FACULTY

by

Timothy W. Sineath

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 sciencelibrary and information science education programs accredited by the American Library Association (ALA) on January 1, 2002.

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, resulting in a total of 56 schools.

Part I of the faculty section is based upon data reported by the participating schools as of January 1, 2002. Part II, however provides information that pertained to the schools during the fiscal year 2000‑-2001 (July l, 2000 to June 30, 2001). Data is also provided this year for 2001--2002 to bring the two parts into agreementtogether. 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.

PART I

This is the twenty-ninth 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 sixteenth 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 offers of the 56 schools accredited by ALA on January 1, 2002.

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, 2002. 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., o Off-campus teaching, or other over-load compensations were also excluded. Faculty members on sabbatical leave during 2001-022001-2002 2002 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 728, up from 708 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 728, since this figure is the total of the FTE faculty of the reporting schools. The base number for some analyses may be fewer depending on the number of persons reported for 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 atin two schools to a high of 34 atin one school. The average faculty size (excluding reported unfilled positions) was 12.6. This is , which an increase over last year’s figure of 13.0. 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, 2002 among the 56 schools. This table It shows that 1715 (30.428.7 percent) of the 56 schools had full-time faculties of nine or fewer persons, including the dean or director. This represents a decrease of fiveoursix schools in the number of schools in this category compared toover 2000-2001 . The most common faculty sizes (i.e., the most schools with a particular faculty sizesize of the largest number of schools) in 2001-20022000-2001 areis eight and ten. with s Seven schools reporting facultiesy of these sizes. However, Table I-2 shows a wide range in size of faculty size among the schools.the number of schools among the sizes indicated.

Of the 725 regular faculty reporting gender, including the deans and directors, on January 1, 2002, in the 56 schools, 366 (50.5 percent) are malesmale, 359 (49.5 percent) are femalesfemale. 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. TOvereall, the ratio has changed very little in that 25 years period. during the entire 25 year time period in terms of . In terms of the total number of faculty, in 2001-2002 almost an exact 1:1 ratio of malesmales and femalesfemales exists.

Table I1-4 reports the 2001-2002 male/female ratio of full-time faculty by rank compared to that of in comparison with that of 2000-2001. Thise table also shows the current year in contrast to that of ten years ago: 1992‑-1993. 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 1992-1993, 48.341.4 percent of the faculty in all ranks (including deans and directors) werewas femalesfemale. In the past, there have been larger changes at specific academic ranks. The rank at which the most significant increases in the number of femalesfemale has been typically at the assistant professor level.

Deans and Directors

Among the 56 schools, there were five changes in appointments of executive officerschief executive officers between January 1, 2001 and January 1, 2002. This represents a change in leadership of 8.9 percent. A review of the number of changes in the past few years shows changes in the years from 1980 to the present shows lows of 5 changes to a high of 15 changes in a year.

Of the five "new" deans and directors in 2001-2002, two were newly appointed in an interim status. Of the three regular appointments, two are male and one is female. All three hold the rank of professor.

Following is a list of the schools with new executive officerschief executive officers in 2001-2002: Arizona (Ddirector), Illinois (interim dean), Maryland (interim dean), North Carolina Greensboro (chair), and Texas (dean)

The breakdown of the administrative titles of the executive officerschief executive officers of the 56 schools on January 1, 2002 is reported in Table I-5. This breakdown includes the acting deans or directors.

Of the 55 deans and directors (and persons holding the title of chair), including those holding acting or temporary status, 41 (74.5 percent) have the rank of professor., This represents a decrease of 4.1 percent over 2000-2001. Of the deans and directors, 34 are malesmale (61.8 percent) and 21 (38.1 percent) are femalesfemale. Fourteen (25 percent) hold the rank of associate professor. Of these, eight are malesmale and six are femalesfemale. Thirteen (92.8 percent) (92.8 percent) of those holding the associate professor rank held tenure at the time of reporting.

All 34 malesmale who were executive officerschief executive officers on January 1, 2002 had earned doctorates. Similarly, Aall 21 female executive officerschief executive officers possessed earned doctorates. One chief executive officer position was vacant.

Of the 55 doctorates held by deans and directors, 40 (72.7 percent) were in the library and information scienceslibrary and information science. This number has increased slightly over the number (39) that reported last year. Two of the new deans (including interim) hold doctorates in fields other than the library and information scienceslibrary and information science.

