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 library and information science education programs accredited by the American Library Association (ALA) on January 1, 2001.
Part II of the faculty section of this report has been compiled from information provided by the 56 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.
Part I of the faculty section is based upon data reported by the participating schools as of January 1, 2001. Part II, however provides information that pertained to the schools during the fiscal year 1999-2000 (July l, 1999 to June 30, 2000). 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 in the tables found in Part II.
This is the twenty-eighth 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 fifteenth 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, 2001. 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, 2001. 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) gender; (6) highest degree earned; (7) discipline of highest degree; (8) ethnic origin (except Canadian schools); (9) age category (in 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 those used in 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, 2001 are included in the analysis, although they had been omitted prior to 1987.
The number of full-time faculty members at the 56 reporting schools, including deans and directors, totaled 708, up from 658.6 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 708, since this figure is the total of the FTE faculty of the reporting schools. 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 three schools to a high of 32 in one school. The average faculty size (excluding reported unfilled positions) was 12.6, which an increase over last year’s figure of 11.76. 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, 2001 among the 56 schools. This table shows that 21 (37.5 percent) of the 56 schools had full-time faculties of nine or fewer persons, including the dean or director. This represents an increase of one school in the number of schools in this category over 1999-2000 .The most common faculty size (i.e., the size of the largest number of schools) in 2000-2001 is 14 with six schools reporting faculty of this size. However, Table I-2 shows a wide range in the number of schools among the sizes indicated.
Of the 708 regular faculty, including the deans and directors, on January 1, 2001, in the 56 schools, 354 (50.0 percent) are males, 354 (50.0 percent) are females. An examination of Table I-3 shows that this is virtually the same ratio as reported in last year. The 1997-1998 ratio of female to male faculty members was the highest of any years in the time period from 1976 to the present, and it has increased each year for the last decade. The ratio has changed very little during the entire time period. In terms of the total number of faculty, in 2000-2001 an exact 1:1 ratio of males and females exists.
Table I-4 reports the 2000-2001 male/female ratio of full-time faculty by rank in comparison with that of 1999-2000. The table also shows the current year in contrast to that of ten years ago: 1991-1992. Because the number of schools reporting has changed somewhat from year to year, it is the percentage rather than the actual number of faculty members that is of primary significance in this table. In 1991-1992, 47.5 percent of the faculty in all ranks (including deans and directors) were females. . In the past, there have been larger changes at specific academic ranks. The rank at which the most significant increases in the number of females has been typically at the assistant professor level. In 2000-2001, there was an increase in the percentage of females to males over 1999-2000.
Deans and Directors
Among the 56 schools, there were six changes in appointments of executive officers between January 1, 2000 and January 1, 2001. This represents a change in leadership of 10.7 percent. A review of the number of changes in the past few years shows changes from 1980 to the present reveals a low of 5 changes to a high of 15 changes in a year.
Of the six "new" deans and directors in 2000-2001, one was newly appointed in an interim status. Of the five regular appointments, two are male and three are female. Three hold the rank of professor and two associate professor.
Following is a list of the schools with new executive officers in 2000-2001: Iowa (interim dean), LSU (dean), Michigan (dean), Oklahoma (director), Pratt (dean), Southern Connecticut (chair), and Texas (dean).
The breakdown of the administrative titles of the executive officers of the 56 schools on January 1, 2001 is reported in Table I-5. This breakdown 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, 44 (78.6 percent) have the rank of professor, an increase of 7.2 percent over 1999-2000. Of the deans and directors, 34 are males (60.7 percent) and 22 (39.3 percent) are females. Twelve hold the rank of associate professor. Of these, six are males and six are females. Eleven (91.6 percent) of those holding the associate professor rank held tenure at the time of reporting.
Thirty-three of the 34 males (97 percent) who were executive officers on January 1, 2001 had earned doctorates. All 22 female executive officers possessed earned doctorates. The executive officer, who did not hold the doctorate, holds master's degree in library and information science.
Of the 55 doctorates held by deans and directors, 39 (70.9 percent) were in the library and information sciences. This is the same number 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 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 are white and seven are of minority ethnic origin, the same number with minority ethnic origin reported last year. Of the seven with minority origin, three are Black, and one is Hispanic.
Schools were asked to report the ages of the faculty and the deans and directors. This information for heads of the schools is displayed in Table I-7 by five-year categories. This table includes all reporting executive officers serving as of January 1, 2001, including those in an acting capacity.
