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, 2003. Fifty-five of the 56 schools reported data for Part I. Rhode Island reported no data. For most tables the data reflect only the 55 reporting schools. In a few instances data for Rhode Island are those the school reported for the previous report, i.e., for January 1, 2002.
Part II of the faculty section of this report has been compiled from information provided by the 55 of the schools in response to the faculty section of the general questionnaire prepared for the Association for Library and Information Science Education. Again, Rhode Island was the sole school that did not report any faculty data for Part II. The schools are listed in the tables, where appropriate, resulting in a total of 55 schools.
Part I of the faculty section is based upon data reported by the participating schools as of January 1, 2003. Part II, however provides information that pertained to the schools during either the fiscal year 2001-2002 (July l, 2001 to June 30, 2002) or Fall 2002. 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 thirtieth 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 seventeenth 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 55 of the 56 schools accredited by ALA on January 1, 2003.
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, 2003. 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 during 2002-2003 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 758, up from 728 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 758, since this figure is the total of the full-time faculty of the reporting schools. The base number for some analyses may be fewer 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 55 schools ranged from a low of five in two schools to a high of 34 in one school. The average faculty size (excluding reported unfilled positions) was 13.8, 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, 2003 among the 56 schools. This table shows that 10 (33.9 percent) of the 56 schools had full-time faculties of nine or fewer persons, including the dean or director. This represents a increase of four in the number of schools in this category over January 1, 2002 .The most common faculty sizes (i.e., the faculty size of the greatest number of schools) is 12. Seven schools report faculty of this size. Table I-2, however, shows a wide range in the number of schools in terms of faculty size.
Of the 758 regular faculty as January 1, 2003 in the 56 schools for whom gender was reported, including the deans and directors, 373 (49.2 percent) are male, 385 (50.8 percent) are female. An examination of Table I-3 shows that this is virtually the same ratio as reported 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. The ratio has changed very little during the entire time period. In terms of the total number of faculty, again for 2002-2003, there exists an almost an exact 1:1 ratio of males and females.
Table 1-4 reports the 2002-2003 male/female ratio of full-time faculty by rank compared to 2001-2002. The table also shows the current year in contrast to 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, 41.4 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.
DEANS AND DIRECTORS
Among the 56 schools, there were eight changes in appointments of executive officers between January 1, 2002 and January 1, 2003. This represents a change in leadership of 14.3 percent. A review of the number of changes from 1980 to the present shows lows of 5 changes to a high of 15 changes in a year.
Of the eight "new" deans and directors in 2002, one was newly appointed in an interim status. Of the seven regular appointments, three are male and four are female. Four hold the rank of professor and three the rank of associate professor.
The following are the schools with new executive officers in 2002: California –Los Angeles (chair), Hawaii (chair), Iowa (director), Pittsburgh (dean), Simmons (dean), Southern Mississippi (director), Texas (dean), and Wisconsin-Milwaukee (interim dean).
The breakdown of the administrative titles of the executive officers of the 56 schools on January 1, 2003 is reported in Table I-5. This breakdown includes acting deans or directors.
Of the 56 deans and directors (and persons holding the title of chair), including those holding acting or temporary status, 37 (66.1 percent) have the rank of professor, a decrease of 8.4 percent over 2001. Of the deans and directors, 33 are male (58.9 percent) and 23 (41.0 percent) are female. Nineteen (33.9 percent) hold the rank of associate professor. Of these, six are male and 13 are female. All of those holding the associate professor rank held tenure at the time of reporting.
Thirty-two of the 33 males (97 percent) who were executive officers on January 1, 2003 had earned doctorates. All 23 female executive officers possessed earned doctorates.
Of the 55 doctorates held by deans and directors, 40 (72.7 percent) were in the library and information sciences. This number has increased slightly over that reported last year.
Table I-6 shows the disciplines of the doctorates held by deans and directors of the schools.
U.S. Schools were asked to indicate the ethnic origin of deans and directors. Of the 51 deans and directors of schools reporting ethnic origins (including some Canadian schools), 44 are white and four are of minority ethnicity. Of the four with minority origin, three are Black, and one Hispanic.
Schools were asked to report ages of both the faculty and the deans and directors. This information for heads of the schools is displayed in Table I-7-a in five-year categories. This table includes all 56 executive officers serving as of January 1, 2003, including those in an acting capacity.
