UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Faculty vitality in two community colleges : factors reported by instructors as affecting their productivity Sheridan, Casey John 1990

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A8 S53.pdf [ 4.9MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055838.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055838-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055838-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055838-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055838-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055838-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055838-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055838-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055838.ris

Full Text

FACULTY VITALITY IN TWO COMMUNITY COLLEGES: FACTORS REPORTED BY INSTRUCTORS AS AFFECTING THEIR PRODUCTIVITY by CASEY JOHN SHERIDAN B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1969  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e , A d u l t and Higher E d u c a t i o n )  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o t h e r e q u i r e d standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March 1990  ©  Casey John S h e r i d a n , 1990  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  thesis  in  partial  University  of  British  available for  copying  of  department publication  this or of  this  his  for  scholarly  or  thesis for  her  of  the  requirements  C o l u m b i a , I agree that  reference and study.  thesis by  fulfilment  I further  purposes  may  representatives.  financial  agree that be  It  by  the that  allowed without  (Signature)  Department  of  A D M I N I S T R A T I V E ,  The University of British C o l u m b i a Vancouver, Canada  D  DE-6  a  t  e  (2/88)  MARCH  11 .  1990  A D U L T  A N D  H I G H E R  J O H N  S H E R I D A N  E D U C A T I O N  it  extensive  head  permission.  C A S E Y  advanced  Library shall make  understood be  an  permission for  granted  is  gain shall not  the  for  of  copying my  my or  written  ii ABSTRACT  This  study investigated  productivity vitality.  from w i t h i n  The  College  i n Red  addressed. by  colleges,  colleges The  Two  teaching or  r e s e a r c h was  productivity  and  collect  productivity. productivity  A  inquiry  developed using a f a c u l t y and the  incident  12  asking the  reported  two  community of  faculty at  extending i n t o the  of  these  A  i n the  faculty  community  used  to  they perceived  incident  faculty  process  member D e l p h i g r o u p c o n s i s t i n g from each c o l l e g e .  of v i t a l i t y  respondents to  rate  factors  was  e a c h f a c t o r on  as  their  community c o l l e g e  critical  college  questionnaire  t e c h n i q u e was  three administrators  composite set  as  l i t e r a t u r e as  s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on  d e f i n i t i o n of  f o r use  Deer  productivity?  vitality  a personally  Red  a composite set  p e r c e i v e d by  descriptive,  critical  College  and  productivity  d a t a from f a c u l t y about i n c i d e n t s  h a v i n g had  of  factors,  f a c u l t y at the  context u s i n g a case study approach. employing the  Valley  r e s e a r c h problems were  those suggested i n the  affect their  faculty  Columbia,  hindered the  faculty vitality, to  British  S e c o n d , t o what e x t e n t a r e  f a c t o r s , b a s e d on affecting  Fraser  w h i c h work r e l a t e d  facilitated  instructors?  conducted at  Deer, A l b e r t a .  contract  faculty  o v e r a l l context of  Chilliwack,  First,  continuing  the  s t u d y was  i n A b b o t s f o r d and  community c o l l e g e  was  of  three  Rating  accomplished a  five  point  by  iii b i p o l a r r a t i n g scale based on t h e i r perception of the p r i o r i t y each factor had i n affecting t h e i r p r o d u c t i v i t y . The 330 incidents collected by the questionnaire facilitating,  (171  159 hindering) were c l a s s i f i e d into 15  incident categories which i n turn were able to be grouped into four major areas each of which provides a theme for the r e l a t e d categories they contain.  A l l factors i n the  composite set of v i t a l i t y related factors received a minimum mean r a t i n g of three on the five point  scale.  Conclusions drawn include: (1) the frequency of incidents by category should not be the only measure of category importance because frequencies may vary by i n s t i t u t i o n , by i n s t r u c t o r , and over time; (2) categories r e f l e c t an open rather than closed  the classification  system and as such are i n t e r r e l a t e d ; (3) the categories r e f l e c t both f a c i l i t a t i n g and hindering incidents; factors suggested by the l i t e r a t u r e as affecting  (4)  vitality  are perceived by faculty to affect t h e i r p r o d u c t i v i t y but these r e s u l t s may hide a d i v e r s i t y of views for a p a r t i c u l a r situation;  (5) the factors i d e n t i f i e d as f a c i l i t a t i n g or  hindering community college faculty productivity should not be interpreted as applicable i n a l l situations or for a l l faculty. Research results suggest increased awareness by administrators (at the colleges i n the study) of the f a c i l i t a t i n g / h i n d e r i n g productivity factor category scheme  should lead  t o a w o r k i n g e n v i r o n m e n t more f a c i l i t a t i v e  faculty productivity increased  and/or h i n d e r i n g  productivity results  i f either  incidents  f a c t o r assessment  suggests administrators  be s e n s i t i v e t o any a c t i o n s  facilitating  incidents  are reduced.  section  of the  a t t h e two  are  The  questionnaire  colleges  which are p e r c e i v e d  undermining q u a l i t y of performance.  to  as  should  V  CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT  i i  L I S T OF TABLES  v i i  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  viii  CHAPTER 1.  INTRODUCTION Context o f t h e Study  1  Problem Statements  3  Significance  2.  and Research Questions  of this  Study  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Definitions  of Faculty V i t a l i t y  Expanding V i t a l i t y  Definitions  6 8  Vitality/Productivity  Perspectives  11  Vitality/Productivity  Factors  13  Conclusion  3.  5  14  METHODOLOGY Population  a n d Sample  16  Research Design and Procedures Personal  Profile  Productivity Critical Delphi  Factor  18 Identification  I n c i d e n t Method  Process  Productivity  17  F a c t o r Assessment  20 21 24 31  vi 4.  FINDINGS Delphi  Process  33  Profile  o f Respondents  Factors  Facilitating  and H i n d e r i n g  Productivity  44  I n t e r a c t i o n w i t h Others  47  Resources  49  P r o c e s s e s and P o l i c i e s  51  Work A c t i v i t i e s  53  V i t a l i t y Factors  5.  35  Affecting Productivity  57  Supplemental Analyses  60  Reliability  and V a l i d i t y  61  SUMMARY AND  DISCUSSION  Summary  67  C o n c l u s i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s  69  Possible  74  Applications  Limitations  of This  Recommendations  Study  76  f o r Future Research  REFERENCES  77 79  APPENDICES A.  DELPHI GROUP RECRUITMENT LETTERS AND AGREEMENT FORMS  85  B.  DELPHI GROUP OUTGOING AND COMMUNICATION  INCOMING  96  C.  LETTER REQUESTING PILOT SURVEY  PARTICIPATION IN  119  D.  QUESTIONNAIRES, COVERING FOLLOW-UP LETTERS  LETTERS AND  121  vii L I S T OF TABLES  Table  Page  1.  V I T A L I T Y FACTORS FROM THE LITERATURE  32  2.  COMPARISON  35  3.  COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY PRODUCTIVITY DEFINITION  36  4.  SAMPLING FRAME ADJUSTMENTS  37  5.  QUESTIONNAIRE RETURN RATE  38  6.  SEX OF RESPONDENTS  39  7.  RESPONDENTS VERSUS ADJUSTED SAMPLING FRAME  39  8.  AGE OF RESPONDENTS  40  9.  CURRENT MAIN TEACHING AREA  41  10.  CURRENT COLLEGE POSITION  42  11.  LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT WITH COLLEGE AS INSTRUCTORS  43  12.  F A C I L I T A T I N G AND HINDERING INCIDENT CATEGORIES  46  13.  FREQUENCY OF F A C I L I T A T I N G AND HINDERING INCIDENTS  56  14.  PRODUCTIVITY FACTOR MEANS  59  15.  CATEGORIZATION BY DELPHI RESPONDENTS  62  16.  SUMMARY OF FACTORS AFFECTING PRODUCTIVITY  69  OF RESPONSES TO ROUNDS TWO AND FOUR  viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  I would l i k e supervisor, support  a n d t h e members o f my c o m m i t t e e f o r  and guidance i n t h e completion o f t h i s  project. College their  t o t h a n k J o h n D e n n i s o n , my t h e s i s  Appreciation  their research  i s also expressed t o Fraser  a n d Red D e e r C o l l e g e  administrators  Valley  and f a c u l t y f o r  participation. Most o f a l l , I w i s h t o acknowledge t h e support and  understanding provided  b y my w i f e ,  S a r a h a n d Matthew, w h i l e  Pam, a n d o u r c h i l d r e n ,  I w o r k e d o n my d e g r e e .  know t h e number o f e v e n i n g , weekend a n d v a c a t i o n took before  I was f i n a l l y  a b l e t o say,  Only  they  hours i t  "It's finished!"  1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION  Context o f t h e Study  Faculty v i t a l i t y during  recent years.  Schmitz  1965-1985.  50%  This  i s illustrated  and development w r i t t e n between t h e y e a r s  T h e y n o t e d 93% o f t h e p a p e r s were p r o d u c e d  t h e second decade covered  were p u b l i s h e d  classified  by t h e i r  study;  issues are of concern can  i n t o two r e l a t e d p e r s p e c t i v e s .  e m p h a s i z e s human d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e c o n t e x t and by  society. stating  Gardner  that  organizations  individual  satisfaction  In saying,  and d i g n i t y p r e s e r v e d , "  This view i s put i n t o a higher  have f u l l  this position  and i n d i v i d u a l s  t a l e n t s a r e u s e d t o t h e maximum  Cares and B l a c k b u r n should  of organizations  a n d t e c h n o l o g i c a l s y s t e m s i n s u c h a way a n d human  he e m p h a s i z e s  full  roles i n organizations  n o t a t t h e expense o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l  64).  first  "we must d i s c o v e r how t o  development o f people f o r p r o d u c t i v e but  The  (1964, p . 2) e x e m p l i f i e s  s o c i e t y d e c a y s when i n s t i t u t i o n s  lose their v i t a l i t y . design  i n fact,  a f t e r 1980.  R e a s o n s why f a c u l t y v i t a l i t y be  by Bland and  (1988, p . 202) who r e v i e w e d 287 p u b l i c a t i o n s o n  faculty vitality  during  has r e c e i v e d i n c r e a s i n g a t t e n t i o n  (Gardner,  education  (1978, p . 135) who s t a t e  1964, p .  context  by  institutions  g r o w t h a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f human  resources  2 embodied i n t h e i r o p e r a t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s focus  of their The  as w e l l as i n t h e  mission.  second p e r s p e c t i v e on v i t a l i t y ,  which t h i s vitality  research  i s centred,  and p r o d u c t i v i t y .  individuals mobility;  emphasizes t h e l i n k  In the past,  and i n s t i t u t i o n s  current  a n d t h e one o n  occurred  between  revitalization of  through  and p r o j e c t e d r e l a t i v e  faculty  immobility of  f a c u l t y h a s c r e a t e d c o n c e r n o v e r how p r o d u c t i v i t y c a n now be maintained. faculty  This view considers  decreased  demand f o r  a problem a f f e c t i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y , a r i s i n g p r i m a r i l y  from demographic and economic changes w h i c h c a u s e d d e c l i n i n g or  static  e n r o l m e n t , p r o g r a m demand s h i f t s ,  i n f u s i o n o f young f a c u l t y Studies  i n Higher Education,  Corcoran, Gaff colleges to  (Carnegie  1985; H a n s e n ,  C o u n c i l on P o l i c y  1980; C l a r k , B o y e r a n d  1985).  a n d u n i v e r s i t i e s must r e l y o n t h e i r c u r r e n t fresh perspectives,  educational  views  educational vitality  climates."  are to  maintain  i s at the heart of  e n t e r p r i s e " and " t h a t f a c u l t y performance and  should  These l i n k s Corcoran  faculty  K i r s c h l i n g ' s (1978, p .  "that f a c u l t y v i t a l i t y  be c o n s i d e r e d  between f a c u l t y v i t a l i t y  and  growth  i n f u s e new i d e a s , a n d g i v e  l e a d e r s h i p t o i n n o v a t i v e programs i f t h e y  viii)  decreased  (1978, p . 1) i n d i c a t e s t h a t i n t i m e o f z e r o  "provide  vigorous  and  together"  echo t h e l i n k s  and p r o d u c t i v i t y .  are f u r t h e r strengthened  (1985, p . 3) who  by Clark,  say " v i t a l i t y  Boyer  refers to  those  3 essential, yet intangible  positive q u a l i t i e s of individuals  and  i n s t i t u t i o n s that  the  Minnesota Planning Council  Corcoran, discussing In 1.  enable purposeful production" (cited i n Clark,  1985) w h i c h e m p h a s i z e d  "sustained  and by  Boyer &  productivity" i n  vitality.  summary, f a c u l t y v i t a l i t y  educational  i s important  because:  i n s t i t u t i o n s s h o u l d be i n t e r e s t e d  development and growth f o r t h e i r administrators  and s u p p o r t  i n human  faculty,  s t a f f as w e l l  as t h e i r  s t u d e n t s , and 2.  maintenance o f f a c u l t y p r o d u c t i v i t y  i s considered  closely  l i n k e d w i t h t h e development and maintenance o f  a vital  faculty.  Problem Statements and R e s e a r c h  As  illustrated  Questions  above, t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e f l e c t s a v e r y  close  r e l a t i o n s h i p between v i t a l i t y  close  i t i s s u g g e s t e d t h e c o n c e p t s s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d  together instead It  of  productivity  that  so  separately.  i s , therefore,  faculty vitality  and p r o d u c t i v i t y ,  from w i t h i n  the o v e r a l l context of  t h i s s t u d y f o c u s e d on f a c u l t y  a t two community c o l l e g e s :  C o l l e g e w i t h campuses i n A b b o t s f o r d C o l u m b i a a n d Red D e e r C o l l e g e  Fraser  Valley  and C h i l l i w a c k ,  i n Red D e e r ,  Alberta.  British  4 The related  first  r e s e a r c h p r o b l e m was  factors,  instructors.  extent  t o which  facilitated  The  or hindered the  s e c o n d p r o b l e m was  productivity  to investigate  a composite s e t of f a c t o r s ,  b a s e d on  s u g g e s t e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e as a f f e c t i n g v i t a l i t y , p e r c e i v e d by The  faculty to affect t h e i r  first  p r o b l e m was  research questions 1:  W h i c h work r e l a t e d  C o l l e g e and Red productivity  C o l l e g e and Red  following 3:  factors,  was  by a d d r e s s i n g  as r e p o r t e d b y  teaching  the  factors,  full-time  faculty at Fraser facilitated  at their respective  continuing contract  The  those  productivity.  investigated  Deer C o l l e g e ,  W h i c h work r e l a t e d  productivity  the  below.  continuing contract  2:  work  as r e p o r t e d by f a c u l t y members a t t h e s e  community c o l l e g e s , of  t o determine which  faculty  colleges?  as r e p o r t e d b y  full-time  teaching faculty at Fraser  Deer C o l l e g e , h i n d e r e d  at t h e i r respective  s e c o n d p r o b l e m was  Valley  Valley  faculty  colleges?  investigated  by a d d r e s s i n g  the  question.  To what d e g r e e a r e f a c t o r s as a f f e c t i n g  f a c u l t y v i t a l i t y p e r c e i v e d by  continuing contract C o l l e g e and Red productivity?  suggested i n the l i t e r a t u r e  teaching  full-time  faculty at Fraser  D e e r C o l l e g e as a f f e c t i n g  their  Valley  5 Significance  of t h i s  Study  Numerous p a p e r s have b e e n p u b l i s h e d and  p r o d u c t i v i t y but i t i s s t i l l  findings well  on f a c u l t y v i t a l i t y •  not c l e a r whether t h e i r  a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a p p l y t o community c o l l e g e s  as u n i v e r s i t i e s and f o u r y e a r c o l l e g e s .  B l a n d and  Schmitz  (1988/ p . 1 9 1 ) , i n t h e i r s u r v e y o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e  dealing  with  universities, in  faculty vitality,  r e s t r i c t e d t h e i r study t o  four-year colleges,  the United States.  This  emphasis i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e ;  f r o m community In  i t deals predominantly  the s i m i l a r i t i e s  findings  as r e l e v a n t  responsibilities colleges  reference  practical  t o community  t o community  - p a r t i c u l a r l y the lack of  reason t o undertake  t o understanding  i n community  community  The r e s u l t i n g f i n d i n g s factors  i n community c o l l e g e s  applications.  colleges. research  and t h e two y e a r p r o g r a m l i m i t  s p e c i f i c research.  productivity  to  encourage acceptance o f the  and a p p l i c a b l e  - are s u f f i c i e n t  contribute  with  among u n i v e r s i t i e s , f o u r - y e a r  a n d community c o l l e g e s  the differences  schools  colleges.  