Timothy W. Sineath

[Editor's Note]: For a complete listing of schools that submitted data for this year's report, please click the
list of schools. To view the questionnaire used to gather data for this chapter, please click the questionnaire for Part I or Part II.

Following the pattern of previous reports, data on faculty included in this report appear in two parts. Data in Part I have been compiled from a form submitted to this writer, on a confidential basis, by the dean, director or chair of the 56 library and information science education programs accredited by the American Library Association (ALA) on January 1, 2000.

Part II of the faculty section of this report has been compiled from information provided by the 56 of the ALA schools in response to the faculty section of the general questionnaire prepared for the Association for Library and Information Science Education. The schools are listed in the tables, where appropriate, resulting in a total of 56 ALA-accredited schools.

Part I of the faculty section is based upon data reported by the participating schools as of January 1, 2000. Part II, however provides information that pertained to the schools during the fiscal year 1998-99 (July l, 1998 to June 30, 1999). In requesting the data appearing in Part I, each dean, director, and program chair was assured that there would be complete confidentiality of the information supplied. Thus, in this part of the report, neither individual faculty members nor individual schools are linked to specific data that pertains to information on salary, gender, race, age, or any other category covered. However, individual schools are identified by name in the tables found in Part II.


This is the twenty-seventh survey of faculty salaries and related data pertaining to library and information science education in this series. The first ten were compiled and reported by Russell E. Bidlack, Dean Emeritus of the School of Information at the University of Michigan. The next three surveys were compiled by the late Gary Purcell of the University of Tennessee. This is the fourteenth compilation by this writer. The format followed in the report is basically the same as that used in previous years. The format has been retained in order to help ensure comparability of data from year to year. Data were provided by the chief executive officers the 56 schools accredited by ALA on January 1, 20000.

The chief executive officers of all the schools are referred to in this report as deans and directors for the sake of convenience even though some hold other titles. Each dean or director was requested to provide specific information about each full-time faculty member, (including the dean or director) who held employed status in the school as of January 1, 2000. The categories of information requested were: (1) titles and/or academic rank; (2) annual salary amount; (3) whether appointed for the fiscal or academic year; (4) whether or not tenured; (5) sex; (6) highest degree earned; (7) discipline of highest degree; (8) ethnic origin (except Canadian schools); (9) age category (by five-year groupings); (10) year of appointment to the school's full-time faculty; and (11) year of appointment to present rank in the school in which currently employed. These categories are the same as used for the past several years.

As in the previous editions benefits were not reported as part of the salaries, and stipends for summer teaching, off-campus teaching, or other over-load compensations were also excluded. Faculty members on sabbatical leave on January 1, 20000 are included in the analysis, although they had been omitted prior to 1987.

Faculty Size

The number of full-time faculty members at the 56 reporting schools, including deans and directors, totaled 658.6 FTE (662 head count), up from 633 last year. This number does not include positions unfilled at the time the report was submitted. The base number used for most of the analyses that follows will be 658.6, since this figure is the total of the FTE faculty of the reporting schools. Four schools reported a total of eight positions that are reduced because of phased-in retirement. The base number for some analyses may be less or more depending on the number of persons reporting in a given category of the questionnaire and whether FTE or headcount is the appropriate figure. The number of full-time faculty in the 56 schools ranged from a low of five in four schools to a high of 27.6 in one school. The average faculty size (excluding reported unfilled positions) was 11.76, which is an increase over last year's figure of 11.4. Average faculty size has varied very little in the last decade as shown in Table I-1.

Table I-2 shows the variation in the number of full-time faculty on January 1, 2000 among the 56 schools. This table shows that 20 (35.7 percent) of the 56 schools had full-time faculties of nine or fewer persons, including the dean or director. This represents nine percent fewer schools in this category over 1998-99. Seven schools (12.5 percent) had full-time faculty of 18 or more (as was true last year). The most common faculty size in 1999-00 was 12 with nine schools reporting faculty of this size. Table I-2 shows the wide range in the number of schools among the sizes indicated (from 5 to 27).

Of the 662 regular faculty, including the deans and directors, on January 1, 2000, in the 56 schools, 327 (49.4 percent) are males, 335 (50.6 percent) are females. This is virtually the same ratio as reported in 1999. The ratio of female to male faculty members has changed very little during the last ten-year period. In terms of the total number of faculty, a nearly 1:1 ratio of males and females exists.