This table shows that 51 (91.1 percent) of the executive officers were 50 years of age or older on January 1, 2003. This is the same percentage reported last year. Fourteen (25 percent) of the deans and directors who held regular appointments were 60 years of age or older as of January 1, 2003. That number was 11 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-b shows this age distribution of executive officers by gender. It reveals that male deans and directors 60 years of age or older constitute 64.3 percent of those in this age group.
In 1984 through 1990 increases were noted, but in 1983 it was reported that due to the policies in existence in many colleges and universities that required persons holding administrative posts to vacate those positions at age 65, 21.4 percent of the executive officers in 1983 could be expected to retire as dean or director within five years. This wave of retirements has taken place, but as is evident from the data, the number of person in this age category has increased 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 of executive officers may have begun.
Salary figures as of January 1, 2003 were reported for 54 of the 56 deans and directors. Of the two absent schools, Pittsburgh will not release the dean's salary. Data for Rhode Island, which did not respond to data requests, were derived from the previous year’s data submission for January 1, 2002. Of the 56 deans and directors, 47 hold fiscal year (11 or 12 month) appointments. Of those holding fiscal year appointments, 30 are male and 17 are female. Three male and six female deans and directors hold academic year appointments.
As of January 1, 2003, 16 deans and directors reported salaries of $125,000 or more with the highest $243,000. All in this category are in US schools. Eleven schools reported executive salaries in the range of $100,000 to $124,000. As has been noted previously, 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 between the US (USD) and the Canadian dollar (CAD) is approximately $0.47 USD to $1.00 CAD. 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 47 deans and directors with fiscal year salaries (including those in an acting capacity) ranged from a high of $241,000 to a low of $64,512. The mean salary for these deans and directors with fiscal year appointments was $112,454 (median $105,915). The mean salary for Canadian deans and directors was $98,769 (median $105,915). It should be noted that three of the deans and directors are associate professors.
An analysis of the 9 deans and directors receiving their salaries on an academic year basis shows a range of $53,772 to $125,483 The mean for these deans and directors was $73,911 (median $69,500). All the reported academic year salaries were in US schools.
Of the 46 deans and directors having fiscal year appointments who reported their salaries, (including acting persons), 29 are males and 17 are females. For the males, the mean salary was $115,489 (median $106,745). This is a decrease in the mean salary of male deans and directors of $2,074, over January 1, 2002. For the female deans and directors who hold fiscal year appointments, the mean salary on January 1, 2003 was $107.099 (median $96,514), for an increase of $3,582 (3.5 percent).
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 2001-2002 and in 2002-2003, two of the top five salaries are for females.
Table I-7-c shows that for the 46 deans with fiscal year appointments (including acting deans and heads of Canadian schools), the average salary decreased by .04 percent, down from the increase of 6.4 percent the previous 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, 2003, nine deans and directors had held their administrative positions for ten years or more. This represents 16.1 percent of deans. At the other end of the longevity spectrum, 28 deans and directors (50 percent) have been appointed to their present position since 1999, a period of only three years and 31 (55.3 percent) have served for five years or less. This is further evidence of the 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 both the US and Canada. From all indications this is a continuing trend in higher education administration generally.
Associate (Assistant, etc.) Deans and Directors
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 having administrative roles are included in the analysis. Of the 56 schools in 2002-2003, 12 had full-time faculty serving as associate (assistant, etc.) deans and directors (Table I-9). Five of the 12 schools had two or more faculty members with such appointments for a total of 13 individuals.
In 2001-2002, 16 schools had associate (assistant, etc.) dean and director positions. In 1980‑1981, nearly half the schools had one or more full-time faculty serving as associate (assistant, etc.) deans or directors. In recent years, both the number and the percentage of schools with full-time associate (assistant, etc.) deans and directors have decreased.
It should be noted again that only full-time faculty members serving in positions as associate (assistant, etc.) deans and directors 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 2002-2003 academic year, exclusive of deans and directors, 94 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 ten 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 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.
Table I-11 shows the gender of the new faculty members appointed to full-time regular, i.e., non-dean/director, positions in the various faculty ranks for the 2002-2003 academic and fiscal years.