colleges  college  an o c c a s i o n a l  s p i t e of the dearth of data p e r t a i n i n g  colleges,  But  and p r o f e s s i o n a l  r e s t r i c t i o n r e f l e c t s the  four-year i n s t i t u t i o n s with only data  as  affecting and s u g g e s t  should  faculty possible  6 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  Definitions of Faculty  C o r c o r a n and C l a r k  (1983, p . 6) i n d i c a t e d t h a t  attempt  i s made t o d e f i n e  perhaps  an assumption e x i s t s t h a t  For  example,  a recent  & S c h m i t z , 1988, institutional replaced  Vitality  the concept of v i t a l i t y ,  often that  the term i s understood.  p u b l i c a t i o n on f a c u l t y v i t a l i t y  p . 191) c o n s i d e r s  r e n e w a l as t h e new  no  faculty vitality  and  "buzz w o r d s " w h i c h  t h e narrower term f a c u l t y  (Bland  have  development.  N o n e t h e l e s s , as a d e f i n i t i o n o f v i t a l i t y B o y e r a n d C o r c o r a n (1985, p . 3 ) , s a y i n g  i t quotes "vitality  Clark, refers to  those e s s e n t i a l , y e t intangible p o s i t i v e q u a l i t i e s of individuals  and i n s t i t u t i o n s  that enable  purposeful  production." The most c o m p r e h e n s i v e faculty vitality Corcoran  The Corcoran,  was G a r d n e r  summary  (cited  1985) who u s e d t e r m s  regeneration.  change."  Their  Boyer and  of  vitality  f o c u s e d on s i x s o u r c e s .  first  individuals,  attempt a t d e f i n i n g  was c a r r i e d o u t b y C l a r k ,  (1985, p . 6-10).  definitions  recent  His central idea institutions,  i n Clark,  Boyer &  s u c h as v i t a l i t y , involved  renewal and  the "capacities of  and s o c i e t i e s f o r a d a p t a t i o n  The s e c o n d , P e t e r s o n a n d L o y e  (cited  i n Clark,  and  7 Boyer & Corcoran, and  suggested  1985), d e a l t w i t h  a definition  institutional  s h o u l d be  "multidimensional,  dynamic, i n c l u d e i n d i v i d u a l v i t a l i t y , institutional Clark, with  differences."  Boyer & Corcoran,  institutional  "interaction of mission, c l i m a t e t h a t enable  creative,  faculty  to contribute to the  life.'"  v i t a l i t y was a g a i n t h e e m p h a s i s when Maher  Ebben had f o r m u l a t e d  Clark,  also dealt  t h e b e n e f i t s t h a t come f r o m 'a  i n C l a r k , Boyer & Corcoran,  sources  source,  g o a l s , programs, and i n s t i t u t i o n a l  1985) "added f o c u s o n  i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n an i n s t i t u t i o n a l  two  (cited i n  and viewed i t as t h e  p r o d u c t i v e a n d e n e r g i z i n g work  Institutional (cited  Ebben a n d Maher  i n d i v i d u a l s both  m i s s i o n and t o r e a l i z e  and a l l o w f o r  1985), t h e t h i r d  vitality  vitality  i n 1979.  context"  Corcoran's  c e n t r e d on f a c u l t y v i t a l i t y .  Boyer & Corcoran,  t o what he a n d  and C l a r k ' s Smith  last  (cited i n  1985) e m p h a s i z e d t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f  and i n s t i t u t i o n a l v i t a l i t y .  Minnesota Planning Council  (cited  The U n i v e r s i t y o f  i n C l a r k , Boyer &  Corcoran,  1985) h i g h l i g h t e d " ' s u s t a i n e d p r o d u c t i v i t y ' i n  teaching,  [and] r e s e a r c h a c t i v i t i e s w i t h  f a c u l t y as a Clark,  focus on t h e  collective." Boyer and C o r c o r a n  (1985, p . 10) f e l t t h e  u n d e r l y i n g theme i n t h e above was t h a t f a c u l t y seems t o b e c o n t e x t must r e f l e c t  both  specifficand definitions  institutional  type  vitality  of v i t a l i t y  and m i s s i o n .  a l r e a d y s t a t e d , C l a r k , Boyer and C o r c o r a n  As  (1985, p . 3)  8 concluded  "vitality  intangible,  r e f e r s to those e s s e n t i a l ,  positive qualities  institutions  of individuals  that enable purposeful  Expanding V i t a l i t y  A review of additional  positive  and  fulfillment  qualities  Definitions  literature  shows v i t a l i t y  - perhaps the  referred to  vitality  are linked  whether,  as S m i t h  self-renewal,  intangible  involves  Whether, f o r example, as done b y G a r d n e r  (1978, p .  is  above.  More t h a n a n y t h i n g e l s e , v i t a l i t y e x i s t e n c e of energy.  and  production."  c o n s i d e r e d t o i n v o l v e the concepts of energy, opportunity,  yet  vigour  (1978,  1) i n d i c a t e s ,  the  p.  and  71)  or  "the s e a r c h i s f o r  e n e r g y t o some p u r p o s e , " t h e c o n c e p t o f e n e r g y p e r v a d e s vitality  literature.  and m o t i v a t i o n .  C e n t r a (1978b,  32) c o n n e c t s  initially  (1964, p .  s u b s e q u e n t l y s i n g l e d o u t b y him  16;  1978,  p.  (1981, p . x i i ) as  f o r r e n e w a l and v i t a l i t y .  More  147), i s  uniquely  frequently,  however, t h e t e r m e n e r g y i s u s e d t o e x p r e s s what c a n i n t e r p r e t e d as v i t a l i t y . 64) Bess  refers  to  and  F o r example,  McKeachie  "conditions that can r e l e a s e  (1982, p . 215)  energetic  energy  Motivation, while only referred to i n  p a s s i n g by Gardner  important  p.  the  looks to  fulfilled  "development  academic  staff,"  be  (1983,  faculty  p.  energy,"  o f a more and E b b e n and Maher  9 (cited  i n Clark,  " e n e r g i z i n g work  B o y e r & C o r c o r a n , 1985)  refer  t o an  life."  Along w i t h the e x i s t e n c e of energy, v i t a l i t y involve the capacity  f o r change o r r e n e w a l .  i s seen t o  In the  i n t r o d u c t i o n t o h i s r e v i s e d e d i t i o n of Self-Renewal, Gardner (1981, p . x i ) s t a t e s , resists  change.  And  welcomes i t , f i n d s latter  trait  p . 212)  Ill)  there's something e l s e  i t bracing,  that  " c r e a t i v e c h a n g e c a n be  and e n e r g i z i n g . "  a n d demands.  opportunities  (1983,  f r o m new  Sorcinelli  and l e a v e s ,  t o l e a r n new  and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . . .  things,  p.  situations i n terms o f  (1986, p .  reports  14), i n  "that  t o t a k e o n new  are e s s e n t i a l  (1983,  enormously  B l a c k b u r n (1985, p . 79) p u t s t h i s  sabbaticals  I t ' s the  Kanter  N e w e l l and S p e a r  r e i n v i g o r a t i n g the i n d i v i d u a l .  fiercely  that  even seeks i t o u t .  see a marked s t i m u l a t i o n r e s u l t i n g  discussing  i n us  t h a t keeps t h e s p e c i e s g o i n g . "  feels  captivating  " T h e r e ' s s o m e t h i n g i n us t h a t  challenges  to maintaining  faculty  vitality." Change i s a l s o r e f e r r e d (cited  i n Centra,  renewal. related  1985)  Similarly, t o change.  t o i n other terms.  speaks o f t h e need  e x c i t e m e n t o f g r o w t h and l e a r n i n g . " projects  "continued p r o f e s s i o n a l  development" w i l l  f o r continuous  growth and development S a r a s o n (1977, p .  result  o r g a n i z a t i o n which w i l l  101) Bess  Gardner  a p p e a r t o be refers  t o "the  (1982, p .  and p e r s o n a l g r o w t h  from h i s c o n c e p t o f  214-15) and  university  no l o n g e r t r a p p e o p l e b u t p e r m i t  10 them t o f o l l o w t h e i r  imaginations.  Schneider  and  Zalesny  (1981, p . 9 ) , a p p r o a c h i n g t h e i s s u e f r o m a n e e d s a n d motivations  perspective,  feel  "the nature  o f t h e academic  e n v i r o n m e n t a t t r a c t s p e o p l e who tend' t o be o r i e n t e d t o continued  identity  Vitality  a l s o seems t o i n v o l v e t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f  opportunity. structures their  development."  Kanter  (1977, p . 158) c o n c l u d e d  shape b e h a v i o r  own p r o p h e c i e s . "  i n s u c h a way t h a t t h e y  I n o t h e r words, t h o s e  opportunities develop higher  i n t h e i r work t h a n t h o s e  career.  T h i s r e s u l t e d from r e s e a r c h  in  their  xii) to  who  as s t u c k ,  context  inseparable  stressed  Gardner  (1981, p .  concluded  i s probably  educational  B a l d w i n and B l a c k b u r n  (1981, p . 611) i n t u r n  opportunities f o r ongoing  growth."  Finally,  vitality,  i n addition to containing the  dimensions o f energy, s e l f - r e n e w a l discussed  and o p p o r t u n i t y  above, i n v o l v e s a sense o f  satisfaction  o r enjoyment.  unable  f o r , t h e game i s l o s t . "  f o r professors  "the need t o m a i n t a i n  low c e i l i n g s  " i f people are...  from r e v i t a l i z i n g t h e i r  environments."  i n their  whom K a n t e r  (1980, p . 8 ) , b u i l d i n g o n R a n t e r ' s work,  "expanding c a r e e r h o r i z o n s  career  on t h o s e  "people w i t h  felt  imagine a f u t u r e worth s t r i v i n g  Schurr  perceiving  f e e l blocked  j o b s , t h e p e o p l e a t dead ends."  i n a more g e n e r a l  confirm  a s p i r a t i o n s a n d a r e more  involved  (1977, p . 135) d e s c r i b e d  "opportunity  McKeachie  fulfillment, (1979, p . 5 ) ,  as  11 commenting on insufficient think  the  problem of  allocation  of  a l a c k of  energy to  "about t h o s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  done t h a t  are  fun  - that w i l l Bess  between i n d i v i d u a l  satisfaction  and  612)  faculty  suggest  (1982, p.  quality." will  (1983, p.  dissatisfactions desires  for  says  the  work one  214)  or  sees a  i n work and  B a l d w i n and  at  Blackburn from  growth.  Clark,  University  1983)  sums up  " p e r h a p s most i m p o r t a n t a  of  will link  (1981,  p.  regular  Boberg  faculty  concerns f o r q u a l i t y ,  the  that  organizational  gain s a t i s f a c t i o n  i n a study of  one  wants  "vital  and  work  found  s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t throughout t h e i r  Planning Council C o r c o r a n and  and  9),  a task suggested  of  c a r e e r renewal through p r o f e s s i o n a l Blackburn  or  arouse i n t e r e s t  spark c u r i o s i t y . "  productivity  energy  intrinsic  data.  Minnesota  The  (cited  in  t h i s v i e w w e l l when i t  faculty  members f i n d t h e i r work s t i m u l a t i n g ,  is vital  enjoyable  if its and  satisfying."  Vitality/Productivity  As abstract  shown a b o v e , t h e concepts of  l i t e r a t u r e i d e n t i f i e s and  to  less  however, i n i d e n t i f y i n g  vitality  and  productivity.  I t tends to  strategies  vitality  such i t i s h e l p f u l  productivity.  As  the and  be  general perspectives  approaches which d i f f e r e n t i a t e and  links  energy, s e l f - r e n e w a l , o p p o r t u n i t y  fulfillment clear,  Perspectives  for  maintaining to  at  or  12  least  r e v i e w the major s t r a t e g y p e r s p e c t i v e s  intrinsic, to  (extrinsic,  d e v e l o p m e n t a l , and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ) w h i c h  exist. The e x t r i n s i c  emphasize 1964,  1978,  (Kanter, 1981;  perspective identifies  factors  1981; 1978;  1977,  C l a r k and C o r c o r a n , 1985; Main,  1979;  B e s s , 1982).  1985)  Schurr,  Furniss,  and o p p o r t u n i t i e s 1980;  As s u c h , t h i s  B a l d w i n and B l a c k b u r n , p e r s p e c t i v e seeks t o  o p p o r t u n i t i e s which d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y individuals  t o r e a c h o u t , change,  encourages c r e a t i v i t y , organizational individuals  encourage  grow o r a d a p t .  as o p p o s e d t o  through r i g i d i t y  and  standardization.  as f u l f i l l m e n t  perspective  o f needs  Zalesny,  1981), development  of motivation  Gardner,  1 9 8 1 ) , and c h a n g e s  in attribution  (Schneider (Bess,  s t r a t e g y development  and  i n s t i t u t i o n a l and r o l e  Blackburn,  (Centra, 1981;  stages  specific  1978a; G a f f ,  Konrad,  and  as t h e  1981). focus  selection.  The d e v e l o p m e n t a l p e r s p e c t i v e s t r e s s e s and c a r e e r / l i f e  focus  1977;  (Bumpus,  This perspective looks within the i n d i v i d u a l  development  It  stifling  F a c t o r s d e v e l o p e d from t h e i n t r i n s i c  development  and  i n n o v a t i o n and r i s k t a k i n g t h r o u g h  flexibility  on such s t r a t e g i e s  1981;  f o r growth  e n s u r e t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o v i d e s an environment  as  which  the p r o v i s i o n of supportive environments (Gardner,  Lindquist,  for  appear  1985).  adult  ( B a l d w i n , 1979) forms o f 1978;  as  well  faculty  B a l d w i n and  These s t r a t e g i e s  recognize  p e o p l e change  over t h e i r careers,  opportunities  f o r growth and/or t h a t  individuals will The  benefit  administrative  consequently needing institutions  from f a c u l t y development. perspective  emphasizes  which are s t r u c t u r a l or p o l i c y focused. the  other  perspectives  recognizes  described  an i n s t i t u t i o n ' s  above,  strategy  change  approaches  W h i l e d r a w i n g on i t clearly  administration  influence organizational v i t a l i t y Structural  has t h e means t o  (Blackburn,  1979).  a n d f l e x i b i l i t y has b e e n p r o p o s e d as  ( G r o u p f o r Human D e v e l o p m e n t ,  1974;  Bess,  Other s t r a t e g i e s emphasized p e r s o n n e l - r e l a t e d initiatives  ( S m i t h , 1978;  i n c l u d i n g reward systems, information techniques development  systems  Claxton  and M u r r e l l ,  1984), e x t r i n s i c  Furniss,  (Patton  motivation  and Palmer,  suggesting  and p r o d u c t i v i t y .  s i n g l e elements o r narrow groups o n l y  on a b r o a d , comprehensive b a s i s . eleven  Bevan  i t .  1985;  factors  W h i l e many a few  report  (1985), f o r example,  f a c t o r s which f a c i l i t a t e  e i g h t which i n h i b i t  change,  Factors  Numerous w o r k s h a v e b e e n p u b l i s h e d  identifies  1978)  1981).  Vitality/Productivity  which a f f e c t f a c u l t y v i t a l i t y  1982).  1984),  ( P e l z a n d Andrews, 1 9 7 6 ) , a n d c a r e e r and v a r i e t y o p t i o n s  one  policy  ( B r o o k e s and German,  (Ewell,  B o y e r a n d L e w i s , 1985;  identify  and  vitality  I t i s S h u s t e r (1985, p .  and  23-27),  14 however, who derived of  reports  a comprehensive range of broad  from a survey of  tangibles  research,  and  i n t a n g i b l e s , he  means o f  good s t u d e n t s ,  faculty.  intellectual  faculty vitality.  intellectual  and  tools  refreshment, and  tangible  Intangible  (support  ( p a r t i c i p a t i o n and of  identified  m a n a g e a b l e work l o a d ,  s e c u r i t y o f c o m p e n s a t i o n as  leadership  Using umbrella  categories of  stimulation  symbolism  created  f a c t o r s were e n c o u r a g e m e n t  by  community  f a i r / o p e n d e c i s i o n making), s t i m u l a t i o n of  of  and  f a c t o r s which  d i r e c t i o n ) , sense of  f r e e d o m , and  factors  safeguarding  colleagues.  Conclusion  This  s t u d y o r i g i n a t e s f r o m an  perspective  b a s e d on  the  premise that  administration  can  productivity.  A major concern,  influence  community c o l l e g e s , i s t h e and  community  faculty vitality from the  on  B l a n d and  Schmitz  (1988) a r e  taken;  stated previously,  four year  schools.  responsibilities  absence of  senior or  instructors.  the  approach  their  research  professional as w e l l  graduate students provides  d i f f e r e n t w o r k i n g e n v i r o n m e n t and college  of  they r e s t r i c t e d  colleges  research  At  present  vitality  institutions.  to u n i v e r s i t i e s , four-year Lack of  and  faculty  representative  and  college  p o s i t i o n of  emphasis i n t h e  productivity literature  as  administrative  context  for  a  as  the  distinctly  community  i t appears reasonable  to  15 question the a p p l i c a t i o n of these findings  t o community  colleges.  community  Determining  factors  instructor productivity, w o u l d p r o v i d e new administrators.  that  affect  particularly  i n a Canadian  k n o w l e d g e f o r u s e b y community  college context,  college  16 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY  Population  a n d Sample  The t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n was c o n t i n u i n g c o n t r a c t  teaching  f a c u l t y members a t F r a s e r V a l l e y C o l l e g e a n d Red D e e r College  i n the winter  time a t t h e i r population in  r e s p e c t i v e c o l l e g e s i n September  included teaching  September  teaching  1989 s e m e s t e r who were t e a c h i n g  f o r other  t o be t e a c h i n g  the  This  release  those not  even though they  were  f a c u l t y members.  The t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n was s t r a t i f i e d subpopulations:  1989.  some t i m e  duties but excluded  a t a l l i n September  considered  faculty with  full-  i n t o two  t h e f a c u l t y a t F r a s e r V a l l e y C o l l e g e and  f a c u l t y a t Red D e e r C o l l e g e .  A 100% s a m p l e o f t h e  t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n was s u r v e y e d , i . e . , a c e n s u s . The  sampling  frames f o r F r a s e r V a l l e y C o l l e g e  D e e r C o l l e g e were t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e l i s t s contract personnel adjusted  teaching offices  f a c u l t y as p r o v i d e d i n F e b r u a r y 1989.  