This table shows that 49 (87.5 percent) of the executive officers were 50 years of age or older on January 1, 2001. This is a larger percentage than the 80.3 percent of last year as well as those figures reported in the last several years. Twelve (21.4 percent) of the deans and directors who held regular appointments were 60 years of age or older as of January 1, 2001. That number was nine 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 from this edition of the report.)
Table I-7-b shows this distribution by gender and indicates that the number of male deans and directors 60 years of age or older is two more than that of female deans. In 1984 through 1990 increases were noted, but in 1983 it was reported that due to the policies in existence in most colleges and universities that require persons holding administrative posts to vacate these positions at age 65, 21.4 percent of the executive officers in 1983 could be expected to retire as deans or directors within five years. This wave of retirements has taken place, and as is evident from the data that the number of person in this category has decreased slightly. The number of deans and directors that are in the 50-54 and 55-59 age categories may indicate that another wave of retirements from program head positions will begin in a few years.
Salary figures as of January 1, 2001 were reported for 54 of the 56 deans and directors. Of the 56 schools, Pittsburgh will not release the Dean's salary and San Jose did not have final salary figures available for 2000-2001. Of the deans and directors, 49 hold fiscal year (11 or 12 month) appointments. Of those holding fiscal year appointments, 29 are male and 20 are female. Five males and two females hold academic year appointments.
In 1999-2000, eleven deans and directors reported salaries of $120,000 or more with the highest being over $200,000. All in this category are in US schools. Ten schools reported executive salaries in the range of $100,000 to $119,000
In 2000-2001, fourteen deans and directors reported salaries of $120,000 or more with the highest being $210,000. All in this category are in US schools. Seven 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 by 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 currently approximately $0.64 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 47 deans and directors with fiscal year salaries (including those in an acting capacity) ranged from a high of $210,000 to a low of $50,364. The mean salary for these deans and directors with fiscal year appointments was $106,172 (median $95,000). The mean salary for Canadian deans and directors was $95,118 (median $90,082). It should be noted that two of them are associate professors.
An analysis of the 7 deans and directors receiving their salaries on an academic year basis shows a range of $110,000 to $50,481. The mean for these deans and directors was $87.229 (median $85.159). All the reported salaries were in US schools.
Of the 47 deans and directors having fiscal year appointments who reported their salaries, (including acting persons), 30 are males and 17 are females. For the 30 males, the mean salary was $107,255 (median $93,990). This is an increase in the mean salary of male deans and directors of $5,026, over January 1, 2000 -- an increase of 4.9 percent. For the 17 female deans and directors who hold fiscal year appointments, the mean salary on January 1, 2001 was $104.260 (median $95,000) -- an increase of $131 (.01 percent). The mean salary increase of male deans and directors is greater than that of their female counterparts.
Salary differentials are evident when one compares them in rank order. The gap between male and female salaries has been narrowing. In 1997-1998, six of the 10 highest salaries received were evenly split between males and females. The top three reported salaries were for males. In 1999-2000 the 10 highest salaries were for males. In 2000-2001, two of the top five salaries are for females. These figures are only estimates since Pittsburgh does not report the salary of its female dean.
Table I-7-c shows that for the reporting 47 deans with fiscal year appointments (including acting deans and heads of Canadian schools), the percentage of increase in the average salary was 2.57 percent, up from the increase of 4.96 percent last year. However, this figure is less meaningful because of changes in the persons holding deanships from year to year. The percentages indicate only the 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 schools represented in the two year periods.
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, 2001, eleven deans and directors had held their administrative positions for ten years or more. This represents approximately 19.6 percent of 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 24 (42.8 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.
Meaningful data regarding the full-time faculty who assist the executive officer in administering the school is difficult to compare because major differences exist in these positions among the schools. In most instances, these faculty members carry out administrative responsibilities, but have reduced teaching loads. Some, however, do not teach, 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 have administrative roles are included. Of the 56 schools in 2000-2001, 13 had full-time faculty serving as associate (assistant, etc.) deans and directors. Two of the 13 schools have two or more faculty members with such appointments, for a total of eight individuals.
In 1999-2000, 18 schools had such positions. In 1980-81, nearly half of the schools had one or more associate (assistant, etc.) deans or directors. In recent years, both the number and the percentage of schools with full-time associate or assistant deans (directors, etc.) have decreased.
It should be noted that only full-time faculty members serving in positions as associate or assistant deans (directors, etc.) are included in this report. A number of schools have individuals (support staff), other than full-time faculty, who serve as administrative assistants to the dean or director. They are reported in Table I-52 as support staff.
New Faculty Appointments
Between January 1, 2000 and January 1, 2001, exclusive of deans and directors, 88 new full-time faculty members were appointed. 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, however, in the total full-time faculty count.