Of the 19 new associate professors who were not deans or directors, 16 received academic year appointments; all held earned doctorates; and none were granted tenure. Their age categories are: one 30-34, one 35-39, two 40-44, five 45-49, four 50-59, five 55-59, and one 60-64.
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 2002-2003. This compares with 60 last year. Of the 56 new assistant professors appointed, 26 are male (46.4 percent) and 30 are female (53.6 percent).
Among the 56 new assistant professors, 51 had completed their doctorate by January 2003. The disciplines of the new assistant professors with earned doctorates were distributed into the following fields (Table I-11-a)
Of the 56 new assistant professors in 2002-2003, five are at Canadian schools. Of the 51 in the US, 36 (70.6 percent) are White; nine (17.6 percent) are Asian or Pacific Islander; nine (17.6 percent) are Black; and two (3.9 percent) are Hispanic. Their age categories are as follows in Table I-11-b.
The salaries reported for the 56 new assistant professors appointed in 2002-2003 ranged from a high of $87,500 to a low of $22,500. The mean salary for the 46 persons with an academic year appointment (which included no Canadian appointments) was $55,183 (median $52,000).
The mean salary for the 22 males with academic year appointments to the rank of assistant professor was $54,632 (median $53,500). For the 24 females appointed as assistant professors for the academic year, the mean salary was $53,500 (median $51,450).
Table I-11-c shows the mean beginning salaries for assistant professors with academic year appointments since 1993-1994. Of the 382 academic year appointments since 1993-1994, females have accounted for 213 (55.8 percent) while males have accounted for 169 (44.2 percent).
All ten new fiscal year appointments at the assistant professor rank had salaries reported for them. During the past 30 years, relatively few fiscal year appointments have been made at the assistant professor level compared to the number appointed for the academic year.
Table I-12 presents the distribution of salaries of the 66 new assistant professors within $1,000 group for those with academic year appointments. The gender of the appointments within each group are also provided.
New Associate Professor and Professor Salaries
Nineteen new appointments were made at the associate professor rank. Seven of these new appointment were male and nine female. Sixteen had academic year appointments. These appointments had a mean salary of $64,904 (median $67,500). Three had fiscal year appointments with a mean salary of $79,033 (median $76,500).
There was only one new appointment at the rank of professor. The person appointed was female. No salary is reported here to protect the privacy of the individual to whom the salary applies.
New Instructor and Lecturer Salaries
There were three full-time instructors appointed during 2002-2003. All had academic year appointments. The mean salary of these appointments was $40,965 (median $43,000).
There were fifteen full-time lecturers appointed during 2002-2003. All 15 had academic year appointments. The mean salary for the academic year appointments was $48,779 (median $42,003).
Table I-13 allows one to compare 2002-2003 mean and median salaries at each rank with those of the previous year (2002-2003). For 2002-2003, a total of 758 salaries (including deans and directors) were reported.
The mean and median salaries in Table I-13 are based on all salaries reported without regard to region. Further, no attempt was 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. In evaluating the figures. Table I-13-a shows average salaries by US region and Canada – These regions, used by ALA's Committee on Accreditation, are defined below. In the table, following the mean salaries, in parentheses, is the number of faculty salaries in the category. In those instances where only one salary fits into a given category, the salary is not reported 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. (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.
Changes in the mean faculty salary in 2002-2003 over 2001-2002 at each rank are shown in Table I-14. It should be kept in mind that promotions, resignations, retirements, and new appointments in 2002‑2003 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.
Table I-14-a shows the percentage of salary changes by rank for the period 1998-1999 to 2002‑2003. In reading the 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 faculty salaries exceed female salaries, whether for fiscal year or academic year appointments, all ranks with the exception of professors with fiscal year appointments.
The schools in the United States were asked to provide ethnic data for their full-time faculty. Fifty-one schools (including two Canadian schools) responding to the survey provided the requested information. These data, for 698 of the 758 faculty members, are presented in Table I-17. 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 56 schools. The percentage of faculty 55 or older as of January 1, 2003 is 37.1 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 for the second year in a row. Comparisons can only be tentative given differences in base numbers resulting from incomplete reporting.