i n September  a n d Red  of continuing  by t h e c o l l e g e s ' These l i s t s  were  1989 t o remove f a c u l t y no l o n g e r  employed b y t h e c o l l e g e s and f a c u l t y on e d u c a t i o n a l , personal  sick or  leaves.  F r a s e r V a l l e y C o l l e g e was s e l e c t e d f o r t h i s because t h e researcher  i s employed  there  i n an  study  17 administrative  capacity,  faculty productivity accessible.  college,  result  from b i a s e s  researcher.  A  of  at the  an  interest in  college,  However, b e c a u s e o f  at the  effects  has  Red  the  researcher's  errors  and  could the  to reduce  Deer C o l l e g e  was  was  employment  f a c u l t y and/or  desired  necessary information  population  analysis  the  s e c o n d c o l l e g e was  potential bias;  because the  the  d a t a c o l l e c t i o n and e x p r e s s e d by  and  facilitating  the  selected  support  was  accessible.  R e s e a r c h D e s i g n and  This  research  extending college  was  context through the  s u r v e y d e s i g n was or  c e n s u s , as  sufficient The  possible  the  described  The  rate  first  overview of  of  cross-sectional  d a t a from a  This  was  the  contents of  as  100%  sample,  done t o e n s u r e  a  returned.  having a negative  to  effect  survey. questionnaire the  survey,  instructions,  a confidentiality/anonymity  definition  community c o l l e g e  of  A  of  f a c u l t y to questions r e l a t e d  perceived  for this  community  a case study type  c o m p l e t e d s u r v e y s w o u l d be  page o f  the  use  above.  s e n s i t i v i t y of  return  descriptive,  i n q u i r y i n t o the  used to c o l l e c t  number o f  and  community c o l l e g e s .  t h e i r p r o d u c t i v i t y was on  exploratory  faculty productivity  d e s i g n i n v o l v i n g two  Procedures  faculty  contained  an  general affirmation productivity  and  a  18 developed  through  a D e l p h i group p r o c e s s .  The b a l a n c e o f  the questionnaire c o n s i s t e d of three s e c t i o n s : Profile, into  Productivity Factor Identification  facilitating  Factor  and h i n d e r i n g i n c i d e n t s ) ,  Personal  (broken  down  and P r o d u c t i v i t y  Assessment.  Open f o r m q u e s t i o n s respondents' hindered  gathered  data p e r t a i n i n g t o the  p e r c e p t i o n o f f a c t o r s which f a c i l i t a t e d o r  productivity.  Closed  f o r m q u e s t i o n s were u s e d f o r  c o l l e c t i o n of personal p r o f i l e  d a t a as w e l l as f o r  productivity  data.  f a c t o r assessment  A p r e t e s t o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a d m i n i s t e r e d randomly s e l e c t e d f a c u l t y and  c o r r e c t ambiguity  construction. any  (5 f r o m e a c h c o l l e g e ) t o l o c a t e  as w e l l as o t h e r weaknesses i n  P r e t e s t respondents  were a s k e d  t o comment o n  component o f t h e s u r v e y w h i c h was u n c l e a r o r d i d n o t  adequately  allow f o r responses.  Personal  This  survey  a profile  instructions  asked  a p p r o p r i a t e response Questions  Profile  section of the questionnaire c o l l e c t e d  order t o develop  1.  t o 10  asked  (male o r f e m a l e )  respondents  respondents.  The  t o check t h e  f o r each question i n t h i s s e c t i o n .  included:  sex  o f survey  data i n  2.  3.  age  at l a s t  (in  5 year  birthday ranges s t a r t i n g w i t h  c u r r e n t main t e a c h i n g  under  26)  area  (career/vocational/trades; university transfer/academic; 4.  college preparatory/developmental)  current college position (temporary c o n t r a c t ; part-time full-time other with  5.  continuing contract with  responsibilities;  some t i m e r e l e a s e f o r o t h e r  for other  responsibilities)  l e n g t h o f employment a t t h i s  determined typed  f a c u l t y and College  questionnaires Red  sent  D e e r C o l l e g e on  less  than 6 y e a r s ) .  Fraser Valley  sent  sex  o f r e s p o n d e n t s was  sampling  question the  t o Red  College College Deer  u s e d t o compare t h e  d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents to that of the the  was  faculty.  The  on  release  an i n s t r u c t o r  to Fraser V a l l e y those  for  contract  time  respondent's c o l l e g e  from each q u e s t i o n n a i r e : on  full  c o l l e g e as  ranges s t a r t i n g w i t h  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the  time r e l e a s e  responsibilities;  continuing contract with  5 year  no  contract;  full-time continuing  full-time  (in  was  continuing  was  sampling  criteria.  frame.  The  target  While the  d i d n o t meet t h e  balance  population  current college p o s i t i o n  a s k e d t o e l i m i n a t e r e s p o n d e n t s who frame b u t  sex  target  of the p r o f i l e  appeared  on  population  questions  were  20 not  absolutely  n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e s t u d y t h e y were a s k e d i n  order t o provide a f u l l e r  Productivity  The  d e s c r i p t i o n of the respondents.  Factor  questions probing  f o r f a c t o r s which  p r o d u c t i v i t y were a s k e d u s i n g (the  critical  below) . of  a critical  which respondents  significant  in facilitating  Definitions  of incident  felt  were  or hindering  significant incident  which f a c i l i t a t e d  i n d i c a t e how  number  personally their  productivity.  i t facilitated  below). time a  They were  this incident their  by a r e q u e s t t o t h i n k  their productivity,  i n d i c a t e how  a  occurred at the college  facilitated  significant incident  facilitated  the  the incident  followed  personally  The  to obtain  back t o t h e l a s t  their productivity.  subsequently asked t o describe  was  separately  (these d e f i n i t i o n s are also discussed  personally  approach  a n d p e r s o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e were  R e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d t o t h i n k  This  affected  incident  i n c i d e n t method i s d i s c u s s e d  The p u r p o s e o f t h i s s e c t i o n was  incidents  provided  Identification  and t h e n t o productivity.  of another  at the college to describe  their  which  i t , and t o  productivity.  questions r e l a t i n g to hindering  incidents  format o f those a s k i n g about f a c i l i t a t i n g  followed  incidents.  R e s p o n d e n t s were a s k e d t o t h i n k  back t o t h e l a s t  personally  occurred at the college  significant incident  time a  21 which hindered t h e i r p r o d u c t i v i t y .  T h e y were  asked  t h e n t o i n d i c a t e how  to describe this  incident  and  incident hindered t h e i r productivity. a request t o t h i n k of another incident to  T h i s was  the  followed  by  personally significant  a t the c o l l e g e which hindered t h e i r  d e s c r i b e i t , and  subsequently  t o i n d i c a t e how  productivity,  i t hindered  their  productivity.  Critical  The  I n c i d e n t Method  critical  incident  actual behaviours observed  or incidents  from  collects t h o s e who  o r were a f f e c t e d b y a s i g n i f i c a n t  t e c h n i q u e was d u r i n g and into  technique  developed  by F l a n a g a n  a f t e r W o r l d War  a i r c r e w s e l e c t i o n and  and  data based directly  occurrence.  I I as an o u t g r o w t h o f  research  classification  Aviation  i n the  P r o g r a m o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Army A i r F o r c e s  (Flanagan,  1954,  There are  328).  five  s t e p s d e s c r i b e d by F l a n a g a n  337-346) f o r c a r r y i n g o u t t h e c r i t i c a l First,  a statement  o f t h e g e n e r a l aim  s t u d i e d n e e d s t o be statement  obtained  expresses  i n simple  people for  The  his colleagues  Psychology  p.  on  developed. from  would agree."  This  incident  pp.  technique.  of the a c t i v i t y to " s h o u l d be  the a u t h o r i t i e s  terms those  (1954,  i n the  a  be  brief  field  which  o b j e c t i v e s t o w h i c h most  S e c o n d , t h e p l a n s and  c o l l e c t i o n o f d a t a n e e d t o be  determined,  specifications including  the  situations  t o be o b s e r v e d  activities), indirect, effects and  (place, persons,  r e l e v a n c e t o t h e g e n e r a l aim  long-term  conditions, (direct  or short-term incidents),  negative effects  and  their  importance).  c o l l e c t i o n o f d a t a n e e d s t o be  c a r r i e d out  how  data analysis  n e e d s t o be c o n d u c t e d  f r a m e o f r e f e r e n c e t o be u s e d the r e s u l t s ) ,  t h e s t u d y n e e d t o be  from  critical  (by  (interviews,  sample s i z e .  t o be u s e d .  interpreted  and  Fifth,  approach.  Of p a r t i c u l a r  and  s t u d y , w h i c h was  reliable detail  critical  suitability  are  the of  incidents.  i n c i d e n t method was be  from  these both  addressed  and v a l i d i t y  i n c i d e n t method's a d v a n t a g e s and  in its  (1964) c o n c l u d e d  These i s s u e s w i l l  for descriptive  of  disadvantage,  reliability  i n the d i s c u s s i o n of r e l i a b i l i t y  The  level  the r e s u l t s  designed to i n v e s t i g a t e  that the c r i t i c a l and v a l i d .  concern  categorization of  N e v e r t h e l e s s , A n d e r s s o n and N i l s s o n  of  reported.  i n c i d e n t method's p r i m a r y  c o l l e c t i n g procedures,  concerns,  the  ( b a s e d on t h e p r o b a b l e u s e  comprehensiveness of data c o l l e c t e d ,  their  Fourth,  w i t h emphasis on  a quantitative research perspective, l i e s  qualitative  the  f o r m u l a t i o n o f i n c i d e n t c a t e g o r i e s and  of g e n e r a l i t y - s p e c i f i c i t y  The  (positive  with  i t is collected  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , o r r e c o r d f o r m s ) , and  the  Third,  c o n s i d e r a t i o n g i v e n t o when d a t a i s c o l l e c t e d observation or r e c a l l ) ,  or  and  o f r e p o r t e d i n c i d e n t s on t h e g e n e r a l a i m  and  i n more issues.  l i e in its  e x p l o r a t o r y r e s e a r c h and  in  23 its  adaptability to s p e c i f i c  originally  research conditions.  applied i n m i l i t a r y contexts  personnel  related  supported  for research  and  While  from t h e r e  to  i n d u s t r y a p p l i c a t i o n s , t h e method i s i n c o u n s e l l i n g (Woolsey,  1986,  now p.  251). Flanagan incident  (1954, p.  technique  methodology but  335)  should  r a t h e r be  emphasized the  not  be v i e w e d as  considered  p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h must be m o d i f i e d situation  a t hand."  This  a  and  data  i n t e r v i e w approach although,  according  Nilsson being  ( 1 9 6 4 ) , t h i s may  collected As  than  rigid set  allowed  personally  productivity. occurrence,  An  r e c u r r e n t l y over (Cochran,  1985,  b e c a u s e i t was  to Andersson  time, p.  of  i n c i d e n t s which t h e y were a s k e d  defined i n this  or continuously over T h i s d e f i n i t i o n was  able t o i n c l u d e the broad t o be  usual  and  r e p o r t e d and  incidents being  at a p o i n t i n time.  facilitated  their study  as  any  time, a period of  time  selected  range of i n c i d e n t s  to reduce  restricted  requested  for  i n c i d e n t s which hindered  42).  use  conducted.  or happening at a p o i n t i n  w h i c h were e x p e c t e d likelihood  Similarly,  i n c i d e n t was  event  the  i n s t e a d o f t h e more  i f i n t e r v i e w s were  significant  the  have r e s u l t e d i n f e w e r i n c i d e n t s  personally significant  their productivity.  of  a d a p t e d t o meet  a l r e a d y d e s c r i b e d a b o v e , r e s p o n d e n t s were  to r e c a l l  occurred  a  "flexible  f l e x i b i l i t y thus  of questionnaires to c o l l e c t  critical-  to those  the which  E x a m p l e s were p r o v i d e d  to  respondents t o c l a r i f y time frames. obtain  the point,  Receiving  a required  recurrent  recognition o r being  and c o n t i n u o u s unable t o  publication at the college l i b r a r y  examples o f i n c i d e n t s a t a p o i n t  i n t i m e . Crowded  were  classroom  space i n a course taught o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n on a c o l l e g e c o m m i t t e e were e x a m p l e s o f r e c u r r e n t sabbatical incidents For  o r secondment were p r o v i d e d continuous  a n i n c i d e n t t o be c o n s i d e r e d  negatively,  was  as examples o f  critical  aim o f t h e a c t i v i t y "  p. 338). In the context critical  of this  research  i f i t was p e r c e i v e d  i n s t r u c t o r a f f e c t e d t o have h a d a n o t a b l e facilitating aim)  or hindering  f o r any p e r i o d  Delphi  i t must  have  contribution, either positively or  t o the general  considered  A  i n nature.  made "a ' s i g n i f i c a n t '  1954,  incidents.  his/her  (Flanagan, an i n c i d e n t  by t h e  effect i n either  p r o d u c t i v i t y (the  general  o f time.  Process  In order general  t o provide  a standard  a i m as i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e c r i t i c a l  m e t h o d a b o v e , r e s p o n d e n t s were g i v e n defined  a statement  or  incident which  p r o d u c t i v i t y i n t h e f o r m o f outcomes e x p e c t e d o f a  productive  f a c u l t y member.  a team o f 12 r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s college)  frame o f r e f e r e n c e ,  T h e s e m e a s u r e s were d e v e l o p e d b y of the colleges  a c t i n g as a p a n e l i n a D e l p h i  (6 f r o m  process.  each  25 The  Delphi  to obtain  method i s a p r o c e d u r e o r i g i n a l l y  consensus of o p i n i o n  a proposed a c t i o n .  from a group o f e x p e r t s  I t s name comes  F o r c e s p o n s o r e d Rand C o r p o r a t i o n Delphi"  which involved (Linstone  Apollo's  oracle at Delphi  Delphi  group t r i e d  action to  and T u r o f f ,  study c a l l e d  "Project  1975, p . 1 0 ) .  i n Greek h i s t o r y , t h e P r o j e c t  t o look  i n t o t h e f u t u r e t o d e t e r m i n e what  take.  Delphi  method h a s s p r e a d t o s u c h d i v e r s e  conservation,  education,  (Bardecki, now  the  1984, p . 5 4 ) .  and  p u r p o s e s where  judgements a r e d e s i r e d .  tourism  subjective  One s t u d y f o u n d 83% o f  441 d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n s e m p l o y i n g t h e  technique during way,  a r e a s as  Besides f o r e c a s t i n g , the technique  a l s o used f o r other  collective  studying  forecasting,  energy developments, l a n d use,  marketing, recreation, s o c i a l planning  is  atomic  Relating to  I n i t i a l l y used p r i m a r i l y f o r t e c h n o l o g i c a l the  about  f r o m a 1950's U.S. A i r  development o f a m i l i t a r y  strategy  developed  Delphi  t h e 1980-1984 p e r i o d u s e d i t i n a n o r m a t i v e  preferences  and p e r c e p t i o n s  f o r e c a s t i n g and m i s c e l l a n e o u s r e s e a r c h  as opposed t o  (Rieger,  1986, p .  198) . The  Delphi  questionnaires members who  method u s e s i t e r a t i v e to collect  i n d i v i d u a l opinions  n e v e r meet f a c e  questionnaire  administration  to face.  After  group  each  ' r o u n d ' g r o u p members a r e g i v e n  t h r o u g h a summary o f t h e r o u n d ' s r e s u l t s .  from  of  feedback  In t h e subsequent  rounds they the  are asked to r e - e v a l u a t e t h e i r  feedback r e c e i v e d .  requested after  as p a r t o f t h e p r o c e s s .  four The  Justifications  answers b a s e d  f o r p o s i t i o n s may  The  D e l p h i u s u a l l y ends  strongest c r i t i c i s m Sackman  against the D e l p h i  (1975) who,  was  i r o n i c a l l y , was  with  The  Rand C o r p o r a t i o n where t h e D e l p h i t e c h n i q u e  originated.  Sackman q u e s t i o n e d  employed by  Delphi technique  Delphi  He  frequent 74).  the  scientific  as w e l l as t h e  formulated  16  standards  a p p l i c a t i o n of the  conclusions  about use  f o r c e d c o n s e n s u s b a s e d on crude questionnaire design  Goldschmidt  Sackman u s e d a  journalistic  approach  e s s e n t i a l l y having  G o l d s c h m i d t goes on  Goldschmidt's concluded  cited  support  57)  cite  inferred In s p i t e  (1986, p .  d i s s e r t a t i o n s using the Delphi technique  indicates,  restricted  to  of context,  of the Delphi, Rieger  poor design  in social  and  But  as B a r d e c k i  Delphi  201)  often  (1984,  analysis i s probably  research to the  done  Delphi  findings incorrectly.  e x h i b i t e d u n n e c e s s a r y weakness.  73-  scientific  practitioners  i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y and  pp.  charging  p r e v i o u s l y accused  e x a m p l e s where Sackman q u o t e d o u t  and  by  what Sackman h i m s e l f had of doing.  of  (Sackman, 1975,  rather than  i n e v a l u a t i n g the Delphi technique,  the  group s u g g e s t i o n  (1975) r e f u t e d t h e c r i t i c i s m s  the  technique  of  i n c l u d i n g the v u l n e r a b i l i t y of the concept  "expert,"  be  rounds.  p u b l i s h e d by  itself.  on  not  technique.  p.  of  27 The  D e l p h i method h a s t h e a d v a n t a g e t h a t  individual  members c a n n o t d o m i n a t e o r i n f l u e n c e t h e g r o u p a s t h e y c a n in  face t o face meetings.  