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

US Sschools were asked to indicate the ethnic origin of deans and directors. Of the 48 deans and directors of those schools located in the US, 44 are white and four are of minority ethnic origin. Of the four with minority origin, three are Black, and one is Hispanic.

Age

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 officerschief executive officers serving as of January 1, 2002, including those in an acting capacity.

This table shows that 49 (87.5 percent) of the executive officerschief executive officers were 50 years of age or older on January 1, 2002. This is the same percentage reported last year. Eleven (19.6 percent) of the deans and directors who held regular appointments were 60 years of age or older. as of January 1, 2002. Theat number reported last year was 12, last year, but has varied little over recent years. When acting or temporary appointments are excluded, little difference in the relative percentages in tthe 60 and over he age group occurs. (

Table I-7-a in the past a that has reported ages of only permanent chief executive officers. Because of the low variability that table is heads is, then unnecessary this year and is being omitted from this edition of the rReport.)

Table I-7-b shows this distribution by gender of deans and directors. It and indicates that the number of male deans and directors 60 or more years of age is three less than the number of female deans in that age group.or older is two more than that of female deans. In 1984 through 1990 increases were noted, but iIn 1983 it was reported that due to the policies in existence in many colleges and universities that require persons holding administrative posts to vacate these positions at age 65, 21.4 percent of the executive officerschief executive officers in 1983 could be expected to retire as deans or directors within the next five years. Thatis wave of retirements has taken place, and is reflected in the as is evident from the data that the number of persons in thatis age category has decreasing slightly.has decreased slightly. The number of deans and directors that are in the 50-54 and 55-59 age categories suggests may indicate that another wave of retirements from chief executive program head positions maywill begin in a few years.

Salaries

Salary figures as of January 1, 2002 were reported for 54 of the 56 deans and directors. Of the 56 schools, Pittsburgh wouldill not release the Ddean's salary and Clarion did not designate a director. Of the deans and directors, 48 hold fiscal year (11 or 12 month) appointments. Of those holding fiscal year appointments, 31 are male and 17 are female. Five malesmales and two femalesfemales hold academic year appointments.

In 2000-2001, fourteen deans and directors reported salaries of $120,000 or more with the highest being in excess ofover $210,000. All in this category are in US schools. Ten schools reported chief executive salaries in the range of $100,000 to $119,000

In 2001-2002, fifteen deans and directors reported salaries of $120,000 or more with the highest being $218,000. 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 USD to $1.00 CANanadian. 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 U.S. 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 46 deans and directors with fiscal year salaries (including those in an acting capacity) ranged from a high of $218,000 to a low of $67,613. The mean salary for these deans and directors with fiscal year appointments was $112,983 (median $102,351). The mean salary for Canadian deans and directors was $94,053 (median $94,044). It should be noted that two of the Canadian deans and directors them are associate professors.

An analysis of the 8 deans and directors receiving their salaries on an academic year basis shows a range of $157,000 to $53,224. The mean for these deans and directors was $82.840 (median $76,650). All the reported salaries were in US schools.

Of the 46 deans and directors having fiscal year appointments who reported their salaries, (including those serving in an acting capacityacting persons), 31 are malesmale and 15 are femalesfemale. For the malesmales, the mean salary was $117,563 (median $110,967). This is an increase in the mean salary of male deans and directors of $10,308, over January 1, 2001 -- an increase of 9.6 percent. For the female deans and directors who hold fiscal year appointments, the mean salary on January 1, 2002 was $103.517 (median $97,726). This represents , for an increase of $5,791 (5.5 percent).

Salary differentials are evident when one compares them in a ranked 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 malesmale and femalesfemale. The top three reported salaries were for malesmale. In 1999-2000 the 10 highest salaries were for malesmale. In 2000-2001 and in 2001-2002, two of the top five salaries are for femalesfemale. These figures are only estimates since It should be reiterated that Pittsburgh does not report the salary of its female dean.

Table I-7-c shows that for the reporting 46 deans with fiscal year appointments (including acting deans and heads of Canadian schools), the percentage of increase in the average salary was 6.4 percent, up from the increase of 2.57 percent increase of 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 55 deans and directors with regular orand acting appointments atin the schools where they presently serve. This As the table shows that, as ofon January 1, 2002, seven deans and directors had held their administrative positions for ten years or more. This represents approximately 12.75 percent of deans. At the other end of the longevity spectrum, 26 deans and directors have been appointed to their present position since 1998, a period of only three years. Thirty-five deans and directors and 35 (62.5 percent) have served for five years or less. This is further evidence of the a great deal of change occurring in library and information science education leadership. It also and indicates thea high rate of turnover among executive officerschief 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 or Directors

Meaningful data regarding the full-time faculty who assist the chief 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 at all, but devote their entire time to administrative responsibilities. FurtherAlso, the nature of the administrative roles, as well as the rewards for this service, differ widely including in 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” and who as well as have administrative roles are included. Of the 56 schools in 2001-2002, 16 had full-time faculty serving as associate (assistant, etc.) deans and directors (Table I-9). Two of the 13 schools hadve two faculty members with such appointments, for a total of four individuals.