Year of Initial Appointment and Rank
Fifty-five of 56 schools responded to the request for the date of initial appointment of each current faculty member to its full-time faculty. Data for Rhode Island were obtained from its response for the previous survey, i.e., for January 1, 2002. Of those faculty members employed on January 1, 2003 whose rank was reported, 85.6 percent had been appointed by their schools in the last ten years (1993‑1994 through 2002-2003).
Among the full-time faculty at the 56 schools, there were 24 promotions within the professorial ranks in 2002-2003. This compares with 20 the previous year. Table I-21 compares promotions over the past five years.
The number of earned doctorates held on January 1, 2003  for the faculty population of 758 reporting (including Deans and Directors) was 686 (90.5 percent). Of the faculty members holding the doctorate, 406 (53.6 percent) had that degree in the library and information sciences (including information systems and technology, information transfer, and information resource management). Of the remaining faculty with doctorates, 280 earned them in other fields. The remaining 35 doctoral areas (Syracuse) were undesignated.
Data on the number of faculty with earned doctorates is provided for the last ten years in the Table 22-a. The ratio of females and males holding the doctorate has remained approximately equal throughout that period.
Table I-23 provides a listing of the disciplines other than the library and information sciences 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 90.5 percent of the full-time faculty in all the 56 schools had completed doctoral degrees prior to January 1, 2003, the percentage of faculty within individual schools holding the doctorate varied considerably. This ranges from a low of 57 percent at one school to a high of 100 percent at 25 schools. Fifty-one schools have faculties of which at least 75 percent hold the doctorate. (Table I-23)
Of the 758 full-time faculty at the 56 schools  , 52.8 percent had tenure on January 1, 2003. Information on tenure for the last 10 years is reported in Table I-25. As can be seen from this table, the percentage of the total faculty who are tenured has not fluctuated significantly from year to year. It also shows, however, that there are now 8 percent fewer tenured faculty compared to a decade ago.
No school reported having a faculty that was all-tenured in 2002-2003. That figure has varied between one and six schools over the past 10 years. Four schools reported that less than 25 percent of their faculty were tenured. Eighteen schools have less than 50 percent tenured while 11 schools have tenured faculties of 75 percent or higher. The following table shows the variation of tenure status among the 56 schools. (Table I-26)
The Table I-26-a shows tenure status by academic rank and the gender of the faculty members holding that rank. It should be understood, of course, that deans and directors shown with tenure enjoy that status as faculty members, not as their schools' executive officers.
Table I-27 has been used in the past to report faculty salaries (including those for 54 deans and directors) in salary ranges by rank. This table has again been omitted this year.
This is the twenty-fourth 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. Data from 56 schools  are identified in the tables in Part II.
It is important to note that the data reported in Part II includes data from 2001-2002 or Fall 2002. 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 non-confidential 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 in Chapter 3.) 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 one of their terms the spring term or semester while others call it the 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 Fall 2002. These data also have been included in Table I-41. The 55  schools report a total of 742 full-time faculty members for the 2002 Fall semester with an average of 13.3 per school. This number is slightly less than the 758 reported in Part I. Part I reported faculty as of January 2003 rather than Fall 2002 and that Rhode Island did not report data. The total number of full-time faculty reported for Fall 2001 was 719 with an average of 12.8 per school. These figures do not include reported vacant positions.
Adjunct, clinical, or other than full-time "regular" faculty continue to play important roles in the teaching effort of the schools. Table I-43 reports that 676 persons in these categories taught courses during the 2002 Fall term. This represents a faculty FTE of 217 bringing the total faculty force to 959 FTE faculty members (1,418 persons). Part-time faculty make up 47.7 percent of total faculty strength.
Question 4 asked for the average percentage of salary improvement for full-time faculty in 2002-2003. 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 for 2002-2003, eight schools indicated zero increases. . In the previous year, 2001-2002, only three schools indicated zero increases. Those reporting increases showed improvement from a low of 0.3 percent to a high of 15 percent. The average for those 40 schools reporting a salary increase was 4.1 while the average dropped to 3.4 percent when all 48 schools reporting data are included.. Nine schools reporting salary increases indicated that the increase was less than 3 percent.
Table I-47 reports the results of Question 6 that asked how many full-time faculty replacements (resulting from resignations, retirements, etc.) were made during 2001-2002. Schools also were asked to indicate the rank of the individual(s) who was/were replaced and the rank of the replacement(s). In 2001-2002, a total of 47 faculty replacements were made at 31 schools.