Compared t o n o n i t e r a t i v e s u r v e y s ,  D e l p h i groups a l s o b e n e f i t from feedback o f r e s u l t s t o participants opinion. to  B e c a u s e some u s e r s o f t h e D e l p h i t e c h n i q u e  conduct  preclude  and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x p l o r e d i s s e n t i n g  their  research with  sufficient  rigor  failed  should not  i t s use by o t h e r s .  L i n s t o n e and T u r o f f  (1975, p . 4) i d e n t i f y s e v e r a l  c o n d i t i o n s which i n d i v i d u a l l y o r c o l l e c t i v e l y need t o use t h e D e l p h i p r o c e s s .  Among t h o s e  suggest t h e relevant to the  development o f a d e f i n i t i o n o f f a c u l t y p r o d u c t i v i t y  for this  study a r e : 1.  " t h e p r o b l e m does n o t l e n d i t s e l f techniques on  2.  to precise  analytical  b u t c a n b e n e f i t from s u b j e c t i v e judgements  a collective basis,"  "time  a n d c o s t make f r e q u e n t g r o u p m e e t i n g s  infeasible," 3.  " d i s a g r e e m e n t s among i n d i v i d u a l s a r e s o s e v e r e o r politically  u n p a l a t a b l e t h a t t h e communication  process  must b e r e f e r e e d a n d / o r a n o n y m i t y a s s u r e d , " a n d 4.  " t h e h e t e r o g e n e i t y o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s must b e preserved  t o assure v a l i d i t y  D e f i n i n g any term, l e t alone not  a process  techniques  which lends  itself  of the r e s u l t s . " faculty productivity, i s to precise analytical  and c a n d e f i n i t e l y b e n e f i t from  collective  28 judgements.  Given that t h i s  hundreds of m i l e s question. to this  While  study,  f a c u l t y to the  apart, "3"  there  above o v e r s t a t e s  question  two  key  the  college administration.  de Ven  and  developed g u i d e l i n e s f o r the or panel.  information  Delphi the  task  tactfully.  Finally,  viewed  from that  of  term  between t h e v i e w s o f  faculty  Gustafson  87-89)  (1975, pp.  s e l e c t i o n of the  to share,"  in their  process  "will  Delphi  (panelists)  schedule  "are m o t i v a t e d  include information  otherwise  panelists.  I f a panel  individuals  "should  experience.  to  they  have a c c e s s . "  "have include  should  of experts  group p o s s e s s i n g  value  be  used to  i s desired  relevant  A random sample o f t h i s  and and  to  Furthermore,  n o m i n a t i o n s o f w e l l - k n o w n and  from the  group  of competing t a s k s , "  suggested a nomination process  suggested seeking  and  attempt  p e r s o n a l l y i n v o l v e d i n the problem of concern,"  which they would not  the  Any  attempt t o d e f i n e the  They suggested respondents  pertinent  they  by  administrators. D e l b e c q , Van  that  relative  f a c u l t y t h e m s e l v e s and Any  a balance  the  sensitivity  c a r r i e d out  p e r s p e c t i v e s , that of  of  condition  f a c u l t y p r o d u c t i v i t y n e e d e d t o be  needed t o m a i n t a i n  colleges  of t h e i r p r o d u c t i v i t y .  issue of  the  the  i s , nevertheless,  the  feel  i n v o l v e d two  g r o u p m e e t i n g s were o u t  a t d e f i n i n g i t n e e d e d t o be  and  study  they respected  information  group c o u l d  t a k e n i f a more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e v i e w i s d e s i r e d .  select  be  29 The is  subject of experts  i s a contentious  superior  judgement r e l a t i v e  1987;  Goldschmidt,  Dietz  (1987, p .  convenience  1975;  80)  of experts  only  For t h i s  to t h a t of nonexperts  Linstone,  concludes  Sackman,  "Delphi panels  study  i t was  necessary  f a c u l t y at both  D e e r C o l l e g e on t h e p a n e l .  w o u l d be more l i k e l y p r o d u c t i v i t y and  to accept  represented  Obviously,  the  represented  on  obtain a panel combination  higher  a  to represent  the  Fraser Valley College  F a c u l t y and  a d e f i n i t i o n of  the Delphi panel. o f f a c u l t y and and  p a r t i c i p a t e b a s e d on  The  faculty  The  procedure  i n the panel  to  a  to  n o m i n a t e d as  presidents of the  f o r the  two  used  was  selection.  same r e a s o n .  a  result  faculty  c o l l e g e s were a l s o i n v i t e d  c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s and  research  i n their respective  T h e y were, i n a s e n s e ,  at both  and  c o l l e g e s were i n v i t e d  their position  the p o s i t i o n held.  was  definition.  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s was random  and  administrators  f o r the c o l l e g e s i f each c o l l e g e  p r e s i d e n t s of both  associations  r a t h e r than  i n the development o f the  of nominations  organizations.  are u s u a l l y a  a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the d e f i n i t i o n  r e s u l t s w o u l d be  1975).  the r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s i f each group  adequately  participate  1975;  (Dietz,  experts."  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and  The  to exercise  sample o f knowledgeable p e r s o n s  random s a m p l e o f  of  Not  i t d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e an e x p e r t , t h e r e i s a l s o  disagreement about the a b i l i t y  Red  one.  to The  two  faculty association presidents  30 were a s k e d t o e a c h nominate t h r e e three  continuing  expertise  contract  c o l l e g e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and  f a c u l t y that they f e l t  had t h e  and w i l l i n g n e s s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a D e l p h i  group  t o d e v e l o p a d e f i n i t i o n o f community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y productivity. and  I f they d e c l i n e d without nominating f a c u l t y  administrators  t h e y were a s k e d t o p a s s t h e r e q u e s t t o  a n o t h e r f a c u l t y member  ( i n the case o f t h e f a c u l t y  association presidents)  and t o another a d m i n i s t r a t o r  case o f c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s ) . were f i l l e d Any  f a c u l t y members a n d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s  (or  a delegate  the  Delphi  panel.  nominated by  and a f a c u l t y a s s o c i a t i o n  as d e s c r i b e d  were f i l l e d  a b o v e ) were r e q u e s t e d  president to join  T h e r e m a i n i n g p o s i t i o n s o n t h e 12 member b y random s e l e c t i o n b y c o l l e g e a n d r o l e  (faculty o r administration)  from t h e l i s t  anyone t h a t d e c l i n e d a r e q u e s t p o s i t i o n on t h e panel  faculty representatives  o f nominees.  to join the Delphi  was f i l l e d  r a n d o m l y s e l e c t e d nominee.  involved  positions  b y u s e o f t h e procedure below.  both a c o l l e g e president  panel  The r e m a i n i n g p a n e l  (in the  by going  were s e l e c t e d f r o m e a c h  a s k e d t o answer t h e f o l l o w i n g  panel the  t o t h e next  Three a d m i n i s t r a t o r s  i n the survey using  For  and t h r e e college  t h e above p r o c e d u r e .  They were  question:  How w o u l d y o u d e f i n e a p r o d u c t i v e community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y member? P l e a s e answer t h i s q u e s t i o n b y completing t h e statement below i n p o i n t form w i t h p r o d u c t i v i t y measures you f e e l a r e i m p o r t a n t . A productive one who:  community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y member i s  31 A series of  of cycles  providing  t h e group's r e s p o n s e s and subsequent o p p o r t u n i t i e s  m o d i f y and r a t e definitions  the factors  eventually  productivity  The list  used i n the  the  Schuster  composite  i n the d e f i n i t i o n of  associated  F a c t o r Assessment  asked respondents t o e v a l u a t e work r e l a t e d  (1985, p . 23-27) a n d o t h e r s  perceived e f f e c t of these factors  productivity.  to  questionnaire.  questionnaire also  of v i t a l i t y  i n these interim  resulted  Productivity  by  feedback about a composite  A five point  bipolar  on  factors  as r e p o r t e d  i n order t o assess faculty  interval rating  scale  was u s e d t o m e a s u r e f a c u l t y p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e p r i o r i t y factor  had i n i t s e f f e c t on t h e i r p r o d u c t i v i t y .  vitality the  basis  r e l a t e d work f a c t o r s  summarized i n T a b l e  f o r developing the survey  a  questions.  each  The 1 formed  TABLE 1:  VITALITY  FACTORS FROM THE LITERATURE  Baldwin (1983) opportunities to teach different courses opportunities to teach new courses opportunities for temporary nonacademic assignments Baldwin and Blackburn (1981); Bevan (1985) a college environment that is flexible an informal work environment Baldwin and Blackburn (1981); Kanter (1977) opportunities for career growth opportunities for career advancement Boberg and Blackburn (1983) a work environment which supports quality Boberg and Blackburn (1983); Corcoran and Clark (1983) stimulating work satisfying work fulfilling work Boyer and Lewis (1985) opportunities for outside professional consulting Gaff (1978) faculty development opportunities instructional development opportunities Schuster (1985) library holdings laboratory space and contemporary laboratory equipment professional meetings sabbatical leaves stimulation of good students manageable work load adequate compensation recognition appreciation clear institutional objectives and priorities meaningful faculty participation i n governance openness and fairness in decision making intellectual freedom stimulation of colleagues Sorcinelli (1986) opportunities to learn new things opportunities to take on new challenges opportunities to take on new responsibilities  33 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS  Delphi  All total  12 p a n e l i s t s r e s p o n d e d t o r o u n d one, c o n t r i b u t i n g a  o f 118 m e a s u r e s o f p r o d u c t i v i t y ( a n a v e r a g e o f  slightly were  Process  u n d e r 10 f a c t o r s p e r p a n e l i s t ) .  then c l a s s i f i e d  i n t o 10  The  118  categories.  I n r o u n d two p a n e l i s t s were e a c h p r o v i d e d  with  measures t h e y i d e n t i f i e d  i n r o u n d one and a s k e d t o  one o f t h e 10 c a t e g o r i e s  o r an 11th ( o t h e r  r e s p o n d e d , one f a i l e d response form w i t h not  categorized  Although a l l p a n e l i s t s  o f m e a s u r e s b y p a n e l i s t s showed  round.  measures r e c e i v e d t h e "other"  category  category  94.7% o f t h e  measures.  In t h i s  high  Six of the  118  r e s u l t i n g i n the reported  on a f i v e p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e w i t h  l o w i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e s t a t e m e n t t o them a n d  importance.  were  categories  r o u n d t h e y were a l s o a s k e d t o r a t e  o f t h e 10 c a t e g o r i e s signifying  page  Categorization  71.7% o f t h e i r  by t h e r e s e a r c h e r .  scheme accommodating  again  t h a t s i x o f t h e measures  by p a n e l i s t s i n t h i s  matched those a s s i g n e d  assign  t o each of the  t o r e t u r n p a r t o f t h e two  the r e s u l t  the  - none o f t h e  a b o v e accommodate t h i s p r o d u c t i v i t y m e a s u r e ) measures t h e y had r e p o r t e d .  measures  each one five  34 In  r o u n d t h r e e p a n e l i s t s were g i v e n f e e d b a c k  r o u n d two r e s u l t s rating, their  f o r each c a t e g o r y .  The g r o u p ' s  about average  l o w e s t and h i g h e s t r e s p o n s e s , s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n and  own r a t i n g were p r o v i d e d .  T h e y were a s k e d t o r e r a t e  e a c h c a t e g o r y u s i n g t h e same f i v e p o i n t response average  scale.  f o r a c a t e g o r y was more t h a n one u n i t  If their  new  from t h e  shown f o r i t i n r o u n d two, p a n e l i s t s were a s k e d t o  e x p l a i n why t h e y c o n s i d e r e d t h e s t a t e m e n t ' s i m p o r t a n c e t o be h i g h e r o r lower than the average response. also  g i v e n t h e s i x measures n o t c l a s s i f i e d  Panelists  were  b y them i n r o u n d  two a n d f o r e a c h were a s k e d t o : (a) a s s i g n a c a t e g o r y t o i t if  they f e l t  a n e x i s t i n g c a t e g o r y d i d accommodate t h e  m e a s u r e , o r (b) i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e m e a s u r e was  important  e n o u g h t o be a d d e d a s a s e p a r a t e c a t e g o r y , o r ( c ) i n d i c a t e that  t h e m e a s u r e was n o t i m p o r t a n t e n o u g h a n d s h o u l d be  deleted.  A l l panelists  three results thirds  responded  i n round t h r e e .  Round  f o r t h e s e s i x m e a s u r e s showed a t l e a s t  o f the respondents  felt  t h e m e a s u r e s were  two-  either  a l r e a d y c o v e r e d by an e x i s t i n g c a t e g o r y o r s h o u l d be deleted.  With  considered In  i n round  round  three results rating, their  s u c h l o w s u p p o r t t h e m e a s u r e s were n o t four.  f o u r p a n e l i s t s were g i v e n f e e d b a c k a b o u t f o r each category.  The g r o u p ' s  round  average  l o w e s t and h i g h e s t r e s p o n s e s , s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n ,  own r a t i n g  a n d r e s p o n d e n t comments w h i c h  r o u n d t h r e e r e p l i e s were p r o v i d e d .  accompanied  T h e y were a s k e d t o  35  TABLE 2:  COMPARISON OF RESPONSES TO ROUNDS TWO AND FOUR Mean  Category Round  2  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  4.42 4.55 4.25 4.08 4.75 4.58 4.25 4.50 4.25 3.17  t h e round three  4  2  4.50 3.92 4.17 4.08 5.00 4.67 4.17 4.58 4.17 3.17  r e r a t e each category use  SD  4  .95 .66 .72 .76 .43 .64 .60 .50 .60 1.07  .76 1.19 .80 .64 .00 .62 .55 .49 .55 1.07  u s i n g t h e same f i v e p o i n t s c a l e a n d t o f e e d b a c k t o h e l p them r e - e v a l u a t e  own r e s p o n s e s a n d t o more f u l l y u n d e r s t a n d the  o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s were f o r m e d .  was a g a i n o b t a i n e d . two  A comparison o f t h e p a n e l i s t s '  round f o u r a r e provided The  how o p i n i o n s o f  A 100% response  r a t i n g s o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s and t h e i r i n Table  eight categories f i n a l l y  final  rate round  ratings i n  2. used i n the d e f i n i t i o n o f  community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y p r o d u c t i v i t y a r e r e p o r t e d 3 on t h e next  their  i n Table  page.  P r o f i l e o f Respondents  Personal  profile  d a t a was c o l l e c t e d  i n order t o  d e s c r i b e t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f respondents by c o l l e g e , sex, age, and  c u r r e n t main t e a c h i n g a r e a , c u r r e n t c o l l e g e p o s i t i o n , l e n g t h o f time f a c u l t y had been i n s t r u c t o r s  at their  36 TABLE 3:  COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY PRODUCTIVITY D E F I N I T I O N  A productive  community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y member i s o n e who:  1.  i s an e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t o r , and committed t o remaining e f f e c t i v e  2.  i s s t u d e n t c e n t r e d , s t i m u l a t i n g and h e l p i n g t o l e a r n a n d l e a r n how t o l e a r n  3.  participates i n professional renewal a c t i v i t i e s  4. c a r r i e s t h e e x p e c t e d l o a d n o n i n s t r u c t i o n a l tasks 5.  updates and r e v i s e s  7.  uses resources  8. c o n t r i b u t e s and goals  respective by  beyond  The provided  College  mission  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was d e t e r m i n e d  on s u r v e y s sent  to Fraser  i.e.,  Valley  on s u r v e y s sent  Fraser  College  t o Red Deer  faculty. lists  of continuing  contract  teaching  faculty  through t h e p e r s o n n e l departments a t b o t h  identified  95 f a c u l t y a t F r a s e r  Deer C o l l e g e .  three  his/her  the college's  s h o w i n g t h e c o l l e g e name o n e a c h s u r v e y ,  College  and  regularly  college  to achieving  f a c u l t y a n d Red D e e r C o l l e g e  Red  development  efficiently  colleges.  Valley College  them  o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l and  courses  6. p a r t i c i p a t e s i n the s p e c i f i c teaching role  i s actively  Valley College  colleges  a n d 152 a t  The s u r v e y o f f a c u l t y , however,  excluded  f a c u l t y f r o m e a c h c o l l e g e who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e  37 Delphi project f o rthis received  a pilot  Each l i s t obtained  and f i v e  f r o m e a c h c o l l e g e who  survey.  was a l s o c o r r e c t e d , b a s e d o n i n f o r m a t i o n  through the c o l l e g e s ' personnel  those  who h a d r e t i r e d ,  final  totals  76  study  offices,  t o exclude  r e s i g n e d , o r were o n l e a v e .  of faculty  surveyed,  reflected  The  i n Table  4, w e r e  a t F r a s e r V a l l e y C o l l e g e a n d 133 a t Red D e e r C o l l e g e , f o r  a total  o f 209.  