No abstract

Faculty development has been evolving in focus and form over the past fi ve decades. Originally organized around sabbatical leaves, faculty development now offers a wide array of programs and involves a growing body of highly professional, deeply dedicated professionals. As both faculty members and faculty developers with over fi fty collective years of experience in higher education in the United States and internationally, the authors believe faculty development is a key strategic lever for ensuring institutional quality and supporting institutional change in higher education. With higher education institutions and the faculty within them facing new challenges and opportunities, what is the future of faculty development?In this chapter, readers are pointed to innovations in faculty development that are appearing on the horizon, in the context of changes and challenges confronting higher education institutions. Thoughts about the structures and processes in the practice of faculty development that need attention and some of the pressing issues in the fi eld as a profession are shared. This analysis is drawn from the authors' previous research and writing, as well as the work of others, concerning academic work and workplaces, faculty careers, and faculty development. In particular, this chapter draws substantially on fi ndings from an in-depth study of faculty development professionals in North America (Sorcinelli et al. 2006). In that study, developers from the United States and Canada who were members of the oldest and largest professional association for faculty development scholarsIn this concluding chapter, the authors point readers to innovations in faculty development that are appearing on the horizon, in the context of changes and challenges confronting higher education institutions. Additional thoughts are presented about the structures and processes in the practice of faculty development that need attention, including those related to pressing issues in the fi eld as a profession.

The author provides research‐based and practical advice on how to foster the career development of new and junior faculty. She first reviews who the new and junior faculty are and highlights research findings on the work and career experiences of these faculty members. She then describes model programs and successful strategies to support the newest members of the professoriat, including exemplary programs for orientation, mentoring, research, and teaching development.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

An interesting paradox can be found in the literature on new and junior faculty. Nearly all newcomers report high levels of satisfaction with their careers. When asked to identify aspects of academic life that consistently afford satisfaction, most new faculty describe their work as providing personal autonomy, a sense of accomplishment, the capacity to have an impact on others, and the opportunity for personal and intellectual growth (Turner and Boice, 1989;Sorcinelli, 1988). At the same time, however, virtually all of the same faculty rate their work as stressful. Words such as tension, pressure, anxiety, and worry stand out in an even cursory reading of the literature (Fink, 1984;Turner and Boice, 1989;Sorcinelli. 1988; Whin, 1991).Unfortunately, the tensions of the first year do not appear to be offset by experience. As reported in detail in Olsen and Sorcinelli (this volume), a colleague and I have followed the career development of one cohort of new faculty over a five-year period via interviews and questionnaires (Sorcinelli, 1988;Olsen, 1990). Our longitudinal study found that the proportion of newcomers reporting their work life as very stressful rose dramatically, and even among highly satisfied individuals, work stress steadily eroded satisfaction.While life can be stressful for all academics, researchers also have noted that untenured faculty report higher levels of stress than do their tenured colleagues. In a national study of 1.920 faculty members at 80 doctoral-granting institutions, Gmelch, Wilke, and Lovrich (1986) found that five distinct dimensions of stress appeared throughout the academic career. It is particularly noteworthy that there were statistically significant differences between tenured and untenured faculty in each of the five (2). 1-4.

The research support for the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education is encouraging, although the findings raise a number of questions still to be answered.