In 2000-2001, 13 schools (23.2 percent) had associate/assistant dean or directors such positions. In 1980-81, nearly half of the schools had one or more associate/assistant (assistant, etc.) deans or directors. In recent years, both the number and the percentage of schools with such full-time positions 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

During the 2001-2002 academic year, exclusive of deans and directors, 91 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.

Characteristics

Table I-11 shows the gendersex of the new faculty members appointed to full-time regular positions in the various faculty ranks for the 2001-2002 academic and fiscal years.

Four of the five new appointments at the professor level received an academic year appointments. All had earned doctorates; all were granted tenure. Their distribution by age categories are: three in 50‑-54, one 45-49, and one in 60-64.

Of the 13 new associate professors who were not deans or directors, eight8 received academic year appointments.; Aall held earned doctorates; and four (30.8 percent) were granted tenure. Their age distribution iscategories are: three in 40-44, five in 45-49, three in 50-59, and two in 55-59.

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 60 new assistant professors appointed to permanent positions in 2001-2002. This compares with 56 in 2000-2001last year. Of the 60 new assistant professors appointed, 32 are male (53.3 percent) and 28 are female (46.6 percent).

Of Among the 60 new assistant professors, 52 had completed their doctorate by January 1, 2002. The disciplines of the new assistant professors with earned doctorates are distributed acrossinto the following fields (Table I-11-a).

Seven ofOf the 60 new assistant professors in 2001-2002, seven are at Canadian schools. These schools do not required to report ethnic data of their faculty. Of the 53 new assistant professors in the US, 41 (68.3 percent) are White; seven (11.7 percent) are Asian or Pacific Islander; two (3.3 percent) are Black; two are Hispanic (3.3 percent each), and one “other”. Age categories were provided in Table I-11-b.

Salaries

The salaries reported for the 60 new assistant professors appointed in 2001-2002 ranged from a high of $85,500 to a low of $30,000. The mean salary for the 47 persons with an academic year appointment (which included no Canadian appointments) was $53,017 and the median $50,000.

The mean salary for the 25 malesmale appointed for the academic year to the rank of assistant professor was $57,039 (median $55,000). For the 22 femalesfemale appointed as assistant professors for the academic year, the mean salary was $48,445 (median $45,000).

Table I-11-c shows the mean beginning salaries for assistant professors with academic year appointments since 1992-1993. Of the 356 of academic year appointments since 1992-1993, femalesfemale have accounted for 198 (55.6 percent) while malesmale have accounted for 158 (44.4 percent) of those appointments.

All thirteen new fiscal year appointments at the assistant professor rank had salaries reported for them (Table I-12). During the past 29 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. Seven are male and six female. Eight had academic year appointments. These academic year appointments had a mean salary of $68,112 (median $66,250). Five had fiscal year appointments with a mean salary of $75,208 (median $82,000).

There were five new appointments at the rank of professor: two are male and three femalesfemale. The mean of reported professor salaries was $86,377 (median $63,000).

New Instructor and Lecturer Salaries

There were seven full-time instructors appointed during 2001-2002. Four had academic year appointments. The mean salary of these four appointments was $42,391 (median $42,781).

There were six full-time lecturers appointed during 2001-2002. The mean salary for the academic year appointments was $47,814 (median $48,000).

All Faculty

Salaries

Table I-13 allows one to compare 2001-2002 mean and median salaries at each rank with those of a year earlier (2000-012000-20012001). Salary figures do not include Puerto Rico. In addition, Pittsburgh withheld the dean’s salary, South Carolina did not provide salary data for one associate professor (fiscal year appointment); and Clarion did not designate a dean or director. For 2001-2002, a total of 717 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.

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. (12 of 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, Dalhousie, McGill, Montréal, Toronto, Western Ontario. (All 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 on January 1, 2002 was approximately $.64 USD to $1.00 CANanadian.