Table 1-4 reports the 1999-00 male/female ratio of full-time faculty by rank in comparison with the previous year. The table also shows the current year in contrast to that of ten years ago: 1989-1990. Because the number of schools reporting has varied from year to year, it is the percentage rather than the actual number of faculty members that is significant. In 1989-90, 46.3 percent of the faculty in all ranks (including deans and directors) were women; in the most current reporting year, 50.2 percent were women. The rank at which the most females are found has typically been at the assistant professor level.

Deans and Directors

Among the 56 schools reporting, eight changes occurred in appointments of executive officers between January 1, 1999 and January 1, 2000. Of the eight "new" deans and directors in 1999-00, one was appointed in an acting status. Of the seven regular appointments, four were male and three were female. Five held the rank of professor and two were associate professors.

Following is a list of the schools with new executive officers in 1999-00: Catholic (dean), Kent (acting director), Long Island (dean), Michigan (dean), Southern Mississippi (director), Tennessee (director), Texas (dean), and Wayne State (director).

The breakdown of the administrative titles of the executive officers of the 56 schools on January 1, 2000 is reported in Table I-5 and includes the acting deans or directors.

Of the 56 deans and directors (and persons holding the title of chair), including those holding acting or temporary status, 40 (71.4 percent) held the rank of professor. This is the same percentage as reported for 1998-999. For all deans and directors, 35 were males (62.5 percent) and 21 (37.5 percent) were females. Sixteen held the rank of associate professor, and of these, eight (50.0 percent) were males and eight (50.0 percent) were females. Thirteen (81.2 percent) of those holding the associate professor rank held tenure at the time of the report.

All 35 males who were executive officers on January 1, 2000 had earned doctorates. Of the 21 female executive officers, 20 (95.2 percent) had earned doctorates. The executive officer not holding the doctorate had a master's degree in library and information science. Of the 55 doctorates held by deans and directors, 39 (70.9 percent) were in library and information science. This is the same number as that reported last year. Three of the new deans (including interim) hold doctorates in fields other than the library and information sciences.

Table I-6 shows the disciplines of the 55 doctorates held by the deans and directors of the schools.

US Schools were asked to indicate the ethnic origin of deans and directors. Of the 49 deans and directors of schools located in the US, 42 were white and seven were from minority ethnic origins, the same as the number from minority ethnic origins reported last year. Of the seven who were from minority origins, three are Black, two are Hispanic, and two are Asian or Pacific Islander.


Schools were asked to report the ages of the faculty and the deans and directors. This information for heads of the schools displayed in Table I-7 by five-year categories. This table includes all reporting executive officers serving as of January 1, 2000, including those in an acting capacity.

This table shows that 45 (80.3 percent) of the executive officers were 50 years of age or older on January 1, 2000. This is a slightly larger percentage than the 79.6 percent of last year as well as those figures reported in the last several years. Nine (16.0 percent) of the deans and directors who held regular appointments were 60 years of age or older as of January 1, 1999. The number was 10 last year, but has varied little over recent years. When acting or temporary appointments are excluded little difference in the relative percentages in the age group occurs. (Table I-7-a that has reported ages of only permanent heads is, then unnecessary and is being omitted again from this edition of the report.)

Table I-7-b shows this distribution by gender. The number of deans and directors who are in the 50-54 and 55-59 age categories may indicate that a wave of retirements from program head positions similar to that which took place a decade ago.


Salary figures as of January 1, 2000 were reported for 54 of the 56 deans and directors. Pittsburgh did not release the Dean's salary and San Jose did not have final salary figures available for 1999-00. Of the deans and directors, 46 hold fiscal year (11 or 12 month) appointments. Of those holding fiscal year appointments, 30 are male and 16 are female. Five females and five males hold academic year appointments.

A decade ago five deans and directors reported salaries in excess of $90,000, with the highest being $110,400. For 2000 twenty-five deans and directors reported salaries above $90,000. Last year, five deans and directors reported salaries of $120,000 or more with the highest being over $159,000. All in this category were in US schools. Seven schools reported executive salaries in the range of $100,000 to $119,000. In 1999-00, eleven deans and directors reported salaries of $120,000 or more with the highest being $200,000. All in this category were in US schools. Ten schools reported executive salaries in the range of $100,000 to $119,000. As has been noted, salary differences are influenced in part by rank.