The following table shows the gender of the new faculty members appointed to full-time regular positions in the various faculty ranks between January 1, 2000 and January 1, 2001.
All five new appointments at the professor level received an academic year appointment. All had earned doctorates; one was granted tenure. The age categories are: four in 50-54 and one 45-49.
Of the 13 new associate professors who were not deans or directors, 11 received academic year appointments; all held earned doctorates; and four were granted tenure. Their age categories are: two in 30-39; eight in 40-49; and three in 50-59.
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.
There were 56 new assistant professors appointed to permanent positions in 2000-2001. This compares with 58 last year. Of the 56 new assistant professors appointed in 2000-2001, 26 are male (46.4 percent) and 30 are female (53.6 percent).
Among the 56 new assistant professors, 50 had completed their doctorate by January 2001. The disciplines of the new assistant professors with earned doctorates are distributed into the following fields:
Of the 56 new assistant professors in 2000-2001, six are at Canadian schools. Of the 50 in the US, 29 are White; 12 are Asian or Pacific Islander; five are Black; and four are Hispanic. Age categories were provided as follows:
The salaries reported for the 56 new assistant professors appointed in 2000-2001 ranged from a high of $68,250 to a low of $37,740. The mean salary for the 49 persons with an academic year appointment (which included no Canadian appointments) was $49,798 and the median $48,000.
The mean salary for the 23 males appointed for the academic year to the rank of assistant professor in 2000-2001 was $52,600 (median $50,500). For the 26 females appointed as assistant professors for the academic year, the mean salary was $47,319 (median $46,250).
Table I-11-c shows the mean beginning salaries for assistant professors with academic year appointments since 1991-1992. During those years, females out-distanced their male colleagues' average salary in 1991-1992. Of the 327 of academic year appointments since 1991-1992, females have accounted for 189 (57.8 percent) while males have accounted for 138 (42.2 percent).
All seven new fiscal year appointments at the assistant professor rank had salaries reported for them (Table I-12). During the past 28 years, relatively few fiscal year appointments have been made at the assistant professor level, as compared to those appointed for the academic year.
New Associate Professor and Professor Salaries
Thirteen new appointments were made at the associate professor rank. Eight are male and five female. Salaries were reported for all of them and each had an academic year appointment. These associate professor appointments had a mean salary of $69,250 (median $73,223).
There were five new appointments at the rank of professor: two are male and three females. The mean of reported professor salaries was $86,017 (median $90,000).
New Instructor and Lecturer Salaries
There were five full-time instructors appointed during 2000-2001. Four had academic year appointments. The mean salary of these four appointments was $39.935 (median $38,000).
There were nine full-time lecturers appointed during 2000-2001. The mean salary for the academic year appointments was $37,340 (median $42,000).
Table I-13 allows one to compare 2000-2001 mean and median salaries at each rank with those of a year earlier (1999-2000). Salary figures do not include San Jose. In addition, Pittsburgh withheld two salaries, South Carolina did not provide salary data for one professor and one associate professor (both fiscal year appointments); and Western Ontario did not report a salary for one professor. For 2000-2001, a total of 693 salaries (including deans and directors) were reported.
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. Canadian university salaries are often higher than those in the US. Table I-13-a shows average salaries by US region and Canada. The regions are those used by ALA's Committee on Accreditation. The number of faculty salaries included is shown in parentheses in 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 individual to whom the salary applies.
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 on January 1, 2001 was approximately $.64 US to $1.00 Canadian.
Improvements in the mean faculty salary in 2000-2001 over 1999-2000 at each rank are shown in Table I-14. It should be kept in mind that promotions, resignations, retirements, and new appointments in 2000-2001 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, 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 with fiscal year and academic year appointments.
The schools in the United States were again asked to provide ethnic data for their full-time faculty. Fifty-one schools (including two Canadian schools) that responded to the survey provided the information listed in Table I-17. This represents 647 of the 708 faculty members. Care should be taken when comparing year-to-year percentages because the base number of faculty varies each year.
Table I-18 provides age category data for full-time faculty with academic rank in all 56schools. The percentage of faculty 55 or older as of January 1, 2001 is 36.9 percent. It has been noted in earlier reports that the average age of the faculty has been increasing. While the range of faculty 55 or older has remained at 30 to 34 percent for at least a decade, this year the percentage increased to 36.9. Comparisons 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. Of the faculty member where academic rank was reported, who were employed on January 1, 2001 nearly two-thirds (60.0 percent) of the faculty members had been appointed by their schools in the last ten years (1991-1992 through 2000-2001).
