories of lecturers into renewable, multi-year appointments.  It is unclear whether or not the Senate would be sympathetic to this change in the University's Bylaws.

 

It seems to us somewhat irrational to maintain a system unique among our peers that places Lecturers on what is effectively a tenure-track system (in which the track inevitably leads to a dead end), and then to continually invent positions with modified titles in an attempt to circumvent this system.  If this system is maintained to avoid a political confrontation with the Senate, we suggest that the time for avoidance is over.  If it is maintained for sound reasons, we would like to hear the case, but have not heard it to date.

 

On the other hand, our Committee members were all concerned with the implications of an ever-increasing fraction of the faculty being comprised of Lecturers.  While at least one of us has no objections to renewable multi-year contracts in principle, we find it difficult to view this evolution as a healthy sign.  If more and more niches are found to be more adequately filled by Lecturers than regular faculty, we find it difficult to imagine an evolution which does not end in a two-tier system defined by unequal salaries, unequal teaching obligations, and unequal status where the favored faculty end up in a rather small niche of their own.

 

We suggest the following for discussion among the Chairs, the ECFAS, and the faculty as a whole:

 

--Should there be a limit on the fraction of the Faculty composed of Lecturers?

 

--How should we define what distinguishes courses appropriately taught by Lecturers as opposed to those taught by regular faculty? In other words, is it possible to reach a conceptual/intellectual/pedagogical definition of the differences between a tenured/tenure-track faculty member and a lecturer?  In our discussions, two salient features of Lecturer-taught courses emerged:

 

1)      they require highly specialized instructional skills and

2)      are of such a nature that they have no proximate links to research.

 

For example, we now expect regular faculty to teach introductory literature courses but not language instruction.  A similar division in the sciences might be between those who run introductory instructional laboratories and those who teach introductory lecture courses.

 

--Who should define what courses can be assigned to lecturers?  Should a Department be free to define courses their faculty would simply prefer not to teach as the exclusive province of Lecturers?

 

--What is the justification for salary discrepancies of factors of two to four between Professorial Rank Faculty and Lecturers?  What might a reasonable band be?

 

--What is the appropriate extra-departmental review procedure for reappointment of Lecturers?  What are the appropriate review criteria?

 

While a consensus on the answers to these questions is unlikely to be easily achieved, our Committee believes it is a matter of sufficient importance for the future of the Arts and Sciences that all concerned address them directly before moving to create new categories of term appointments in the Faculty.

 

 

David J. Helfand

Robert Jervis

Pierre Force

 


[1] The total professorial rank FTE is reported annually in the Arts and Sciences Faculty Size and Effort Report.