In previous years, the issue of the difference between salaries paid in Canadian schools and schools located in the US has been discussed. The question has always been whether the exchange rate between the two currencies should be factored in when comparing salaries. Canadian salaries traditionally have been higher than those in the US, and the exchange rate has continued to change. The exchange rate is as of this writing approximately $0.69 US to $1.00 Canadian. Some have commented that the exchange rate should be used as a control variable leading to an equalization of salary data. However, as noted in previous volumes of this study, if Canadian cost-of-living differences are considered, it would be equally appropriate to apply cost-of-living differences to various cities and regions of the US, thus making the reporting procedure impossibly complicated and not any more meaningful. Other methods exist to compare cost-of-living and the Canadian US exchange rate. Therefore the method of dealing with this problem is to call the reader's attention to the fluctuating exchange rate and, in some instances, to provide separate tables for US and Canadian schools. This solution has been used in each of the preceding years of the report, and will be this year also.

The salaries of the 44 (of 46) deans and directors reporting fiscal year salaries (including those in an acting capacity) ranged from a high of $200000 to a low of $54,096. The mean salary for the 44 deans and directors with a fiscal year appointment was $103,504 (median $93,691). Eliminating the deans and directors of the seven Canadian schools (fiscal year) from the analysis, the mean salary of the remaining 37 deans and directors of US schools who had fiscal year appointments on January 1, 2000, was $106,079 (median $95,298). The mean salary for Canadian deans and directors was $89,892 (median $89,080).

An analysis of the 10 deans and directors who received their salaries on an academic year basis shows a range from a high of $110,000 to a low of $59,760. The mean for deans and directors on academic year appointments was $72,801 (median $69.136). All of the reported academic year salaries were in US schools.

Of the 44 deans and directors who had fiscal year appointments on January 1, 2000 and who reported their salaries, (including acting persons), 30 were males and 14 were females. For the 30 males, the mean salary was $102,229 (median $92,180). This is an increase of 5.8 percent in the mean salary of male deans and directors of $5,637 over January 1, 1999. For the 14 female deans and directors who hold fiscal year appointments, the mean salary on January 1, 2000 was $104.129 (median $100.911), for an increase of $15,565 (17.6 percent). Table I-7-c shows the mean salaries of deans and directors from 1990-91 to 1999-00.

Salary differentials have also been evident when one compares them in rank order. The gap between male and female salaries has been narrowing. In 1997-98, six of the 10 highest salaries received were evenly split between men and women. The top three reported salaries were for men. In 1999-00 the 10 highest salaries are for men. These figures are only estimates since Pittsburgh did not report the salary of its female dean.

An analysis of Table 1-7-c shows that for the reporting 44 deans with fiscal year appointments (including acting deans and heads of Canadian schools), the percentage of increase in the average salary shown here, was 4.96 percent, up from the increase of 4.6 percent last year. However, this figure is less meaningful because of changes in the actual persons holding deanships from year to year. The percentages indicate only the approximate salary improvements for the positions of deans and directors rather than improvements for individuals. The meaning of this increase is somewhat further eroded by the difference in actual schools represented in the two years.

Table I-8 indicates the length of administrative service of the 56 deans and directors with regular and acting appointments in the schools where they presently serve. As the table shows, on January 1, 2000, eleven deans and directors had held their administrative positions for ten years or more. This represents approximately 19.6 percent of the deans. At the other end of the longevity spectrum, 26 deans and directors have been appointed to their present position since 1997, a period of only three years and 32 (57.1 percent) have served for five years or less. This is further evidence of a great deal of change in library and information science education leadership and indicates a high rate of turnover among executive officers in the education programs in the US and Canada. From all indications this is a continuing trend in higher education administration generally.

Assistant/Associate Deans

Meaningful data regarding the full-time faculty who assist the executive officer in administering the school is difficult to compare because major differences exist among the schools. In most instances these faculty members carry out the administrative responsibilities and have reduced teaching loads. However, some do not teach at all, but devote their entire time to administrative responsibilities. Also, the administrative roles, as well as the rewards for this service, differ widely both in terms of academic rank and salary. As in earlier reports, this group of faculty is identified here as "associate (assistant, etc.) deans and directors." Only those who are considered faculty as well as administrators are included. Of the 56 schools in 1999-00, 18 had full-time faculty serving as associate (assistant, etc.) deans and directors. In 1998-99, 14 schools had such position. Two of the 18 schools reported two or more faculty members with such appointments, for a total of seven individuals. Of the 18 associate (assistant, etc.) deans and directors in 1999-00, none were newly appointed to this post during the year under review.