TABLE 4:  SAMPLING FRAME  ADJUSTMENTS FVC  RDC  TOTAL  F a c u l t y on l i s t s p r o v i d e d by P e r s o n n e l O f f i c e s  95  152  247  Less Adjustments: D e l p h i group P i l o t survey Leave/retired/resigned  3 5 11  Total  76  Surveyed  The  3 5 11  6 10 22  133  209  q u e s t i o n r e l a t i n g t o c o l l e g e p o s i t i o n o f an  i n s t r u c t o r had t h e d u a l purpose o f a c t i n g as a s c r e e n i n g question having in  (where a l l t h o s e  full-time  the analyses  population) the  as s e s s i o n a l s o r as  r e l e a s e f r o m t e a c h i n g were n o t i n c l u d e d because they  fell  outside the target  a n d a s a method o f c o l l e c t i n g  distribution  instructors with those  responding  who t e a c h  data  to describe  i n t h e sample b e t w e e n f u l l - t i m e r e l e a s e time f o r other o n l y a n d h a v e no r e l e a s e  continuing  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and time.  38 The  total  of these  number o f r e s p o n s e s r e c e i v e d was  c o m i n g f r o m F r a s e r V a l l e y C o l l e g e and  Deer C o l l e g e .  T h e r e were s i x u n u s a b l e  because these criteria.  Valley College 101  useable  left and  47  54  returned  useable  f r o m Red  F a c t o r A s s e s s m e n t ) i n one m i s u n d e r s t o o d by useable  the  The r a t e of  107  f a c u l t y at both c o l l e g e s .  as  shown i n T a b l e  TABLE  5:  from  above,  population  from  Fraser  for a total  of  III (Productivity  questionnaires i n only  was  100  returned  represents  total  of  A f t e r deducting the useable  209 the  return  a  return  sent  to  s i x unusable  r a t e was  48.  QUESTIONNAIRE RETURN RATE Number Returned  %  Useable Returns  %  FVC RDC  76 133  51 56  67.1% 42.1%  47 54  61.8% 40.6%  Totals  209  107  51.2%  101  48.3%  shown i n T a b l e  f e m a l e and  6 on  the  next page, t h e r e were  62 m a l e r e s p o n d e n t s t o t h e  questionnaire  d i d not  regarding  of respondent.  sex  Red  5•  Number Sent  As  51  for Part I I I .  when compared t o t h e  responses reported  Part  of the useable  questionnaires  51.2%  Deer C o l l e g e  respondent r e s u l t i n g  questionnaires  target  questionnaires  questionnaires.  56  with  questionnaires  r e s p o n d e n t s d i d n o t meet t h e  This  107  sex  of those  i n the  show an  sampling  survey.  answer t o t h e The frame  sex  One  38  returned  question  o f r e s p o n d e n t s and  ( a f t e r adjustments  for  the  39 TABLE 6 :  SEX OF RESPONDENTS FVC  %  RDC  %  Total  Female Male Unknown  17 30 0  36. .2% 63. .8% 0,.0%  21 32 1  38. 9% 59. 3% 1. 9%  38 62 1  37. 6% 61. 4% 1. 0%  Total  47  100,.0%  54  100. 1%  101  100. 0%  D e l p h i group and p i l o t for  survey  leaves, retirements  Table  7.  A s shown  r e t u r n i n g useable profile TABLE 7:  participation  and a d j u s t m e n t s  and r e s i g n a t i o n s ) i s c o m p a r e d i n  i n this  table,  the sex p r o f i l e  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s was  of  those  s i m i l a r t o the sex  o f t h e t o t a l who were s e n t t h e  surveys.  RESPONDENTS VERSUS ADJUSTED SAMPLING FRAME FVC  RDC  TOTAL  Female Respondents S a m p l i n g Frame  36.2% 44.7%  38.9% 31.6%  37.6% 36.4%  Male Respondents S a m p l i n g Frame  63.8% 55.3%  59.3% 61.7%  61.4% 59.3%  Unknown Respondents S a m p l i n g Frame  0.0% 0.0%  1.9% 6.8%  1.0% 4.3%  Total Respondents S a m p l i n g Frame  100.0% 100.0%  100.1% 100.1%  100.0% 100.0%  Sex  Determination  o f the sex o f f a c u l t y  listed  on t h e  f r a m e s i s , however, b a s e d o n o p i n i o n and p r o v i d e d rough comparison.  The r e s e a r c h e r was  acquainted  f a c u l t y on t h e F r a s e r V a l l e y C o l l e g e l i s t  sampling only f o r with  but not with  those  40 on  t h e Red D e e r l i s t .  Red  Deer C o l l e g e  Consequently/  determination  f a c u l t y on t h e l i s t  was b a s e d o n  i d e n t i f y i n g m a l e a n d f e m a l e names.  While those  o f sex o f  names w h i c h  commonly c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d t o e i t h e r s e x o r w e r e f o r e i g n were i d e n t i f i e d b e e n made w i t h  a s unknown, i t i s p o s s i b l e e r r o r s c o u l d others.  R e s p o n d e n t s were p r i m a r i l y i n t h e 36-50 y e a r as  illustrated  TABLE 8:  by Table  8.  Total n  Approximately one-third  RDC  TOTAL  n  2.1% 0.0% 2.1% 23.4% 29.8% 27.7% 6.4% 6.4% 2.1%  0.0% 1.9% 13.0% 20.4% 33.3% 13.0% 13.0% 5.6% 0.0%  1.0% 1.0% 7.9% 21.8% 31.7% 19.8% 9.9% 5.9% 1.0%  1 1 8 22 32 20 10 6 1  100.0% 47  reported  most f r e q u e n t groups w i t h  100.2% 54  being  100.0% 101  The n e x t  age r e s p o n s e s were t h e 36-40 a n d 46-50 a g e  21.8% a n d 19.8% r e s p e c t i v e l y .  r a n g e a t Red D e e r C o l l e g e (80.9%).  A noticeable  respect  f a c u l t y were n o t a s c o n c e n t r a t e d  Valley College  101  a n d Red D e e r  i n t h e 41-45 age r a n g e .  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e c o l l e g e s w i t h that  (31.7%)  FVC  of respondents a t both Fraser V a l l e y College  is  age range  AGE OF RESPONDENTS  Not a n s w e r e d 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65  College  have  t o f a c u l t y age  i n t h e 36-50 a g e  (66.7%) a s t h e y were a t F r a s e r  41 T h o s e s u r v e y e d were a s k e d t o i d e n t i f y t h e i r main t e a c h i n g  area  b y s e l e c t i n g one o n l y o f  'career/vocational/trades', or  current  'university  'college preparatory/developmental'.  These a r e a s were  not  intended  but  were i n s t e a d s e l e c t e d t o g i v e a s e n s e o f d i s t r i b u t i o n o f  faculty Table  to provide  transfer/academic',  among t h e s e common community c o l l e g e p r o g r a m  9 illustrates  TABLE 9:  sharp demarcations of teaching  areas  areas.  the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses.  CURRENT MAIN TEACHING AREA FVC  RDC  TOTAL  n  Career/vocational/ trades  38.3%  50.0%  44.6%  45  College preparatory/ developmental  17.0%  9.3%  12.9%  13  University transfer/ academic  44.7%  40.7%  42.6%  43  100.0% 47  100.0% 54  100.1% 101  Total n  The  question  which asked respondents t o s e l e c t t h e  statement which best  described  p o s i t i o n was i n t e n d e d  their current  to provide  data  i n s t r u c t o r s without time r e l e a s e  f o rother  t h o s e who h a d some t i m e r e l e a s e .  provided  college  about t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n  b e t w e e n t h o s e who were f u l l - t i m e c o n t i n u i n g  and  101  contract responsibilities  The q u e s t i o n  also  r e s p o n d e n t s t h e o p t i o n o f i n d i c a t i n g t h e y were  temporary c o n t r a c t , time continuing  part-time  contract  continuing  instructors with  contract, full  time  or f u l l release  42 for  other  intended the  responsibilities. to identify  f a c u l t y who  target population.  Table  d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses. TABLE 1 0 :  These l a t t e r o p t i o n s  CURRENT COLLEGE  were  d i d not f i t the c r i t e r i a  10 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e  Six returned  s u r v e y s were  POSITION Total  FVC  RDC  Ses s i o n a l / t e m p o r a r y contract  0  0  0  Part-time contract  2  0  2  Full-time continuing w i t h no r e l e a s e t i m e  22  34  56  Full-time continuing w i t h some r e l e a s e t i m e  25  20  45  Full-time continuing w i t h f u l l r e l e a s e time  2  2  4  51  56  107  continuing  Total  excluded target  from a n a l y s i s because respondents d i d not f i t t h e  population.  part-time  other  The r e m a i n i n g  full  no t i m e r e l e a s e  instructors.  i n s t r u c t o r s who  (45).  f o r other  release  contract  responsibilities  T h e r e were no  At Fraser Valley College  h a d some t i m e r e l e a s e  time  full-  101 r e s p o n d e n t s  between f u l l - t i m e c o n t i n u i n g  a n d some t i m e r e l e a s e  contract  t h e m s e l v e s as  i n s t r u c t o r s and f o u r as  instructors with  responsibilities.  instructors with  more  contract  contract  were c l o s e l y s p l i t  (56)  Two o f t h e s e i d e n t i f i e d  continuing  time continuing for  of  temporary there  f o r other  were  43 responsibilities time  (25) t h a n t h e r e were i n s t r u c t o r s w i t h no  r e l e a s e (22).  A t Red D e e r C o l l e g e t h e s i t u a t i o n was  r e v e r s e d w i t h 34 i n s t r u c t o r s r e p o r t i n g no t i m e 20 r e p o r t i n g  some r e l e a s e .  Also of interest  i n development o f a respondent  is  t h e l e n g t h o f time  as  instructors with their college  TABLE 1 1 :  f a c u l t y r e s p o n d i n g have been  6  (see Table  profile  employed  11). A t the  LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT WITH COLLEGE AS INSTRUCTORS FVC  Less  r e l e a s e and  than  6 years  - 10 y e a r s  RDC  Total  n  14.9%  9.3%  11.9%  12  36.2%  51.9%  44.6%  45  11-15  years  48.9%  22.2%  34.7%  35  16-20  years  0.0%  13.0%  6.9%  7  21-25  years  0.0%  3.7%  2.0%  2  100.0% 47  100.1% 54  100.1% 101  Total n  time o f t h i s  s u r v e y F r a s e r V a l l e y C o l l e g e was i n i t s 1 5 t h  y e a r and Red Deer C o l l e g e i n i t s 26th. Valley  instructors  A l m o s t 49% o f F r a s e r  had been w i t h t h e i r c o l l e g e  years with approximately had  101  been w i t h t h e c o l l e g e  36% f o r 6-10 y e a r s . f o rless  than  f o r 11-15 Less  6 years.  Red D e e r C o l l e g e ' s i n s t r u c t o r s h a d b e e n w i t h t h e i r for  6-10 y e a r s , r e p r e s e n t i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y  instructors. years  16-20 y e a r s .  Less than  Most o f college  52% o f  A b o u t 22% h a d b e e n w i t h t h e c o l l e g e  a n d 13% f r o m  t h a n 15%  f r o m 11-15  10% h a d b e e n  44 instructors  at the college  t h a n 4% f o r 21-25  Factors  The  Facilitating  and H i n d e r i n g  factors  t o two a n a l y s e s .  categorization stages.  years.  productivity  subjected  f o r l e s s than 6 y e a r s and l e s s  of reported  section  The f i r s t incidents,  Productivity  of the survey  was  analysis, consisted  o f two  S t a g e one was t o become t h o r o u g h l y a c q u a i n t e d  answers t o t h e q u e s t i o n s which asked respondents t o facilitating and  and h i n d e r i n g  differences  classification to  think  incident  think  was  their productivity.  significant  a reported  their  significant incident Faculty  time a p e r s o n a l l y  were a l s o  Like  the f a c i l i t a t i n g  incident  with a request t o think  incident  w e r e u s e d t o more  facilitated  asked t o  their  question,  of another  or hindered  this  incident  The q u e s t i o n s  asking  productivity  f u l l y understand the responses  t o help determine i f the reported  which  significant  o c c u r r e d a t t h e c o l l e g e which hindered  followed  faculty  I n t h e n e x t q u e s t i o n t h e y were a s k e d i f t h e y  which hindered t h e i r p r o d u c t i v i t y .  and  similarities  The s u r v e y a s k e d  time a p e r s o n a l l y  of another personally  productivity.  describe  i n order to prepare f o r  of these incidents.  back t o t h e l a s t  incident  noting  occurred a t the c o l l e g e which f a c i l i t a t e d  facilitated think  i n incidents,  back t o t h e l a s t  productivity. could  incidents,  with  incidents  provided were  how  45 personally significant useable returned total 31  of  171  cases.  respondents.  questionnaires  facilitating  and  g a v e no  S t a g e two  a total  r e s p o n s e i n 43  of the  first  and  considered  satisfactory.  of  159  meaningfulness of the reported.  This  categories  more g e n e r a l  category  modifying until  level.  categories  i n c l u d e d an  categories design  level  The  330  c o l l e c t e d by  f o r the  grouped at  until  regrouped  derived.  in  into  achieved. (171  facilitating  questionnaire  and  r e s u l t e d i n 15  159  hindering)  incident  a theme f o r t h e  i t contains. the  a  a s a t i s f a c t o r y major  major areas each of which provides  reflects  the  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  t o be  area  was  incidents  c a t e g o r i e s w h i c h i n t u r n were a b l e  categories  (and  This consisted of a s e r i e s of c y c l e s  incidents the  by  analysis  to assess  i f t h e y i n t u r n c o u l d be  l e v e l major c a t e g o r i e s g r o u p i n g was  sorting  followed  w h i c h c a t e g o r i e s were g r o u p e d , r e v i e w e d and higher  in  hindering  categorization  s t a g e a l s o examined the t o see  a  cases.  This process  i n c i d e n t f r e q u e n c y among t h e  101  response  analysis consisted of  i n c i d e n t placement i n c a t e g o r i e s )  the  g a v e no  incidents into tentative categories  s e v e r a l c y c l e s of reviewing  of  In the  respondents described  i n c i d e n t s and  They a l s o d e s c r i b e d  incidents  related  t o the  Each of the  theme f o r t h e  grouped i n t o  categories  four  related  i n a major  i n c i d e n t s from which i t  was  46 The Factor  second a n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t s  s e c t i o n of the questionnaire  frequency assessment as summarized facilitating  o f the 4 major  of the  Productivity  i n v o l v e d a r e v i e w and a r e a s and  i n T a b l e 12 and d e s c r i b e d b e l o w .  15  categories Examples  and h i n d e r i n g i n c i d e n t s a r e p r o v i d e d  category.  For each i n c i d e n t  TABLE 12:  F A C I L I T A T I N G AND  cited  f o r each  the quotation i n  HINDERING INCIDENT CATEGORIES  Facilitating incidents are associated with the presence or positive effects of these factors. Hindering incidents are associated with their absence or negative effects. A. 1. 2. 3. 4. B. 5. 6. 7. 8. C. 9. 10. 11. D. 12. 13. 14. 15.  of  Interaction with Others Support from Administration (e.g., support, assistance, encouragement, recognition, awards from admimstration/board/government) Leadership by Administration (e.g., consultation, listening, communication, organizational structure, delegation, direction, decision making, management style, social interaction at work) Colleagues (e.g., support, assistance, encouragement, recognition, social interaction at work) Students (e.g., response, feedback, performance, behavior, achievement) Resources Equipment (e.g., for classroom, office, laboratory - including computer related equipment) Facilities (e.g., space, physical plant, maintenance) Funding (e.g., budget, ministry funding) Support Services (e.g., library collection and services, audio-visual collection and services, training aid availability, counselling/advising services, registration services) Processes and Policies Personnel Issues (e.g., evaluations, evaluation processes, compensation, training availability, contract negotiations) Professional Development (e.g., conferences, articulation, workshops, courses, sabbaticals, reading; opportunities, time, funding, support) Scheduling Practices (e.g., classes, meetings, exams) Work Activities Programming Issues (e.g., new courses and programs, unchanged courses and programs, educational innovations, revision of courses) Secondary Duties (e.g., committees, meetings, peripheral tasks, special requests, administrative duties) Workload (e.g., class sizes, number of sections, release time, staffing levels) Work Roles (e.g., new, different, unchanged)  47 parentheses question,  i s the corresponding response  "How  did this  productivity?"  incident  Facilitating  to the  facilitate  incidents  survey  [or hinder]  are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  the presence  or p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s of the  a category.  Hindering incidents are a s s o c i a t e d with i t s  absence o r n e g a t i v e  reflect  first direct  major area  and  48  by  A total  Others  f o c u s e s on c a t e g o r i e s w h i c h  or indirect  o t h e r s a t work.  factor reflected  effect.  