The reports of previous years noted that it is common to replace senior faculty member who resign, retire, or otherwise leave a school with individuals at ranks lower than had been held by those being replaced. This practice has been common for many years. Thirty of the 31 schools with faculty changes provided information on the rank of the person(s) departing and that of replacement(s). This provided information on 46 of the 47 faculty changes. In 2001-2002 five of the replacements (10.9 percent) were at a higher rank, 17 (36.9 percent) at the same rank, and 24 (52.2 percent) at a lower 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 Fall 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.
Table I-47-a shows that 49 unfilled full-time faculty positions, despite the availability of funding for the positions, were reported by 26 schools for Fall 2002. Last year's report indicated that there were 47 similar unfilled vacancies. The explanations provided for positions vacant this year have been derived from the data reported by the schools. This tables indicates that there is a wide distribution of vacancies among the ranks: assistant (13), associate (6), professor (7), undesignated (5), and open (18). Also, as in the past, the reasons for unfilled positions vary. However, the majority of the schools reporting unfilled positions indicated a somewhat even distribution between: lack of success in getting appropriate candidates; and searches that 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 a factor.
Question 7 on the questionnaire seeks to identify full-time faculty positions that were temporarily unfilled in Fall 2002, but for which funding had been available. Question 8, however, asks the schools to indicate whether faculty positions had actually been lost in 2002-2003. 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.
For 2001-2002 eight schools reported a total loss of 11 positions (Table I-47-b ). This year's loss of 11 positions is much higher than the three positions lost reported in each of the previous two years. While some schools cannot hire new faculty due to budget constraints, it appear that several have actually lost the faculty lines.
New Faculty Positions
Question 9 asked schools to indicate whether additional (new) faculty positions, with new funding, had been created by the schools in 2001-2002. Table I-47-c shows that 19 schools reported a total of 37 new positions created. This represents a net gain of 26 positions when the 11 positions noted in the previous table are factored in. Last year 24 schools reported the creation of 36 new 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, and is often taken into account by applicants for faculty appointments as they compute the total compensation of an offer. Fifty-three schools reported an average percentage of approximately 27.2 percent (range of 12.1 to 56.8) for 2002-2003. 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 (Table I-48).
Questions 11 and 12 of the questionnaire pertain to funding for professional travel. Question 11 asked the number of faculty, excluding the dean or director, who received travel funds in 2001-2002. Question 12 requests the total amount of funding for professional travel used by the school's faculty in 2001-2002, 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 2001-2002, the range among the schools was from a low of $900 to a high of $534,187 (median: $13,200). For individual faculty members who received travel funds, the average varied from a reported low of $360 to a high of $31,423 (median: $1,788). For the same period a total of 516 faculty members were reported as having received travel funds. They shared a total of $1,624,426 in travel money amounting to an average of $3,148 per person. The mean per school for the 54 schools reporting amounts for individuals was $30,081 in 2002-2003 compared to $25,394 per school in 2000-01. It is difficult to know if these figures are meaningful since schools are not consistent as to whether or not they have included data on such expenditures as recruitment, accreditation visits, or visiting faculty. 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.
The 13th question on the faculty section of the questionnaire pertains to sabbatical leaves for faculty. A total of 31 schools granted funds for sabbatical or study leaves during 2001-2002, compared to 29 in 2000-2001. Details are provided in Table I-51. Only one school (North Carolina Central) 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 data for regular, non-student support staff from data for part-time student employees of the school. Under each of these two employment categories the same group of subdivisions was used: (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:
(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.
"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.
If a full-time person divided his/her time between two or more of the above categories that individual appears in the 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 in Fall 2002 from a low of 1.0 to a high of 59.2 (mean: 8.66). Table I-54 provides similar information about part-time student support staff.
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 Table I-51.5. An analysis of these data shows the following distribution of percentages for all schools reporting for Fall 2001 and 2002.
 Includes Rhode Island (data for January 1, 2002).
 Includes Rhode Island (data for January 1, 2002).
 Includes Rhode Island (data for January 1, 2002).
 Includes Rhode Island (data for January 1, 2002).
 Includes Rhode Island (data for January 1, 2002).
 Excludes Rhode Island.