It should be noted that this report includes only full-time faculty members serving in positions as associate or assistant deans (directors, etc.). A number of schools have individuals (support staff), other than full-time faculty, who serve as administrative assistants to the dean or director. This is included in Table I-52 as support staff.

New Faculty Appointments

Between January 1, 1999 and January 1, 2000, exclusive of deans and directors, 78 new full-time faculty members were appointed. Of these, three are appointed to permanent part-time positions giving a total of 76 FTE faculty (78 persons). Table I-10 provides a basis for comparing the annual number of new faculty appointments over the past 15 years. In earlier reports, this table counted deans and directors, including those with acting or interim status, even when appointed from within their own faculties. However, since a marked increase of acting or interim deans and directors tended to skew the figures, this table has been recalculated for the previous years to exclude all deans and directors in the new appointment columns. Deans and directors are included in the total full-time faculty count.


The following table (Table I-11) shows the sex of the new faculty members appointed to full-time regular positions in the various faculty ranks between January 1, 1999 and January 1, 2000.

All three of the new appointments at the professor level received an academic year appointment. All had an earned doctorate; and were granted tenure. Ages reported included two between 50-54 and one between 60-64.

Of the 10 new associate professors who were not deans or directors, all received academic year appointments; all held earned doctorates; and four were granted tenure. Ages reported included three between 40-49; six between 50-59; and one undesignated.

Because the most common rank at which new faculty members are appointed is that of assistant professor, the salaries paid this group along with other characteristics, are always of particular interest. Fifty-eight new assistant professors were appointed to permanent positions in 1999-00 compared to 45 last year. The total of new appointments at all ranks in 1999-00 also has increased.

Of the 58 new assistant professors appointed in 1999-00, 26 are male (44.8 percent) and 32 are female (55.2 percent). Among the 58 new assistant professors, 40 had completed doctorates by January 2000. The disciplines of the 40 new assistant professors with earned doctorates are distributed among the following fields:[Table I-11-a]

Of the 58 new assistant professors in 1999-00, five were in Canadian schools. Of the 53 in the US, 40 were White; one was American Indian; eight were Asian or Pacific Islander; three were Black; and one was Hispanic. Age categories were provided as follows: [Table I-11-b]


Salaries reported for 57 of the 58 new assistant professors appointed in 1999-00 ranged from a high of $75,996 to a low of $19,612. The mean salary for the 51 persons with an academic year appointment (which included no Canadian appointments) was $48,073 and the median was $44,500.

The mean salary for the 23 males appointed for the academic year to the rank of assistant professor in 1999-00 was $50,737 (median $46,295). For the 28 females appointed as assistant professors for the academic year, the mean salary was $44,167 (median $43,186).

Table I-11-c shows the mean beginning salaries for assistant professors with academic year appointments since 1990-91. Of note is the substantial increases in the average percentage of increases in 1999-00.

All seven new fiscal year appointments at the assistant professor rank reported salaries. During the past 27 years, only 100 fiscal year appointments have been made at the assistant professor level, as compared to 637 appointed for the academic year.

New Associate Professor and Professor Salaries

Ten new appointments were made at the associate professor rank. Five were male and five were female; all reported salaries and all had academic year appointments. The mean salary was $56,646 (median $50,125).

There were also three new appointments at the rank of professor: all were males with academic year appointments. The mean salary of the two reported salaries was $62,500.

New Instructor and Lecturer Salaries

Five full-time instructors were appointed during 1999-00. Four had academic year appointments. The mean salary of these appointments was $42,145 (median $42,645).

Two full-time lecturers were appointed during 1999-00. Both had academic year appointments. The average salary for the academic appointments was $31,000. Two lecturers were appointed for three-fourths time.

All Faculty


Table I-13 allows one to compare 1999-00 mean and median salaries at each rank with those of a year earlier (1998-989). Salary figures do not include San Jose. In addition, Pittsburgh withheld the Dean's salary; South Carolina did not provide salary data for one professor and one associate professor (both fiscal year appointments); Oklahoma did not included data for one professor; and Western Ontario did not report a salary for one professor. In 1999-00, a total of 646.6 FTE salaries were reported (including deans and directors).

The mean and median salaries shown above in Table I-13 have been based on all salaries reported without regard to region. Furthermore, no attempt has been made to compute the exchange rate between the Canadian dollar and the US dollar, although Canadian university salaries are often higher than those in the US. Table I-13-a shows average salaries by U. S. region and Canada. The regions are those used by ALA's Committee on Accreditation. The number of faculty salaries included is shown in parentheses for each category. In those instances where only one salary fits into a given category, the salary is not reported in order to protect the privacy of the individuals to whom the salaries apply.