Interaction with  The  your  interaction or relationships  o f 89  incidents  (41  with  facilitating  h i n d e r i n g ) were r e p o r t e d u n d e r t h i s m a j o r a r e a i n  four categories. Support from Administration/Board/Government (14 f a c i l i t a t i n g i n c i d e n t s ; 9 h i n d e r i n g ) This category r e f l e c t s  incidents relating  to  support,  a s s i s t a n c e , e n c o u r a g e m e n t , r e c o g n i t i o n and  awards  from  college  and/or  government  bodies  a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , the c o l l e g e board, such  as t h e m i n i s t r y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r community  colleges. e.g., facilitating: " n o m i n a t i o n f o r Dean's Award o f E x c e l l e n c e " ( " r a i s e d my e x p e c t a t i o n s o f m y s e l f t o be a l e r t f o r ways t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e t o t a l college") e.g., hindering: "Dean r e c e i v e s many p o s i t i v e l e t t e r s and comments r e g a r d i n g my c o u r s e s and t e a c h i n g a b i l i t y , y e t i s not s u p p o r t i v e ( p r o f e s s i o n a l l y s u p p o r t i v e ) when n e e d e d " ("no  48 r e s p e c t f o r t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t o r and p r e f e r t o s p e n d e n e r g i e s t e a c h i n g r a t h e r t h a n i n c o m m i t t e e work") Leadership (5  by  Administration  facilitating This  category  consultation, structure,  i n c i d e n t s , 29 reflects  listening,  delegation,  management s t y l e and  hindering)  incidents related to  communication,  direction,  social  organizational  d e c i s i o n making,  i n t e r a c t i o n a t work  as  d e m o n s t r a t e d by c o l l e g e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . e.g., facilitating: " B e i n g t a k e n t o t a s k (by my i m m e d i a t e s u p e r v i s o r ) f o r work n o t c o m p l e t e d due t o my h a v i n g assumed t o o many a d d i t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s " ( " f o r c e d me t o r e e x a m i n e my p r i o r i t i e s , l i m i t t h e number o f e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s I assume and d r o p some l e s s important r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s " ) e.g., hindering: "lack of ' r e a l l i s t e n i n g ' to p e d a g o g i c a l c o n c e r n s on b e h a l f o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " ( " i n h i b i t s f u r t h e r i n v o l v e m e n t and c u r t a i l s the s t r i v i n g f o r excellence") Colleagues (9  facilitating This  incidents, 9  category  reflects  hindering) incidents relating  a s s i s t a n c e , e n c o u r a g e m e n t , r e c o g n i t i o n and i n t e r a c t i o n a t work as members a t t h e  d e m o n s t r a t e d by  c o l l e g e as w e l l as  to  support,  social  fellow faculty  colleagues  at  other  community c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s . e.g., facilitating: "the c o n t i n u o u s t o t a l s u p p o r t o f my i m m e d i a t e d e p a r t m e n t c o l l e a g u e s , and the l a r g e r support of colleagues i n general, both f a c u l t y and s t a f f , p l u s t h e s u p p o r t o f one o r two i m m e d i a t e s u p e r i o r s i n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " ( " t h i s has g i v e n me t h e i m m e a s u r a b l e s e c u r i t y o f f e e l i n g r e s p e c t e d , my work and commitments t a k e n s e r i o u s l y b y my p e e r s , and o f b e i n g p a r t o f a l a r g e r s u p p o r t i v e group")  49 e.g., hindering: "no r e s p o n s e f r o m c o l l e a g u e s when w r i t i n g s s e n t t o them" ("Why bother communicating w i t h c o l l e a g u e s ? " ) Students (13  facilitating  incidents,  This category feedback,  reflects  1  hindering)  incidents relating  performance, behavior  demonstrated by  students  and  d u r i n g and  to  achievement  response,  as  after their college  studies. e.g., facilitating: " r e c e i v i n g an e x c e l l e n t s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n " ( " g i v e s me t h e r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t my h a r d work i s n o t i n v a i n a n d t h a t I am a c c o m p l i s h i n g t h e t a s k w h i c h I s e t o u t t o do as professional") e.g., hindering: "drop i n s t u d e n t s " interrupted productivity")  a  ("students  Resources  The  second major area t i e s  categories  related to a v a i l a b i l i t y  c o l l e g e o p e r a t i o n s g e n e r a l l y and A total  of  together  68  i n c i d e n t s (26  i n c i d e n t s and  of resources  instruction  facilitating  and  to  support  particularly. 42  hindering)  were r e p o r t e d under t h i s major a r e a i n f o u r c a t e g o r i e s . Equipment (12  facilitating  incidents,  This category availability  and  reflects  9  hindering)  incidents related  to  c o n d i t i o n o f equipment, i n c l u d i n g  computer  r e l a t e d r e s o u r c e s , f o r c l a s s r o o m s , o f f i c e s and l a b o r a t o r i e s . e.g., facilitating: "replacement of out o f date e q u i p m e n t i n my c l a s s r o o m " ( " a l l o w e d me t o t e a c h new courses")  50 e.g., hindering: " l a c k o f money t o p u r c h a s e l a b s u p p l i e s and e q u i p m e n t " ("I h a v e t o o c c a s i o n a l l y spend time 'scrounging' m a t e r i a l s from o t h e r i n s t r u c t o r s o r , ' a r o u n d ' t h e campus, e t c . I hate t a k i n g time i n the middle of a l e c t u r e / l a b , e t c . , t o f i x a s l i d e p r o j e c t o r , f i g u r e out what's wrong with a microscope, etc.") Facilities (4  facilitating This  incidents,  15  category r e f l e c t s  availability,  hindering)  incidents  a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s and  r e l a t i n g to  condition  of  space,  p h y s i c a l p l a n t and c o l l e g e f a c i l i t i e s m a i n t e n a n c e . e.g., facilitating: "assignment of c l o s e d o f f i c e space" ( " d i s t r a c t i o n s e l i m i n a t e d , able to deal w i t h s t u d e n t s more e f f e c t i v e l y " ) e.g., hindering: "classroom too crowded f o r b o t h s t u d e n t s and i n s t r u c t o r s - h o t , s t u f f y , e t c . " ( " d i s t r a c t s b o t h s t u d e n t & i n s t r u c t o r f r o m work a t hand") Funding (1  facilitating This  college  incident,  category r e f l e c t s  funding issues  unit within  the  budgets, only  hindering) incidents  s u c h as  college)  While other incidents  general  6  the  r e l a t i n g to  general  c o l l e g e budget  (or f o r  or ministry  funding f o r programs.  o f t e n were a l s o a f f e c t e d by  those i n c i d e n t s which d e a l t w i t h  manner were i n c l u d e d  here.  If a  college  funding i n  funding  s p e c i f i e d , f o r example, c o m p u t i n g e q u i p m e n t , i t  included  under the  case,  a  related  incident  appropriate  a  resources category,  was  in this  equipment. e.g., facilitating: " o b t a i n i n g a s m a l l amount o f c a p i t a l d o l l a r s " ("to r e p l a c e o r u p g r a d e c l a s s r o o m e q u i p m e n t o r a i d s i s good f o r m o r a l e and makes one  51 f e e l t h a t one i s a p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d n o t s i m p l y p r e t e n d i n g t o b e one") e.g., hindering: "serious lack of funding. C a p i t a l money i s n o t a v a i l a b l e a t a l l t o k e e p up w i t h c h a n g i n g t e c h n o l o g y " ("we a r e t r a i n i n g o u r s t u d e n t s o n o u t o f d a t e e q u i p m e n t when we s h o u l d be a t t h e f o r e f r o n t . Industry i s not impressed") Support  Services  (9 f a c i l i t a t i n g  incidents,  This category library collection services,  12 h i n d e r i n g )  reflects  incidents relating  and s e r v i c e s ,  to the  a u d i o - v i s u a l c o l l e c t i o n and  a v a i l a b i l i t y of training aids,  counselling/advising  s e r v i c e s and a d m i s s i o n / r e g i s t r a t i o n  services. e.g., facilitating: " s u p p o r t f r o m AV d e p a r t m e n t i n o r i e n t i n g my s t u d e n t s t o e q u i p m e n t a n d procedures f o r t h e i r use r e course requirements" ( " S u p p o r t e d & f a c i l i t a t e d my s t u d e n t s i n m e e t i n g course requirements") e.g., hindering: " a f t e r t a k i n g much t i m e t o p r i o r i t i z e requests f o r p e r i o d i c a l s by the d e p a r t m e n t , t h e L e a r n i n g R e s o u r c e s a r e a made u n i l a t e r a l d e c i s i o n s which d i s r e g a r d e d s u g g e s t i o n s " ("my i n t e n t i o n s t o i n c r e a s e my a n d my s t u d e n t s s c h o l a r l y r e a d i n g has been on h o l d . A l s o , q u e s t i o n t h e t i m e we p u t i n t o t r y t o make high quality decision")  Processes  The  and P o l i c i e s  t h i r d major area covers  c o l l e g e processes  and p o l i c i e s .  personnel  incidents,  related  scheduling of instructional  i n c i d e n t s which r e l a t e t o This area deals  with  p r o f e s s i o n a l development and and n o n i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s .  52  A t o t a l of  67  incidents  (43  f a c i l i t a t i n g and  24  hindering)  were r e p o r t e d under t h i s major a r e a i n t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s . Personnel (1  Issues  f a c i l i t a t i n g incident,  13  This category r e f l e c t s evaluations,  hindering) incidents relating  to  e v a l u a t i o n processes, compensation,  training  a v a i l a b i l i t y and c o n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n s . e.g., f a c i l i t a t i n g : "consulted with Chairperson r e how I c o u l d b e s t u s e my s k i l l s and t a l e n t s t o c o n t i n u e c o n t r i b u t i o n t o department. I asked f o r and g o t f e e d b a c k r e p a s t r o l e " ( " e n a b l e d me t o comfortably continue i n curriculum leadership r o l e with v e r i f i e d support. I a l s o was f r e e r t o s e e k feedback from o t h e r s " ) e.g., hindering: "mega-evaluation" ("I p r e f e r immediate feedback from s t u d e n t s but f e e l anxious about the time-consuming & l a b o r i o u s e v a l u a t i o n procedures which our c o l l e g e supports") Professional (38  Development  f a c i l i t a t i n g incidents, This category r e f l e c t s  activities courses,  such  incidents relating  as c o n f e r e n c e s ,  s a b b a t i c a l s and  supporting  6 hindering)  factors  articulation,  reading.  to  specific  workshops,  It also includes  s u c h as o p p o r t u n i t i e s , t i m e ,  funding  g e n e r a l support f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l development. e.g., facilitating: " a l l discipline related p r o f e s s i o n a l development" ("allows t e a c h i n g o f concepts with greater accuracy")  new  e.g., hindering: " a p p l i e d f o r a 6 month s a b b a t i c a l t o f i n i s h a M a s t e r ' s d e g r e e and i t was n o t g r a n t e d " ( " f e l t d e v a s t a t e d f o r s e v e r a l months p a r t i c u l a r l y b e c a u s e I had r e c e i v e d e x c e l l e n t e v a l u a t i o n s & had s e r v e d v e r y e f f e c t i v e l y on many c o l l e g e and d e p a r t m e n t c o m m i t t e e s " )  and  53 Scheduling Practices (4 f a c i l i t a t i n g i n c i d e n t s , This category r e f l e c t s  5 hindering) incidents relating  to the  s c h e d u l i n g o f c l a s s e s , m e e t i n g s a n d exams. e.g., facilitating: " I was a b l e t o s c h e d u l e a c o u r s e which had t r a d i t i o n a l l y been t a u g h t e v e n i n g s d u r i n g a m o r n i n g b l o c k " ("1) h a d b e t t e r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h my s t u d e n t s a s e x p e r i e n c e h a s t a u g h t me t h a t b o t h s t u d e n t s a n d me a r e t i r e d i n t h e e v e n i n g s and so c o v e r l e s s m a t e r i a l , l e s s well. 2) more s t u d e n t s were a b l e t o t a k e ( o r i n t e r e s t e d i n taking) the course i n the morning b l o c k a n d s o e n r o l m e n t went up, b r i n g i n g more students into contact with that d i s c i p l i n e " ) e.g., hindering: "an u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y t i g h t exam s c h e d u l e and d e a d l i n e f o r s u b m i t t i n g f i n a l grades" ( " i n a b i l i t y t o a s s e s s s t u d e n t s performance as c a r e f u l l y a n d c o m p l e t e l y as I deemed a p p r o p r i a t e ; d e m o r a l i z i n g e f f e c t o f f e e l i n g t h e c o l l e g e does n o t s h a r e t h e same b a s i c a c a d e m i c v a l u e s a s I do")  Work A c t i v i t i e s  The relate  f o u r t h and f i n a l major a r e a c o v e r s  t o t h e work a c t i v i t i e s  faculty.  A total  incidents  which  p e r f o r m e d b y community c o l l e g e  o f 106 i n c i d e n t s  (61 f a c i l i t a t i n g  a n d 45  h i n d e r i n g ) were r e p o r t e d u n d e r t h i s m a j o r a r e a i n f o u r categories. Programming (14  Issues  facilitating  incidents,  This category r e f l e c t s d e v e l o p m e n t o f new c o u r s e s and  6 hindering) incidents relating to and programs, unchanged  courses  programs, e d u c a t i o n a l i n n o v a t i o n s and r e v i s i o n o f  existing  courses.  54 e.g., facilitating: "largest continuous i n c i d e n t o v e r t h e y e a r s has b e e n t h e f r e e d o m , t r u s t and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y w i t h i n the Dept. t o r e s e a r c h , d e s i g n and i m p l e m e n t my own c o u r s e s , and has r e s u l t e d i n h i g h p r o d u c t i v i t y " ( " t h i s p u t s me i n a p o s i t i o n o f d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o my students and community, c h a l l e n g e s my commitment, i n t e r e s t , c r e a t i v i t y and a b i l i t i e s as n o t h i n g e l s e c o u l d " ) e.g., hindering: "innovative & c r e a t i v e ideas r e l a t e d to teaching s t r a t e g i e s to support individual learning styles & self-directed l e a r n i n g were s q u e l c h e d " ( " f e l t d e p r e s s e d & f r u s t r a t e d e s p e c i a l l y when s t u d e n t s v e r y s t r o n g l y supported these s t r a t e g i e s " ) Secondary (11  Duties  facilitating This  duties  i n c i d e n t s , 17  category  reflects  o f t e n e x p e c t e d t o be  faculty  s u c h as  hindering)  incidents relating p e r f o r m e d by  to  secondary  community  committees, meetings, p e r i p h e r a l  college  tasks,  s p e c i a l r e q u e s t s and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s . e.g., facilitating: "I was n o m i n a t e d t o r e p r e s e n t my d e p t on a c o l l e g e - w i d e c o m m i t t e e " ( " h e l p e d me become b e t t e r i n f o r m e d a b o u t c o l l e g e w i d e i s s u e s and became a c q u a i n t e d w i t h more colleagues. As a r e s u l t I want t o p a r t i c i p a t e more i n a r e a s t h a t go b e y o n d my i m m e d i a t e c l a s s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s & f e e l t h a t my c o n t r i b u t i o n ( i d e a s , comments, e t c . ) a r e v a l u e d b y b o t h my d e p t and t h e c o l l e g e as a w h o l e " ) e.g., hindering: "becoming t o o h e a v i l y i n v o l v e d w i t h c o m m i t t e e work and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s " ("compromised t h e amount o f t i m e a v a i l a b l e f o r p r e p a r i n g l e s s o n m a t e r i a l s and i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h students") Workload (15  facilitating, This  category  a f f e c t i n g an  18  hindering)  reflects  incidents relating  i n s t r u c t o r ' s w o r k l o a d s u c h as  to  class  factors sizes,  55 number o f s e c t i o n s t o t e a c h , special  duties  and g e n e r a l  r e l e a s e time f o r a d d i t i o n a l o r  staffing  levels.  e.g., facilitating: "the c o l l e g e agreed t o h i r e a l a b a s s i s t a n t f o r t h e c o m p u t e r l a b s " ("the w o r k l o a d p r i o r t o t h i s i n c i d e n t was s o h e a v y t h a t i t was n o t p o s s i b l e t o b e a n e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t o r n o r t o c a r r y o u t many o f t h e p o i n t s p r o p e r l y i n your d e f i n i t i o n of p r o d u c t i v i t y " ) e.g., hindering: " h a v i n g t o o many d i v e r s e r o l e s a t o n c e " ("I f i n d a t t i m e s I'm n o t f u l f i l l i n g a n y as w e l l a s I ' d l i k e . I r u n o u t o f time and energy") Work R o l e s (21  facilitating This  and  incidents, 4  category  reflects  hindering)  incidents relating  to the roles  work a s s i g n m e n t s o f i n d i v i d u a l f a c u l t y s u c h a s new,  d i f f e r e n t o r unchanged r o l e s and assignments. e.g., facilitating: "my r e c e n t a p p o i n t m e n t a s department c h a i r p e r s o n " ( " a f t e r t e a c h i n g f o r 8 y e a r s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o t a k e o n a new c h a l l e n g e i s motivating. The a p p o i n t m e n t a l s o c o n f i r m s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s f a i t h i n my a b i l i t i e s " ) e.g., hindering: "teaching r e p e t i t i o u s i n f o r m a t i o n over a p e r i o d o f y e a r s " ("decreased motivation; increased stagnation")  The faculty  most f r e q u e n t l y d e s c r i b e d  i n c i d e n t by  f r o m b o t h c o l l e g e s was P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t ,  accounting  f o r 38 o f t h e 171 i n c i d e n t s .  Workload reported other  facilitating  categories  illustrates reported.  Work R o l e s a n d  21 a n d 15 i n c i d e n t s r e s p e c t f u l l y . A l l reported  l e s s t h a n 15 i n c i d e n t s .  the frequency with  which each category  Table was  13  56 TABLE 13 :  FREQUENCY OF FACILITATING AND HINDERING INCIDENTS Facilitating  A. Interaction with Others Support from Administration Leadership by Administration Colleagues Students Subtotals  Total  41  9 29 9 _1 48  23 34 18 14 89  B. Resources Equipment Facilities Funding Support Services Subtotals  12 4 1 _9 26  9 15 6 _12 42  21 19 7 21 68  C. Processes and Policies Personnel Issues Professional Development Scheduling Practices Subtotals  1 38 _4 43  13 6 _5 24  14 44 _9 67  D. Work Activities Programming Issues Secondary Duties Workload Work Roles Subtotals  14 11 15 _21 61  6 17 18 _4 45  20 28 33 25 106  Totals  171  159  330  Table hindering  13 a l s o  14 5 9  Hindering  M  illustrates  t h e frequency with  i n c i d e n t s were r e p o r t e d .  