Among the full-time faculty at the 56 schools, there were 27 promotions within the professorial ranks. This compares with 30 last year. Table I-21 compares promotions over the past five years.
The number of earned doctorates held on January 1, 2001 for the faculty population (including Deans and Directors) of 708 reported was 652 (92.1 percent). This is very slight 1.7 percent increase from last year (Table I-22-a). Of the 652 faculty members holding the doctorate, 424 (65.0 percent) had that degree in the library and information sciences (including information systems and technology, information transfer, and information resource management). Of the remaining 248 faculty with doctorates, 225 earned them in other fields. The remaining 23 doctoral areas were undesignated.
Data on the number of faculty with earned doctorates is provided for the last ten years in the following table. The ratio of females and males holding the doctorate has remained approximately equal.
Table I-23 provides a listing of the disciplines other than the library and information sciences in which 225 faculty members held doctorates on January 1, 2001. While deans were asked to be precise in identifying these disciplines in completing the questionnaire, the responses often were not clear, and the provided instructions were frequently given varying interpretations. The fields other than library science, information sciences, and library/information science are quite varied, as has been the case in the past. For example, in the field of education, numerous specific sub-fields are 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 sciences are identified by discipline.
While 92.1 percent of the full-time faculty teaching in the 56 reporting schools had completed doctoral degrees prior to January 1, 2001, the percentage of faculty within individual schools holding the doctorate varied considerably. The range is from a low of 60 percent at one school to a high of 100 percent at 25 schools. Fifty-two schools have faculties of which at least 75 percent hold the doctorate.
Of the 708 full-time faculties in the 56 schools, 56.1 percent had tenure on January 1, 2001. Information on tenure for the last 10 years is reported in Table I-25. As can be seen from this table, the percent of the total faculty who are tenured has not fluctuated significantly from year to year. It also shows, however, there are now 8 percent fewer tenured faculty compared to a decade ago.
Only one school reported having an all-tenured faculty in 2000-2001; that figure varied between two and six schools over the last 10 years. Only one school reported less than 25 percent tenured faculty. Twelve schools have less than 50 percent tenured and 11 schools have tenured faculties of 75 percent or higher. The following table shows the variation among the 56 schools.
The Table I-26-a shows tenure status by rank and gender 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.
Table I-27 that shows faculty salaries (including those for 54 deans and directors) in salary ranges by rank has been omitted this year.
This is the twenty-second 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 implied understanding that the writer would not link specific data with any single school. However, schools that respond to the non-confidential part of the faculty portion of the ALISE questionnaire do so with the understanding that they may be identified with the information submitted. All 56 schools responded and are identified in the tables in Part II.
It is important to note that the data reported in Part II cover 1999-2000, the year previous to the salary data reported in Part I (2000-2001). This means that frequently the data will not be in agreement for a given school for the two time periods.
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 are no data to report, the absence of data is of course ambiguous. It could mean that there are no data to report for the question or it could mean that the school simply did not respond to the question.
Academic Calendar and Full-Time Faculty
The first question in the faculty section of the questionnaire asked 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 1999‑2000 academic year. The answers to this second question also have been included in Table I-41. The full-time faculty data reported here are for the academic year prior to that presented in Part I of this report. The 56 schools report a total of 675 faculty members for the 1999 fall semester for an average of 12.1 faculty members per school. These figures do not include the reported 49 vacant positions. The total reported for 1998-1999, with 56 schools reporting, was 633 faculty for an average of 11.3 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 516 persons in these categories taught courses during the 1999 fall term. This represents an estimated FTE of 163.82, bringing the total faculty force to approximately 871.78 (1,224 persons). In terms of individuals (not FTE) part-time faculty make up about 42.1 percent of total faculty strength, a decrease of 3.0 percent over last year.
Question 4 asked for the average percentage of salary improvement for full-time faculty in 1999-2000. Question 5 then asked the basis on which improvements in faculty salaries were made. The responses to these questions are presented in Table I-45
Among the schools that provided data on the percentage of salary improvement, two schools indicated zero increases. Overall, improvement ranged from a low of 1 percent to a high of 9 percent, with an average of 4.2 percent for the 51 schools reporting increases. Twelve schools reported increases of less than 3 percent
The reports of previous years note that it is common to replace senior faculty members who retire, resign, or otherwise leave a school, with individuals at lower ranks than had been held by those being replaced. This practice has been followed for many years. In 1999-2000, however, 52.3 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 1999-2000. Schools also were asked to indicate the rank of the individual(s) who was/were replaced and the rank of the replacement(s). In 1999-2000, a total of 44 faculty replacements were made in 26 schools. Of these 21 were at a lower rank; 20 at the same rank; and three at a higher rank.