Northeast: Albany, Buffalo, Catholic, Clarion, Drexel, Long Island, Maryland, Pittsburgh, Pratt, Queens, Rhode Island, Rutgers, St. John's, Simmons, Southern Connecticut, Syracuse. (All 16 schools reporting)
Southeast: Alabama, Clark Atlanta, Florida State, Kentucky, Louisiana State, North Carolina Central, North Carolina – Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Greensboro, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Florida, Southern Mississippi, Tennessee.  (All 13 schools reporting)
Midwest: Dominican, Emporia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kent State, Michigan, Missouri, Wayne State, Wisconsin – Madison, Wisconsin – Milwaukee. (All 11 schools reporting)
Southwest: Arizona, North Texas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Woman's.  (All 5 schools reporting)
West: California – Los Angeles, Hawaii, San Jose, Washington.  (All 4 schools reporting)
Canada: Alberta, British Columbia, McGill, Montrιal, Toronto, Western Ontario.  (6 of 7 schools reporting)

Table I-13-b shows the difference between mean salaries in the schools in the US and those in Canada. In evaluating these figures it is important to remember that the difference in exchange rate between the US and the Canadian dollars was approximately $.69 US to $1.00 Canadian on January 1, 2000.

Improvements in the mean faculty salary in 1999-00 over 1998-99 at each rank are shown in Table I-14. It should be kept in mind, however, that promotions, resignations, retirements, and new appointments in 1999-00 result in a different group of people being compared for these two years. Because actual names of faculty members are not provided by the schools, it is not possible to separate the continuing faculty in a given rank from those entering that rank. The results of these limitations mean that the improvement in salary is for the incumbents of each rank at a given time and do not reflect individual salary improvement.

In reading the following table [Table I-14-a], one should keep in mind that the small number of faculty holding the instructor and lecturer rank, and the small number of deans and directors holding an academic year appointment, may detract from the significance of those particular percentages.

Table I-15 enables one to compare the mean salaries in each faculty rank for males and females. Female dean and director salaries exceed those of males. Male salaries exceed female salaries in all ranks except professor with fiscal year appointments. Academic year salaries are higher for males in all ranks.

Ethnic Background

The schools in the United States were asked to provide ethnic data for their full-time faculty. Fifty-two schools (including three Canadian schools) that responded to the survey provided the information listed in Table I-17. This represents 606 of the 662 faculty members. Of these, 108 (19.8 percent) were minorities as compared to 99 (17.1 percent) last year. Care should be taken when comparing year to year percentages because the base number of faculty varies each year.


Table 1-18 provides age category data for the full-time faculty with academic rank in all the ALA schools. The percentage of faculty 55 or older as of January 1, 2000 was 34.6 percent. It has been noted in earlier reports that the average age of the faculty has been increasing. However, the range of faculty 55 or older has remained at 30 to 34 percent for at least a decade. Comparisons to earlier years can only be tentative, given differences in base numbers resulting from incomplete reporting.

Year of Initial Appointment and Rank

All schools responded to the request for the date of initial appointment of each current faculty member to its full-time faculty. For each faculty member where academic rank was reported, who were employed on January 1, 2000, nearly two-thirds (60.0 percent) of the faculty members at the reporting schools have been appointed in the last ten years (1990-91 through 1999-00).


Among the full-time faculty in the 56 schools, there were 27 promotions within the professorial ranks. This compares with 30 last year.


The number of earned doctorates held on January 1, 2000 for the faculty population of 635 reporting (including Deans and Directors) was 574 (90.4 percent). This is a very slight decrease in the percentage from last year (90.9 percent). Approximately the same percent of males (86.6 percent) and females (87.3 percent) held earned doctorates. Of the 574 faculty members holding the doctorate, 378 (65.9 percent) held a degree in library and information science (Including information systems and technology, information transfer, and information resource management); 196 faculty members had doctorates in other fields; and 27 were not designated. Table I-22-a indicating the percentage of faculty members, by gender, holding doctorates is omitted this year.

Table I-23 provides a listing of the disciplines other than library and information science in which 196 faculty members held doctorates on January 1, 2000. While deans were asked to be precise in identifying these disciplines as they completed the questionnaire, the responses often were not clear, and the instructions were frequently subject to varying interpretations. The fields other than library science, information science, and library/information science were quite varied, as has been the case in the past. For example, in the field of education, numerous specific sub-fields were identified, some of which might be the same discipline or degree with a slightly different name. Because of the wide variation, the doctorates in fields other than library and/or information science are identified by discipline.