which  Leadership by  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n was r e p o r t e d most f r e q u e n t l y a n d a c c o u n t e d for  29 o f t h e 159 r e p o r t e d h i n d e r i n g i n c i d e n t s .  Secondary D u t i e s and F a c i l i t i e s hindering  incidents respectfully reported.  categories reported less The  followed with  frequency  than  Workload,  18, 17, a n d 15  The r e m a i n i n g  15 h i n d e r i n g i n c i d e n t s  of reported f a c i l i t a t i n g  incidents  each. for  57 e a c h c a t e g o r y when c o m p a r i n g F r a s e r Deer C o l l e g e Red  i s s i m i l a r except  Deer r e p o r t e d  Valley College  i n the following  10 i n c i d e n t s  reflecting  a n d Red  instances.  Support by  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n / B o a r d / G o v e r n m e n t compared t o F r a s e r 4 incidents.  S i m i l a r l y , Red D e e r r e p o r t e d  Professional  Development i n c i d e n t s  and  14 f a c i l i t a t i n g  7.  On t h e o t h e r hand, F r a s e r  related The  The o n l y  incidents  to Fraser  Vitality  Factors  affecting number  difference  Affecting  i s with  respect  reporting  15  Productivity  f a c u l t y v i t a l i t y and asked r e s p o n d e n t s t o [on a 5 p o i n t  bipolar interval  s e c t i o n was  first  rating  as  "circle  scale]  of the p r i o r i t y  the  productivity." a n a l y z e d b y summing t h e  numerical weights o f the responses t o each f a c t o r minimum o f 1 f o r l o w p r i o r i t y priority)  hindering  used f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d by t h e l i t e r a t u r e  has i n a f f e c t i n g y o u r  This  10 E q u i p m e n t  Assessment s e c t i o n o f t h e  which corresponds t o your perception factor  Valley's  2.  Productivity Factor  questionnaire  the  noticeable  Valley's  13,  t o Red D e e r ' s 2.  S e c o n d a r y D u t i e s w i t h Red D e e r C o l l e g e  The  Valley's  to Fraser  Valley reported  incidents  facilitating  c o l l e g e s were a l m o s t e q u a l i n r e p o r t i n g  incidents. to  to Fraser  Work R o l e s i n c i d e n t s  facilitating  25  Valley's  (from a  t o a maximum o f 5 f o r h i g h  a n d d i v i d i n g b y t h e number o f r e s p o n s e s t o t h a t  58 factor to obtain had in  Once a mean  response  been c a l c u l a t e d f o r e a c h f a c t o r t h e f a c t o r s were r a n k e d descending order All  on  i t s mean r e s p o n s e .  o f t h e i r mean r e s p o n s e s  factors received  the five point  descending order,  scale.  (see Table 14).  a mean r a t i n g o f t h r e e Table  or  higher  14 d i s p l a y s t h e r a t i n g s i n  g r o u p e d i n .5 mean r a n g e s , i . e . , means  f r o m 4.50-5.00 were g r o u p e d a s were means f r o m  4.00-4.49,  3.50-3.99, a n d 3.00-3.49.  The s t a n d a r d  factors  a s t h e mean d e c r e a s e d .  tended t o increase  deviation  f o r the  A work e n v i r o n m e n t w h i c h s u p p o r t s q u a l i t y r e c e i v e d t h e highest  r a t i n g w i t h a 4.72 mean.  s t i m u l a t i n g work r e c e i v e d  the next highest  4.67 a n d 4.65 r e s p e c t f u l l y . received  opportunities fairness  (4.63), a manageable w o r k l o a d  i n d e c i s i o n making  l i b r a r y holdings  means w i t h 4.70,  were o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o  f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l development  In c o n t r a s t ,  s a t i s f y i n g and  The r e m a i n i n g f a c t o r s w h i c h  r a t i n g s o f 4.50 o r h i g h e r  l e a r n new t h i n g s  Fulfilling,  (4.62),  (4.52), and  (4.50).  the lowest r a t e d  f a c t o r s were  appropriate  (3.43), contemporary l a b equipment  adequate l a b o r a t o r y  space  (3.34), o p p o r t u n i t i e s  f o r outside  professional consulting  (3.26), o p p o r t u n i t i e s  nonacademic assignments  (3.26), o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r  hierarchical  f o r temporary  advancement ( 3 . 1 0 ) , a n d o p p o r t u n i t i e s  i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y courses  (3.00).  (3.36),  t o teach  59 TABLE 14:  PRODUCTIVITY FACTOR MEANS  Work Related Factor  Mean  a work environment which supports quality fulfilling work satisfying work stimulating work opportunities to learn new things a manageable work load opportunities for professional development fairness in decision making  4.72 4.70 4.67 4.65 4.63 4.62 4.52 4.50  0.55 0.63 0.62 0.59 0.56 0.69 0.67 0.75  100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100  intellectual freedom stimulation of good students opportunities to take on new challenges a college environment that is flexible openness in decision making stimulation of colleagues opportunities for career growth  4.47 4.40 4.35 4.33 4.29 4.23 4.22  0.72 -0.70 0.73 0.78 0.84 0.76 0.86  100 99 100 99 100 100 100  opportunities to attend professional meetings adequate compensation an informal work environment opportunities for sabbatical leaves opportunities to teach new courses opportunities for instructional development appreciation by administration meaningful faculty participation in governance opportunities to teach different courses opportunities to take on new responsibilities recognition by administration clear institutional priorities clear institutional objectives  3.96 3.96 3.92 3.86 3.83 3.83 3.80 3.78 3.77 3.75 3.64 3.63 3.52  0.91 0.96 0.93 1.30 0.89 0.98 1.05 1.06 1.00 0.99 1.16 1.18 1.16  100 100 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 99  appropriate library holdings contemporary laboratory equipment adequate laboratory space opportunities for outside professional consulting opportunities for temporary nonacademic assignments opportunities for hierarchical advancement opportunities to teach interdisciplinary courses  3.43 3:36 3.34 3.26 3.26 3.10 3.00  1.15 1.52 1.54 1.13 1.14 1.07 1.08  100 94 95 100 100 100 100  1  SD  _ni  Based on a 5-point bipolar rating scale with 5 identified as high priority and 1 as low priority. Respondents were asked to, "circle the number which corresponds to your perception of the priority the factor has in affecting your productivity." A total of 101 qualified respondents completed the survey. respondent did not provide useable answers. 2  For this section 1  60 Supplemental  The section the  results  from t h e P r o d u c t i v i t y  of the questionnaire  Productivity  similarities  Factor  and d i f f e r e n c e s .  of  o n one l i s t  the  highest  rated  Assessment s e c t i o n professional  factors  making  the  factors  i n the Productivity  development).  corresponding rated  i s flexible  was t h e  (34) a n d i t i s i n p a r t  given fairness  i n decision  (4.29), and a  (4.33).  number o f i n c i d e n t s  Workload had  (33) a n d i t s  f a c t o r , manageable w o r k l o a d ,  was a l s o  highly  w i t h a mean o f 4.62. C o l l e a g u e s and s t u d e n t s o n l y  incidents  4.23  recorded  respectively yet stimulation  stimulation and  one o f  Factor  Similarly, leadership  i n the high ratings  highest  i t is  ( a mean o f 4.52 f o r o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r  environment that  third  on another,  i n c i d e n t b y f a c u l t y , was a l s o  (4.50), openness i n d e c i s i o n making  college  t o note  development, t h e most  s e c o n d f a c t o r w i t h t h e most i n c i d e n t s reflected  section  from  f o r comparison, and thus n o t a l l  had comparable  (44) c i t e d  Assessment  W h i l e t h e s e two s e t s o f  i n t e r e s t t o note p r o f e s s i o n a l  frequently  Factor  were compared t o r e s u l t s  Identification  r e s u l t s were n o t d e s i g n e d factors  Analyses  of colleagues  respectively.  rated  18 a n d 14  o f good s t u d e n t s and  h i g h l y w i t h means o f 4.40  61 Reliability  Questions order to trusted. all  and  about r e l i a b i l i t y  Validity  and  judge the degree t o which a study's But  the  i s s u e of t r u s t  c a n n o t be  are r a i s e d  d e a l t w i t h on  This complexity  t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s becomes one or p a s s / f a i l provide  decision.  I t i s necessary,  validity  used  so o t h e r s c a n be  of a  and  f o c u s i n g on  validity key  as t h i s  i s s u e s c a n be  in  an  the  case  study,  effectively  elements of the methodology.  f o l l o w i n g examines a s p e c t s  and  study.  F o r q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h such reliability  of  therefore, to  p o s i t i o n to determine f o r themselves and  affect  means t h e a s s e s s m e n t  i n f o r m a t i o n about r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s e s  reliability  an  o f d e g r e e as o p p o s e d t o a y e s / n o  research conditions experienced informed  be  environmental  e x i s t which i n d i v i d u a l l y or c o l l e c t i v e l y  research results.  in  f i n d i n g s can  o r n o t h i n g b a s i s ; numerous p r o c e d u r a l and  factors  by  validity  and  critical  addressed  The  of the r e s e a r c h design  a p p l i c a t i o n of the Delphi technique  the  and incident  method. A d e c i s i o n t o be made i n t h e d e s i g n o f t h i s whether the  r e s e a r c h was  w h e r e t h e r e s e a r c h e r was because of the  t o be  employed.  simplified  order t o reduce the e f f e c t the researcher's  conducted  study  only at the c o l l e g e  This option,  r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s , was  appealing rejected i n  of p o s s i b l e biases r e s u l t i n g  involvement  with  and  was  knowledge o f  from  faculty  62 and p.  conditions at that  institution.  (1988, p . 169,  172) s u g g e s t s m u l t i p l e methods a n d / o r s o u r c e s o f d a t a  c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s , collection  the findings  i n this  study by t h e  as a s t r a t e g y t o  and i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y .  illustrated  supports the case  i n results  f o r suggesting  s t u d y has an a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l o f r e l i a b i l i t y .  validity  o f the Delphi procedure  researcher  by t h e  f r o m t h e g r o u p ' s Round One r e s p o n s e s ,  own Round One r e s p o n s e s . process  Merriam  a s member c h e c k s ,  Internal  was s t r e n g t h e n e d b y a s k i n g  p a r t i c i p a n t s t o a s s i g n c a t e g o r i e s , developed  this  As  already presented, the s i m i l a r i t y  b e t w e e n t h e two c o l l e g e s this  reflected  o f d a t a f r o m two c o l l e g e s ,  establish reliability in  Merriam  to their  (1988, p . 169) r e f e r s t o  a procedure  where t h o s e  from  whom d a t a a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s were d e r i v e d a r e a s k e d t o judge  the results,  Table  15 i l l u s t r a t e s ,  TABLE 15:  thereby increasing t h e assignment  CATEGORIZATION  internal validity.  As  of c a t e g o r i e s by  BT DELPHI RESPONDENTS  Description  Number  T o t a l m e a s u r e s r e p o r t e d i n Round One R e s p o n s e s n o t r e c e i v e d i n Round Two M e a s u r e s c a t e g o r i z e d i n Round Two  118 5 113  Measures a s s i g n e d t o 'other' Measures matched Measures s a t i s f i e d by o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s Total  6 75 32 113  %  5 .3% 66 .4% 28 .3% 100 .0%  p a r t i c i p a n t s m a t c h e d 66.4% o f t h e r e s e a r c h e r ' s c a t e g o r y assignments.  The c a t e g o r y scheme i t s e l f  supported  94.7% o f  63 t h e measures o r i g i n a l l y r e p o r t e d by p a r t i c i p a n t s  i n Round  One  (a combining  did  n o t b u t w h i c h were s a t i s f i e d b y o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s i n t h e  category  o f c a t e g o r i e s which matched and t h o s e  scheme).  The  question of external v a l i d i t y ,  difficult  t o address  external v a l i d i t y  however, i s  f o rq u a l i t a t i v e case s t u d i e s .  (1988, p . 173) s t a t e s t h a t  Merriam  f o r researchers approaching  from an e x p e r i m e n t a l o r c o r r e l a t i o n a l  design perspective "generalizing in  which  from a s i n g l e c a s e  selected  a p u r p o s e f u l r a t h e r t h a n random manner makes no s e n s e a t  all."  She goes o n t o s a y "one s e l e c t s  because  one wishes  not because many."  t o understand  a case study  the particular  approach  i n depth,  one w a n t s t o know what i s g e n e r a l l y t r u e o f t h e  From t h i s  perspective external v a l i d i t y or  g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y w o u l d be r e j e c t e d  and c o n s i d e r e d a  l i m i t a t i o n o f case study q u a l i t a t i v e research. Alternatively, validity studies  and through u s i n g s t a n d a r d sampling  analysis.  for this  q u e s t i o n s and s p e c i f i c Based  external  procedures,  procedures  on t h e l a t t e r view,  case  f o r coding  external  validity  s t u d y was s t r e n g t h e n e d b y u s e o f two c o l l e g e s f o r  data c o l l e c t i o n ,  use o f standard sampling procedures f o r  selection of the p i l o t D e l p h i group use  (1988, p . 174) s u g g e s t s  c a n be s t r e n g t h e n e d by c o n d u c t i n g m u l t i - s i t e  predetermined and  Merriam  study p a r t i c i p a n t s  and p a r t o f t h e  s e l e c t i o n process, predetermined  questions f o r  i n t h e D e l p h i s t u d y and t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e used  i n the  64 survey o f f a c u l t y , and s p e c i f i c procedures f o r a n a l y s i s o f the  D e l p h i and q u e s t i o n n a i r e d a t a . The r e l i a b i l i t y  t e c h n i q u e was  and v a l i d i t y o f the c r i t i c a l  a s s e s s e d by Andersson and N i l s s o n  They s p e c i f i c a l l y addressed comprehensiveness collected, r e l i a b i l i t y of  categorization.  (1964).  of data  o f c o l l e c t i n g procedures and  control  They suggested, based on the f i n d i n g s o f  t h e i r study, t h a t i t was critical  incident  j u s t i f i a b l e t o conclude the  i n c i d e n t method was  both r e l i a b l e and v a l i d .  A concern i n use o f the c r i t i c a l  i n c i d e n t method i s  whether o r not the d a t a c o l l e c t e d i s comprehensive  enough t o  r e f l e c t a l l types o f r e l e v a n t i n c i d e n t s o r whether d a t a c o l l e c t i o n had been c u t o f f too e a r l y . Nilsson  In the Andersson  and  (1964, p. 399-400) study 95% o f a l l s u b c a t e g o r i e s  had appeared a f t e r t w o - t h i r d s of the i n c i d e n t s had been classified.  They concluded t h a t data c o l l e c t i o n had been  comprehensive.  As a check on comprehensiveness  for this  study q u a l i f i e d i n c i d e n t s were reviewed i n the o r d e r i n which the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were r e c e i v e d back from respondents. all  By the 26th of the 101 useable q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  15 c a t e g o r i e s were accounted f o r .  c o l l e c t i o n was  T h i s suggests d a t a  not c u t o f f too e a r l y .  The Andersson and N i l s s o n (1964, p. 400)  study r e p o r t e d  an average of f i v e i n c i d e n t s c o l l e c t e d from each person i n t e r v i e w e d and two and o n e - h a l f from each one sent a questionnaire.  T h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e had a response r a t e o f  65 24%.  This  study  obtained  questionnaire with (48.3% u s e a b l e ) .  a questionnaire  reliability  suggest these This  (1964) s t u d y  and, w h i l e  not able t o  o f c o l l e c t i n g procedures by themselves,  procedures are l i k e l y  i s f u r t h e r supported  incidents  r e t u r n r a t e o f 51.2%  T h e s e f i g u r e s compare f a v o u r a b l y w i t h t h e  A n d e r s s o n and N i l s s o n confirm  a n a v e r a g e o f 3.3 i n c i d e n t s p e r  t o have been  by t h e s i m i l a r i t y  i n t h e number o f  r e p o r t e d b y t h e two c o l l e g e s : 46.7% f r o m  Valley College  a n d 53.3% f r o m Red D e e r C o l l e g e .  Valley College  reported  79  hindering)  facilitating as  reported  reported  a n d 80 h i n d e r i n g ) .  Except  the intended 1986).  similar.  Flanagan  used  (Flanagan,  will  1954;  (1954, p . 344) s u g g e s t e d t e n t a t i v e  t o others  c o n f i r m a t i o n by others  usually reassuring.  scheme f o r a  The f r a m e o f r e f e r e n c e  use o f the data  c a t e g o r i e s be s u b m i t t e d that  of incidents  o f c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i s such t h a t i t i s  set of incidents.  Woolsey,  and  f o r a few v a r i a t i o n s  i n the f i n d i n g s s e c t i o n , the nature  nature  vary with  Fraser  c o m p a r e d t o Red D e e r C o l l e g e r e p o r t i n g 176 (96  p o s s i b l e t o d e v e l o p more t h a n one c a t e g o r y given  Fraser  154 i n c i d e n t s (75 f a c i l i t a t i n g  b y b o t h c o l l e g e s was  The  reliable.  f o r review on t h e b a s i s  o f c a t e g o r i z a t i o n judgements i s  A n d e r s s o n and N i l s s o n  (1964, p p . 