Improvements in the mean faculty salary in 2001-20022000-2001 over 2000-20011999-2000 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 malesmales and femalesfemales. While the mean salaries of male deans and directors with fiscal year appointments exceeds thoseexceed those of females holding those positions. Female deans and directors with academic year appointments have a higher mean salary than their male counterparts..Female dean and director salaries exceed those of males. Male salaries exceed female salaries in all ranks with fiscal year and academic year appointments.

Ethnic Background

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 664 of the 728 full-time faculty members. Care should be taken when comparing year-to-year percentages because the base number of faculty varies each year.

Age

Table I-18 provides age category data for full-time faculty with academic rank forin all 56 schools. The percentage of faculty 55 or older as of January 1, 2002 is 36.5 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 slightly. 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. For each faculty member whose rank was reported, who was employed on January 1, 2002 whose rank was reported nearly two-thirds (65.9 percent) of the faculty members had been appointed by their schools in the last ten years (1992-1993 through 2001-2002).

Promotions

Among the full-time faculty at the 56 schools, there were 20 promotions within the professorial ranks. This compares with 21 last year. Table I-21 compares promotions over the past five years.

Doctorates

The number of earned doctorates held on January 1, 2002 for the faculty population of 725 reporting (including Deans and Directors) was 654 (90.2 percent). This is decrease from last year (Table I-22-a). Of the faculty members holding the doctorate, 387 (59.2 percent) had that degree in the library and information sciencelibrary and information scienceslibrary and information science (including information systems and technology, information transfer, and information resource management). Of the remaining faculty with doctorates, 237 earned them in other fields. The remaining 30 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 femalesfemale and malesmale holding the doctorate has remained approximately equal.

Table I-23 provides a listing of the disciplines other than the library and information sciencelibrary and information scienceslibrary and information science in which faculty members held doctorates. 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 90.2 percent of the full-time faculty in all the 56 schools had completed doctoral degrees prior to January 1, 2002, 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 23 schools. Fifty-one schools have faculties of which at least 75 percent hold the doctorate.

Tenure

Of the 725 full-time faculty in at the 56 schools, 56.3 percent had tenure on January 1, 2002. 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.

No school reported having an all-tenured faculty in 2001-2002; that figure varied between one and six schools over the last 10 years. Two schools reported less than 25 percent tenured faculty. Eleven schools have less than 50 percent tenured and 15 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 officerschief 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.

PART II

This is the twenty-third 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 includes data from 2000-2001 and

2001-2002. In past years data from Parts I and II were from different years.

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 fFall 2000 and the sSummer and fFall of 2001 terms. Thisese data is have been included in Table I-41. The 56 schools report a total of 695 faculty members for the 2000 fFall semester with an average of 12.4 faculty members per school. The total reported for fFall 2001 was 719 with an average of 12.8 per school. These figures do not include reported vacant positions. The total reported for Fall 1999-2000 was 675 faculty for with 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 586 persons in these categories taught courses during the 2000 Ffall term. This represents an estimated FTE of 177.25, bringing raising the total faculty force to approximately 872.25 FTE faculty (1,281 persons). In terms of individuals (not FTE) part-time faculty make up aboutcomprise 47.6 percent of total faculty strength -- an increase of 5.5 percent over last year. Table 43 also shows that 595 persons taught as adjunct clinical etc. faculty inin fFall 2001. This is an estimateda FTE of 176.495, bringing the total to 895.49 5 (1314 persons. This represents 45.3 percent of the total faculty strength for Fall 2001– a decrease of 2.3 percent over fall 2000.

Salary Improvement

Question 4 to the Faculty questionnaire asked for the average percentage of salary improvement for full-time faculty in 2000-2001 and in 20001-2002. Question 5 then asked the basis on which improvements in faculty salaries were made. The responses to these questions are presented in

Tables I-45 and I-45a.

Among the 54 schools that provided data on the percentage of salary improvement for 2000-2001, three schools (5.6 percent) indicated zero increases. Overall, improvement ranged from a low of 1.0 percent to a high of 11 percent, with for an average of 4.28 3 percent for the 51 schools reporting increases. Eight schools reported increases of less than 3 percent.

Among the 46 schools that provided data for 2001-2002, three schools (6.5 percent) indicated zero increases. Overall improvement ranged from a low of 1.00 percent to a high of 12.8 percent, with an average of 4.061 percent for the 432 schools reporting increases in percentage terms.