While 90.4 percent of the full-time faculty teaching in the 56 reporting schools had completed doctoral degrees prior to January 1, 2000, the percentage of faculty within individual schools holding the doctorate varied considerably. The range is from a low of 50 percent at one school to a high of 100 percent at 30 schools. Fifty-two (92.8 percent) of the reporting schools reported at least 75 percent of their faculties holding doctoral degrees.


Of the 662 full-time faculty in the 56 schools, 58.5 percent of the faculty had tenure on January 1, 2000 compared to 60.9 percent in the previous year. The percent of the total faculty who are tenured has not fluctuated significantly over the past ten years and thus Table I-25 is omitted this year.

Three schools reported having an all-tenured faculty in 1999-00; that figure has remained between two and six schools over the last 10 years. Only one school reported less than 25 percent tenured faculty; 12 schools had less than 50 percent; and 14 schools had tenured faculties of 75 percent or higher. The following table shows the variation among the 56 schools.

Table I-26-a shows tenure status by rank and sex of the faculty members holding that academic rank. It should be understood, of course, that deans and directors shown with tenure enjoy that tenure as faculty members, not as their schools' executive officers.

In Table 1-27, individual faculty salaries (including those for 54 deans and directors) are reported for 55 schools. Some salaries were not reported from Oklahoma and South Carolina. San Jose was unable to report any faculty salaries and Pittsburgh did not report the salary of the dean. The salaries are distributed by rank in increments of $2,000 (except where there are large gaps between salaries). The salaries for deans and directors and for associate (assistant, etc.) professors have been entered according to their faculty ranks.


This is the twenty-first year that the survey of library and information science faculty has included data provided in response to the general questionnaire distributed by the Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE). Data reported in Part II have been obtained from this questionnaire. Data reported in Part I of this report have been presented with the understanding that the writer would not link specific data with any individual school. However, schools that respond to the ALISE questionnaire, leading to the information reported in Part II, do so with the understanding that they will be identified with the information that they submit. A total of 56 of the 56 ALA schools responded and are identified in the tables in Part II.

It is important to note that the data reported in Part II cover 1998-99, the academic year previous to the salary data reported in Part I (1999-00). This means that frequently the data will not be in agreement for a given school for the two time periods. However, the data are taken from the forms as reported by the schools.

The analysis that follows reports the responses to the questions as asked on the ALISE general questionnaire. In those instances where data were not reported by a school, a notation is indicated. However, unless the school specifically stated on its questionnaire that there were no data to report, the absence of data is of course ambiguous -- either there were no data to report or the school did not respond to the question.

Academic Calendar and Full-Time Faculty

The first question in the faculty section of the ALISE questionnaire asks schools to indicate the type of calendar in use (i.e., semester, quarter, trimester, etc.) These responses are reported in Table I-41. (Type of academic year is also provided in summary form in Table III-1.) Because of the differences in academic calendars, only Fall term faculty data have comparative value, since this is the only term that all schools have in common regardless of type of calendar. An example will illustrate this. Some schools call it the Spring term or semester; others call it Winter term. Also, it appears that some schools that have two summer sessions have labeled one as Spring and the other as Summer.

The second question asked the schools to indicate the number of full-time faculty for the previous academic year. The answers to this second question have also been included in Table I-41. The full-time faculty data reported here are for the academic year prior to that reported in Part I. The 56 schools reported a total of 633 faculty members for the 1998 fall semester for an average of 11.3 faculty members per school. These figures do not include the 49 vacant positions reported for the same time period. The total reported for 1997-98, with 56 schools reporting, was 621.25 faculty for an average of 11.09 per school.

Adjunct, clinical, or other than full-time "regular" faculty continue to play important roles in the teaching effort of the schools. The information reported in Table I-43 indicates that 520 persons taught courses during the 1998 fall term. This represents an estimated FTE of 141.82, bringing the total faculty force to approximately 774.82 (1,153 persons). It is also interesting to note that in terms of individuals (not FTE) part-time faculty make up about 45.1 percent of the total, an increase of 1.6 percent over last year.

Salary Improvement

Question 4 on the faculty section of the ALISE questionnaire asks for the average percentage of salary improvement for full-time faculty in 1998-99. This was followed by Question 5, asking the basis on which improvements in faculty salaries were made. The responses to these questions have been tabulated in Table I-45. Note: Table I-14 in Part I reports average improvements in salaries for the current year and ten years ago for comparison.