Unfilled Faculty Positions
The seventh question on the questionnaire asked schools to indicate if there were full-time positions, for which funding was available, during 1999-2000 which went unfilled. 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. 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.
Table I-47-a shows that 54 unfilled full-time faculty positions are reported for 27 schools in 1999-2000. Last year's report indicated that there were 49 vacancies despite the availability of funding for the positions. The explanations provided for positions vacant this year have been derived from the data reported by the schools. The explanations indicate that approximately half of the unfilled openings were, as in the past, at the rank of assistant professor. However, a wide distribution of vacancies among the ranks was reported: assistant (17), associate (6), professor (4), undesignated (18), and open (9). Also, as in the past, the reasons for unfilled positions vary. However, the majority of the schools reporting unfilled positions indicate a somewhat even distribution among: lack of success in getting appropriate candidates; and that searches were in progress or completed. A few schools continue to use vacant position salaries for alternative uses. Finally, at a few schools, unrelated, local conditions seem to be reflected.
Question 7 on the questionnaire sought to identify full-time faculty positions that were temporarily unfilled in 1999-2000, but for which funding has been available. However, Question 8 asks the schools to indicate whether faculty positions had actually been lost in 1999-2000. 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 simply required that the number of full-time faculty be reduced. Three schools reported a total loss of three positions.
This year's three positions lost is less than that of last year -- four. The trend apparent in previous years continues to slow. 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 recent years.
New Faculty Positions
Question 9 requested schools to indicate whether additional (new) faculty positions, with new funding, had been created in the schools in 1999-2000. As shown in Table I-47-c, 20 schools reported a total of 37 new positions. This represents a net gain of 34 positions when the 3 positions noted in the previous table are 34 factored in. Last year 14 schools reported 21 new positions with a net gain of 17 positions.
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 actual salaries paid. This percentage is often required in making grant proposals that will include faculty salaries. It frequently is taken into account by applicants for faculty appointments as they compute the total compensation of an offer. Fifty-five schools reported an average percentage of approximately 27.1 percent (range of 10.1 to 56.8) for 1999-2000. A few schools show variation in the percentage over the last five years. While a few schools reported increases, others reported a decrease for the same period. It may be that the variation in these percentages, as reported by the deans and directors, results from differing methods of computing this percentage.
Questions 11 and 12 of the questionnaire pertain to funding for professional travel. Question 11 asked the number of faculty, including the dean or director, who received travel funds in 1999-2000. Question 12 requested the total amount of funding for professional travel used by the school's faculty in 1999-2000, 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 1999-2000, the range among the schools was from a low of $2,488 to a high of $243,000 (median: $13,775. For individual faculty members who received travel funds, the average varied from a reported low of $650 to a high of $15,188 (median: $1,596). For the same period a total of 579 faculty members were reported as having received travel funds. They shared a total of $1,372,651in travel money amounting to an average of $2,371 per person. The mean per school for travel $24,512 in 1999-2000 compared to $20,567 per school in 1998-1999. It is difficult to know if these figures are meaningful since schools are not consistent as to whether or not data on expenditures as recruitment, accreditation visits, or visiting faculty had been excluded. The questionnaire asked 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.
The 13th question on the faculty section of the questionnaire pertains to sabbatical leaves for faculty. A total of 28 schools granted funds for sabbatical or study leaves during 1999-2000, compared to 20 in 1998-1999. Details are provided in Table I-51. Three schools (Pratt, Tennessee, and Texas Woman's) indicated that no such leaves are granted at their institutions.
The final question in the faculty section of the ALISE questionnaire pertains to the support staff available to 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 on the questionnaire 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 2 or more of the above categories that individual is reported 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.
Table I-52 shows that the total FTE of support staff (exclusive of students) varied from a low of 1.0 to a high of 67 (mean: 8.0). 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 52.8 percent (236.4 Staff)
Instructional Support 8.9 percent (40.1 Staff)
Research Support 6.9 percent (34.0 Staff)
Media Support 1.7 percent (7.5 Staff)
Library Personnel 8.8 percent (39.4 Staff)
Computer Lab Personnel 13.9 percent (62.3 Staff)
Other 6.5 percent (29.1 Staff)
"Other" includes professional development (5 schools); marketing/public relations/development (5 schools); placement (2 schools); information technology coordinator, publications, and learning lab support (1 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.