Faculty Replacements

The reports of previous years noted 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 2000-2001, however, 60.7 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 2000-2001. Schools also were asked to indicate the rank of the individual(s) who was/were replaced and the rank of the replacement(s). In 2000-2001, a total of 56 faculty replacements were made in 34 schools. Of these 22 were at a lower rank; 32 at the same rank; and two 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 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. Schools were also asked to indicate the rank and the reason the position was not filled. 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.

In Table I-47-a-1 shows that 36 unfilled full-time faculty positions are were reported for 24 schools in 2000-2001. Despite the availability of funding for the positions, l Last year's report indicated that there were 27 such 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 (15), associate (1), professor (4), undesignated (13), and open (3). 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.

In Table I-47-a-2 47 unfilled full-time positions are reported for 24 schools for 2001-022001-2002. The following distribution of ranks was reported: assistant (12), associate (4), professor (5), undesignated (19), and open (7).

Positions Lost

Question 7 on the questionnaire seeks to identify full-time faculty positions that were temporarily unfilled in 2000-012000-2001, but for which funding has been available. However, Question 8 asks the schools to indicate whether faculty positions had actually been lost in 2000-012000-2001. 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 loss is the same as that of previous year. The trend apparent in previous years continues to slow. While some schools cannot hire new faculty due to budget constraints, few have actually lost the faculty lines.

New Faculty Positions

Question 9 asks schools to indicate whether additional (new) faculty positions, with new funding, had been created in the schools in 2000-012000-2001. As shown in Table I-47-c, 24 schools reported a total of 36 new positions. This represents a net gain of 33 positions when the 3 positions noted in the previous table are factored in. Last year 20 schools reported 34 new positions

Benefits

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 for 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, and it also is often taken into account by applicants for faculty appointments as they compute the total compensation of an offer. Fifty-four schools reported an average percentage of approximately 26.9 percent (range of 11.9 to 56.8 percent) for 2001-022001-2002. A few schools show variation in the percentage over the last five years. While a fewseveral schools reported increases, others reported a decreases 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.

Professional Travel

Questions 11 and 12 of the questionnaire pertain to funding for professional travel. Question 11 asks the number of faculty, exincluding the dean or director, who received travel funds in 2000-012000-2001. Question 12 requests the total amount of funding for professional travel used by the school's faculty, exclusive of the dean or director, in 2000-012000-2001, 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 should be cautioned that in comparing table I-49 in this year’s report to that of previous reports that this is the first year that deans and directors travel funds have been excluded from the total travel funding reported. Thus this is the first year in which reports exclusively only faculty travel.

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 2000-012000-2001, the range among the schools was from a low of $2,500 to a high of $317,000 (median: $13,500). For individual faculty members who received travel funds, the average varied from a reported low of $420 to a high of $21,600 (median: $1,660). For the same period a total of 537 faculty members were reported as having received travel funds. They shared a total of $1,371,274 in travel money amounting to an average of $2,554 per person. The mean per school for the 54 schools reporting amounts for individuals was $25,394 in 2000-2001 compared to $24,512 per school in 1999-2000. 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 had 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.

Sabbatical Leave

The 13th question on the faculty section of the questionnaire pertains to sabbatical or sabbatical like leaves for faculty. A total of 29 schools granted funds for sabbatical or study leaves during 2000-2001, compared to 28 in 1999-2000. Details are provided in Table I-51. Four schools (North Carolina- Central, North Texas, Tennessee, and Texas Woman's) 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 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 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.

Tables I-52 and 52a, the total FTE of support staff (exclusive of students) varied in 2000-012000-2001 and 2001-20021 from a low of 1.0 to a high of 61.7 (mean for 2000-012000-2001: 8.17 and for 2001-022001-2002: 8.42). 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.

	Fall 2000		Fall 2001
Administrative Support Administrative Support	49.1 %	224.86 staff	52.0 %	245.64 staff
Instructional Support Instructional Support	9.4 %	43.125 staff	8.8 %	41.425 staff
Research Support Research Support	8.0 %	36.55 staff	8.1 %	38.35 staff
Media Support Media Support	2.3 %	10.63 staff	1.8 %	8.63 staff
Library Personnel Library Personnel	10.4 %	47.475 staff	8.4 %	39.625 staff
Computer lab/ technology support Computer lab/ technology support	12.5 %	57.24 staff	12.6 %	59.46 staff
Other	8.2 %	37.7 staff	8.2 %	38.8 staff

"Other" includes professional development; marketing/public relations/development; placement; information technology coordinator, publications, and learning lab support. Some schools reported staff in more than one of these categories.

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