Among the schools that provided data on the percentage of salary improvement, two schools reported zero increases. For the other 54 schools reporting an increase, the improvement ranged from a low of 1.05 percent to a high of 8.50 percent, with an average of 3.87 percent. Twelve schools reported increases of less than 3 percent; seven schools reported 3 percent; and 31 reported more than 3 percent.

Faculty Replacements

The reports of previous years note that it is common to replace senior faculty members who retire, resign, or otherwise leave, with individuals at lower ranks than had been held by those being replaced. This practice has been followed for many years. In 1998-99, however, 66.6 percent of replacements were at the same or higher ranks. Table I-47 reports the results of Question 6 that asks how many full-time faculty replacements (resulting from resignations, retirements, etc.) were made during 1998-99. Schools were also asked to indicate the rank of the individual(s) who was/were replaced and the rank of the replacement(s). In 1998-99, a total of 39 faculty replacements were made in 26 schools; 11 were replaced at a lower rank; 22 at the same rank; four at a higher rank; and one was undesignated.

Unfilled Faculty Positions

The seventh question on the questionnaire asks schools to indicate if there were unfilled, full-time positions, for which funding was available, during 1998-99. Schools were also asked to indicate the rank and the reason the position was not filled during the year. The intent of this question is to identify the total number of full-time unfilled faculty positions in the schools. If funds were used on a temporary basis for other purposes such as employment of part-time persons, but with the budget line remaining open, this was interpreted to be an unfilled faculty position.

In Table I-47-a, 49 unfilled full-time faculty positions are reported for 27 schools for 1998-99. The explanations for these vacancies have been given from the data reported by the schools to indicate the reasons the positions are vacant. Last year's report indicated that there were 52 vacancies despite the availability of funding for the positions. The explanations provided by the schools indicate that slightly more unfilled openings are, as in the past, at the rank of assistant professor. However, a wide distribution of vacancies among the ranks was reported: assistant (23), associate (5), professor (5) and undesignated (16). Also, as in the past, the reasons for unfilled positions vary. However, the majority of the schools reporting unfilled positions indicate either lack of success in getting appropriate candidates and that the searches were in still progress. A few schools continue to use vacant position salaries for alternative uses. Finally, in a few schools, unrelated, local conditions seem to be reflected.

Positions Lost

Question 7 on the questionnaire seeks to identify full-time faculty positions that were temporarily unfilled in 1998-99, but for which funding has been available. Question 8 asks the schools to indicate whether faculty positions had actually been lost in 1998-99. This includes those instances where replacements could not be appointed either because faculty positions assigned to the school by the parent institution had been reduced in number or because limitations of the school's budget required the number of full-time faculty to be reduced. Four schools reported a total loss of four positions.

This year's number is less than that of last year. While a number of schools cannot hire new faculty due to budget constraints fewer have actually lost the faculty line than had been the case in prior years.

New Faculty Positions

Question 9 on the questionnaire asks schools whether additional (new) faculty positions, with new funding, were created in the schools in 1998-99. As shown in Table I-47-c, 14 schools reported a total of at least 21 new positions, 17 more than were lost by the four schools noted in the previous table. Last year ten schools reported 13 new positions and the previous year nine schools reported 11 new positions. Thus, 1998-99 new positions are similar in number to those of the previous few years.


Schools were asked to report the value of their institution's fringe benefits for faculty in terms of salary percentage, i.e., the worth of the contributions of the institution to benefits such as retirement, health insurance, etc., beyond the actual salaries paid. This percentage is often required in making grant proposals that will include faculty salaries, and is often taken into account by applicants for faculty appointments as they compute the total compensation that an offer includes. Fifty-five schools reported an average percentage of fringe benefits of approximately 26.38 percent (range of 10.10 to 56.78) for 1998-99. A few schools show variation in the percentage over the last five years. A few schools reported an increases, and a few schools reported a decrease for the same period. It may be that the variations in these percentages, as reported by the deans and directors, results from differing methods of computing this percentage.

Professional Travel

Questions 11 and 12 of the questionnaire pertain to funding for professional travel. Question 11 asks for the number of faculty, including the dean or director, who received travel funds in 1998-99. Question 12 asks for the total amount of funding for professional travel used by the school's faculty in 1998-99, exclusive of travel to teach in extension, workshops, etc. It was noted in this question that dollars spent by the institution on professional travel should be included regardless of whether or not they were actually included in the school's budget.

It is apparent from Table I-49 that the amount of funding for faculty travel continues to vary greatly among schools. The differences have been noted since the survey began, and in most instances, the relationship of travel budgets of individual schools to each other has changed very little. For 1998-99, the range among the schools was from a low of $2,000 to a high of $148,524 (median: $13,993). For individual faculty members who received travel funds, the average varied from a reported low of $438 to a high of $3,888 (median: $1,540). For the same period a total of 555 faculty members were reported as having received travel funds. They shared a total of $1,152,907 in travel money amounting to an average of $2,077 per person. The average per school for the 56 reporting amounts for individuals was $20,567 in 1998-99 as compared with $21,168 per school in 1997-98. It is difficult to know if these figures are meaningful since schools are not consistent as to whether or not data on such expenditures as recruitment, accreditation visits or visiting faculty have been excluded. The questionnaire asks that these data not be included when reporting travel for faculty, but it is likely that expenditures for these purposes may have been reported along with faculty travel. It would appear, however, from these data that average expenditures for travel continue to increase slightly after a period of decrease.

Note averages are not calculated in Table I-49 but are provided as submitted by the schools.

Sabbatical Leave

The 13th question on the faculty section of the questionnaire pertains to sabbatical leaves for faculty. A total of 20 schools granted funds for sabbatical or study leaves during 1998-99, compared to 27 in 1997-98. Details are provided in Table I-51 below. Six schools (Clark Atlanta, Montreal, South Florida, Tennessee, Texas Woman's, and Washington) indicated that no such leaves are granted at their institutions.

Support Staff

The final question in the faculty section of the ALISE questionnaire pertains to the support staff available for the schools. The question was designed to separate part-time student employees of the school from regular, non-student support staff. Under each of these categories, the same group of subdivisions was given: (a) Administrative support; (b) Instructional support; (c) Research support; (d) Media services; (e) Library personnel; (f) Computer lab; (g) Other. The following definitions were provided for each subdivision:

(a) Administrative Support — Secretarial and other assistance provided the dean, assistant dean, etc. in the administration of the school.
(b) Instructional Support — Clerical and other assistance provided faculty members in their course preparation and classroom teaching.
(c) Research Support — Secretarial and other support provided the faculty in their research activity.
(d) Media Services — Assistance provided by media technicians, graphic artists, and others in the production and use of non-print media.
(e) Librarian Personnel — Librarians and library assistants who serve in the library science library, whether their salaries are paid from the library school's budget or from that of the central library.
(f) Computer Lab — Those persons who work in a computer laboratory operated by the school.
(g) Other — Any support staff beyond those listed above.

If a full-time person divides his/her time between two or more of the above categories that individual appears in appropriate part-time categories.

Where obvious misinterpretations have been made by the schools, the liberty of making slight adjustments in the data supplied by them has been made. These have all involved moving fractions of staff time listed as full-time personnel where it seemed obvious that they were intended as FTE of part-time staff.

As shown in Table I-52, the total FTE of support staff (exclusive of students) varied from a low of 1.0 to a high of 55.74 (mean: 7.45). Because of the possible variation in the interpretation of the reporting of library staff and the varying types of support staff included under "other," meaningful comparison of the total FTE support staff among the schools is not possible. However, it is possible to compare data from some of the categories as shown in the table. An analysis of the data shows the following distribution of percentages for all schools reporting.

Administrative Support 48.5 percent (208.98 Staff)
Instructional Support 9.5 percent ( 40.91 Staff)
Research Support 9.1 percent ( 39.15 Staff)
Media Support 2.3 percent ( 10.03 Staff)
Library Personnel 9.6 percent ( 41.6 Staff)
Computer Lab Personnel 14.0 percent ( 60.44 Staff)
Other 7.0 percent ( 30.1 Staff)

"Other" includes professional development (five schools); marketing/public relations/development (five schools); placement (two schools); and student services, web site administrator, information technology coordinator, publications, program coordinator and learning lab support (one school each respectively). Some schools reported staff in more than one of these categories.

Table I-54 provides similar information about part-time student support staff.

| Table of Contents | List of Tables | Next Chapter |

Completed 09/12/00.
For problems with these webpages,
please contact Kathy Wisser, webmaster.

For corrections in the data,
please contact the editors, Evelyn H. Daniel or
Jerry D. Saye.