400-  401) u s e d a r e l a t e d a p p r o a c h t o c h e c k t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f their  categorization with  results  ranging  colleagues  r e s u l t i n g c a t e g o r i z a t i o n agreement  f r o m 75% t o 85%.  (two t e a c h i n g  faculty,  In this  study  four  one n o n t e a c h i n g  faculty,  one a d m i n i s t r a t o r ) were the  asked  to independently categorize  67 i n c i d e n t s r e p o r t e d i n a 20% random  questionnaires. teaching  The mean a g r e e m e n t was  f a c u l t y and 61.9%  sample o f  72.8%  f o r nonteaching  (83.6% f o r  faculty  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ) w i t h a m e d i a n a g r e e m e n t o f 77.6%. from  t h e f o u r were  86.6%,  80.6%,  and  These r e s u l t s  compare  N i l s s o n (1964) s t u d y ,  scheme u s e d  i n this  and Responses  77.6% a n d 46.3% w i t h  a g r e e m e n t f o r 38.8% o f t h e i n c i d e n t s 32.8%.  useable  100%  a n d 75% a g r e e m e n t f o r  favourably with the Andersson  suggesting the c a t e g o r i z a t i o n  s t u d y was  reliable.  67 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND  DISCUSSION  Summary  This  research  project  reported  factors,  as  teaching  f a c u l t y members a t F r a s e r  Deer C o l l e g e ,  by  investigated  to  investigate  factors,  the  b a s e d on  research  productivity  and  context using  or hindered the instructors.  A  and  was  perceived  by  Red  productivity  second problem  those suggested i n the  census.  The  was  of was  of  l i t e r a t u r e as  the  faculty to  d e s c r i p t i v e , extending  vitality  used to o b t a i n  critical  questionnaire  incident  to c o l l e c t  they perceived  as  data  h a v i n g had  their productivity.  faculty productivity p r o c e s s was  i n q u i r y i n t o the  a case study approach.  s u r v e y d e s i g n was  A  college.  three  A  affect  f o r use  faculty  community  t e c h n i q u e was  100%  a personally  sample,  used i n  from f a c u l t y about  i n the  or  the  incidents  significant effect  community  critical  college  incident  a t w e l v e member D e l p h i  f a c u l t y and  college  cross-sectional  d a t a from a  d e f i n i t i o n of  developed using  c o n s i s t i n g of each  Valley College  productivity. The  on  contract  extent to which a composite s e t  affecting vitality, their  full-time continuing  facilitated  t h e s e community c o l l e g e  w h i c h work r e l a t e d  three administrators  group from  68 Rating  o f the composite s e t of v i t a l i t y  accomplished by asking on  a five point  perception their  factors  the respondents t o r a t e each  b i p o l a r r a t i n g s c a l e based on  of the p r i o r i t y  was factor  their  each f a c t o r had i n a f f e c t i n g  productivity. S i x o f t h e 107 r e t u r n e d  questionnaires  had t o be  r e j e c t e d because the respondents d i d not f i t t h e t a r g e t population. was  The number o f u s a b l e r e t u r n e d  47 f r o m F r a s e r V a l l e y C o l l e g e  College  for a total  o f 101.  questionnaires  a n d 54 f r o m Red D e e r  T h i s was e q u a l t o a  total  r e s p o n s e r a t e o f 48.3% (61.8% f r o m F r a s e r V a l l e y C o l l e g e 40.6%  f r o m Red D e e r The  College).  330 i n c i d e n t s c o l l e c t e d b y t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e  facilitating,  and  159 h i n d e r i n g )  were c l a s s i f i e d ,  b e l o w , i n t o 15 i n c i d e n t c a t e g o r i e s  (171  as summarized  w h i c h i n t u r n were  able  t o be grouped i n t o f o u r major a r e a s each o f w h i c h p r o v i d e s theme f o r t h e r e l a t e d c a t e g o r i e s All factors point  they contain  scale.  a minimum mean r a t i n g o f t h r e e  Those w i t h h i g h e s t  means were  environment which supports q u a l i t y ' (4.72), work'  (4.70),  (4.65),  ' s a t i s f y i n g work'  'opportunities  manageable w o r k l o a d ' development' (4.50) .  (Table 16).  f a c t o r s i n the composite s e t o f v i t a l i t y received  (4.67),  related  on t h e f i v e  'a work 'fulfilling  ' s t i m u l a t i n g work'  t o l e a r n new t h i n g s '  (4.62),  a  'opportunities  (4.63),  'a  for professional  (4.52), and ' f a i r n e s s i n d e c i s i o n making'  69 TABLE 16:  SUMMARY OF FACTORS AFFECTING PRODUCTIVITY  A. 1. 2. 3. 4.  I n t e r a c t i o n with Others Support from Administration L e a d e r s h i p by A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Colleagues Students  B. 5. 6. 7. 8.  Resources Equipment Facilities Funding Support Services  C. 9. 10. 11.  P r o c e s s e s and P o l i c i e s Personnel Issues P r o f e s s i o n a l Development Scheduling Practices  D. 12. 13. 14. 15.  Work A c t i v i t i e s Programming I s s u e s Secondary Duties Workload Work R o l e s  C o n c l u s i o n s and  The  literature pertaining  productivity factors could  provided a basis  t o f a c u l t y v i t a l i t y and from which an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f  a f f e c t i n g community c o l l e g e  be a p p r o a c h e d .  writings  faculty  findings  an i n v e s t i g a t i o n  productivity  Though most p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h a n d  f o c u s e d on u n i v e r s i t i e s and f o u r  t h e i r procedures, for  Implications  year  colleges,  and t h o u g h t s p r o v i d e d  of faculty productivity  guidance  i n community  colleges. This  study suggests  when c o n s i d e r i n g  15 f a c t o r s  be t a k e n i n t o  faculty productivity  C o l l e g e a n d Red D e e r C o l l e g e .  at Fraser  account  Valley  I t a l s o p r o v i d e s means o f  70 instructors' suggested  ratings  i n the  a r e p e r c e i v e d by  o f t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h 35  literature  as  influencing  factors,  faculty  vitality,  f a c u l t y at these c o l l e g e s to a f f e c t  their  productivity. The  f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s and  from  a review  1.  The  and  frequency  implications  assessment of the  o f i n c i d e n t s by c a t e g o r y s h o u l d not because  may  and  The  institution,  by  instructor,  i n c i d e n t s p e r c e i v e d by  incident  t h i s way caution  categories.  to adequately i s necessary.  While  showing t h e  Frequencies  b e c a u s e t h o s e w i t h o n l y a few (Andersson  and  Corcoran  and  (1986, p.  i n c i d e n t s may  N i l s s o n , 1964, 250)  suggests  vitality  c a t e g o r i e s i n o t h e r ways. (1985, p .  i s recalled,  10)  p.  faculty v i t a l i t y  both  institutional  that v a r y i n g types times  and  type  among i n s t i t u t i o n s  incidents  faculty  (and b y  association  specific  and m i s s i o n . be  data  I f the C l a r k , Boyer  context  o f i n c i d e n t s may  also  402).  f o r c i n g of  comment r e g a r d i n g  f a c u l t y p r o d u c t i v i t y ) seems t o be reflects  of  c o n s i d e r e d t h e o n l y measure o f  i n t o c a t e g o r i e s w i t h r o u g h l y an e q u a l number o f distort  frequencies  associated with  importance  may  affected  d i s c l o s e the d a t a o b t a i n e d , a word  s h o u l d n o t be  S i m i l a r l y , Woolsey  time.  r e s u l t s were t a b u l a t e d i n  categories  be m e a n i n g f u l  be  frequencies  over  f a c u l t y t o have  t h e i r p r o d u c t i v i t y were r e p o r t e d b y for  drawn  findings.  t h e o n l y measure o f c a t e g o r y importance v a r y by  are  and  This implies  reported at  different  (e.g., o n l y 2 h i n d e r i n g  71 incidents  relating  t o s e c o n d a r y d u t i e s were r e p o r t e d  Fraser Valley College reported itself  15).  and  category  f a c u l t y while  What i s i m p o r t a n t , t h e r e f o r e ,  change i n f r e q u e n c y o f  individually  The  categories  classification The  and  reflect  and  at t h e i r  as  yet  This  categories  general  the  'educational Similarly,  an  for  the specific  able  t h a t no  to  of  this  communicate  component imply  such  firm  relationship to  exists.  this  'funding'  c o u l d be  programming' o r  on  the  o f f s e t by 'scheduling  As  negative  available for  innovative practices.'  'workload' c o u l d  have  a  'secondary d u t i e s ' he/she engages  f u r t h e r l i m i t e d by  administration.'  c o u l d have a  'facilities'  i n s t r u c t o r ' s heavy  limiting effect  be  closed  h e l p f u l to users  enough t o be  ' e q u i p m e n t ' and  i n s t r u c t i o n but  be  institution  c a t e g o r i z a t i o n does not  example, a l a c k o f  i m p a c t on  need t o  as p o s s i b l e , t o be  a l e v e l of d e t a i l  d e m a r c a t i o n s between c a t e g o r i e s  For  the  such are i n t e r r e l a t e d .  framework from w h i c h t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e  categories.  by  implies  an o p e n r a t h e r t h a n  i n as m e a n i n g f u l a way  information  and  category  collectively.  s y s t e m and  enough t o p r o v i d e  other  i s the  c a t e g o r i e s were e s t a b l i s h e d t o c l a s s i f y  incidents  a  faculty  incidents for that  college administration this  s e n s i t i v e to changing conditions  2.  Deer C o l l e g e  over time f o r a p a r t i c u l a r c o l l e g e .  For  faculty  Red  by  negative  outcomes o f  opposed t o b e i n g  in  'leadership  a c l o s e d system  of  72 categories  where one  categories  reflect  categories  and  of  one  has  no  r e l a t i o n s h i p to another,  conditions  conditions.  d i m e n s i o n may  which i n t e r r e l a t e w i t h  Therefore,  have an  changes i n  e f f e c t on  the  these other  conditions  condition  of  others. 3.  The  categories  reflect  both f a c i l i t a t i n g  and  hindering  incidents. Categorization included  the  hindering.  of  cases the  or the  t o be  some  facilitating  equipment, f a c i l i t i e s  issue  the  be  presence  or  a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i o n or c o n d i t i o n at the  college.  leadership  e f f e c t on  by  or  i t i s the  i s not  and  negative  administration  a c t i o n had  was  a matter  of  a perceived  positive  or  faculty productivity.  negative  t h e i r presence or  not  In  p o s i t i v e or  w o r k l o a d , work r o l e s and  The  incidents.  a f a c t o r w o u l d be  a factor, rather  whether the  positive  hindering  development) w h i l e i t s absence would  example, l e a d e r s h i p  negative  and  administration,  In other  absence of  For  presence of  s u p p o r t by  professional  effect  i n c i d e n t s r e s u l t e d i n a scheme w h i c h  both f a c i l i t a t i n g  instances (e.g.,  of  secondary duties  concerned  r e s u l t s o f t h e s e f a c t o r s as  the  opposed  to  absence.  i m p l i c a t i o n i s t h a t e f f e c t s on restricted  to  p o s i t i v e or negative actions  p r o d u c t i v i t y appear  incidents arising  absence of p a r t i c u l a r f a c t o r s .  administrative  Similarly,  Also  perceptions  or other  from t h e  t o be  presence  considered  which r e s u l t from  college conditions.  This  are  s i t u a t i o n makes t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e is  not j u s t a matter of ensuring a p a r t i c u l a r  provided  i n order to f a c i l i t a t e  must a l s o  4.  Factors  vitality  high.  This  situation. received  scale  a mean r a t i n g o f t h r e e o r more o n  w i t h one as l o w p r i o r i t y  suggests the f a c t o r s  collectively  to affect  united  faculty productivity.  5.  high standard deviations  f a c t o r may be  The f a c t o r s  interpreted  reactions  to a  diverse.  faculty productivity  as a p p l i c a b l e  However, t h e  and t h e r e s u l t i n g  i d e n t i f i e d as f a c i l i t a t i n g  community c o l l e g e  faculty  suggest f a c u l t y a r e not  i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s and t h a t  particular  and f i v e as  a r e p e r c e i v e d by  b r o a d r a n g e o f r e s p o n s e s t o many f a c t o r s relatively  their  b u t t h e s e r e s u l t s may h i d e a d i v e r s i t y o f v i e w s  factors  f i v e point  faculty  s u g g e s t e d by t h e l i t e r a t u r e as a f f e c t i n g  a particular All  One  conditions.  a r e p e r c e i v e d by f a c u l t y t o a f f e c t  productivity for  faculty productivity.  i n response t o c o l l e g e  It  factor i s  be c o g n i s a n t o f i n d i v i d u a l a n d c o l l e c t i v e  perceptions  a  t a s k more d i f f i c u l t .  or hindering  s h o u l d n o t be  i n a l l situations  or f o ra l l  faculty. It roles', that  i s v e r y e a s y t o assume a f a c t o r i f viewed from a f a c i l i t a t i n g  a l l faculty will  from time t o time. many h a v e f o u n d t h i s  benefit  s u c h a s 'work  perspective,  from a change i n t h e i r  While t h e data from t h i s s t u d y factor  means  t o have f a c i l i t a t e d  roles  suggests  their  74 productivity/ faculty  d u a l i t y of  applying  By  to  respond the  d r a w i n g on  s t u d y has  these categories  the  contributed  ethos of to the  faculty productivity The  same  faculty vitality  and  f o c u s e d e x c l u s i v e l y on  result  p r o v i d e s an  vitality senior  s h o u l d be  insight to  Not  all  community c o l l e g e s  community  i t  pertains  l i t e r a t u r e deals  four year colleges. community c o l l e g e  research  This and  faculty productivity  as  a  and  i n a working environment without graduate  s t u d e n t s and  this  college.  productivity  the  used  way.  two  p r i m a r i l y w i t h u n i v e r s i t i e s and study  caution  k n o w l e d g e b a s e as  i n the  of  productivity.  measures t o p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s .  instructors will 6.  s h o u l d a l s o n o t e a number  found t h e s e changes h i n d e r e d t h e i r  Given the in  administrators  students,  responsibilities for  instructors.  Possible  W h i l e one  can  not  generalize  i n t e r e s t i n g t o note the number o f College  applications  and  incidents  the  r e s u l t s of  by  faculty productivity.  The  findings  t h i s research of  Fraser  classification  administrators  have p o s i t i v e o r  to the  i t is  suggest  f a c u l t y p r o v i d e s a mechanism  colleges'  w h i c h may  from t h e s e  for administrators  Deer C o l l e g e .  reported  sensitizing conditions  Red  Applications  Valley  scheme  for  for  factors  negative impacts  I n c r e a s e d awareness by  a  proactive  and on  75 administrators facilitative incidents  should  to  are  l e a d t o a w o r k i n g e n v i r o n m e n t more  faculty productivity i f either  increased  and/or h i n d e r i n g  facilitating  incidents  are  reduced. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , should  p a r t i c u l a r l y note the  e n c o u r a g i n g and initiatives  supporting  for faculty.  f a c u l t y to experience an  effective  College  should  p r a c t i c e s by  and  The  changes i n t h e i r r o l e s appears t o  administrators as  for  facilitate  hindering as w e l l as  excessive,  and  Red  e f f e c t s of  perceived  as  be  Deer  leadership  problems a r i s i n g  o v e r l y demanding  from  secondary  facilities.  r e s u l t s suggests administrators  should  be  productivity.  p r o d u c t i v i t y f a c t o r assessment s e c t i o n of  colleges  was  e f f e c t s of  at Fraser V a l l e y College  inadequate  questionnaire  that  facilitative  colleges  Similarly, opportunities  a l s o note the  workloads perceived  at both  p r o f e s s i o n a l development  instrument to  Administrators  duties  administrators  s e n s i t i v e t o any  the  at the  a c t i o n s which  undermining q u a l i t y of performance.  two  are The  mean  'a work e n v i r o n m e n t w h i c h s u p p o r t s q u a l i t y ' r e c e i v e d the  scale)  highest and  of a l l f a c t o r s evaluated  i t a l s o had  the  (4.72  lowest standard  on  a  5-point  deviation.  76 Limitations  of This  Study  The r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y a p p l y s p e c i f i c a l l y t o continuing College  contract  teaching  faculty at Fraser  i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a a n d Red D e e r C o l l e g e  Although these colleges  may be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  c o m p r e h e n s i v e r u r a l community c o l l e g e s provincial to  j u r i s d i c t i o n s , future  productivity c o l l e g e work.  its  i n Alberta.  of  i n t h e two  studies  will  be  respective necessary  d e t e r m i n e t h i s and any f u r t h e r g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y . The s t u d y was  of  Valley  also  factors This  t h e s t u d y was  limited to investigation of  instructors associate was  lives,  were n o t e x p l o r e d .  Factors  those i n t r i n s i c  findings  c a n n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d t o be t h e o n l y  the college  from t h i s  factors  related to  i n n a t u r e , and  but o r i g i n a t e outside  Therefore,  the purpose  t h e i m p a c t o f t h e work a n d  e n v i r o n m e n t on f a c u l t y p r o d u c t i v i t y .  those which are e x t e r n a l  their  done i n t e n t i o n a l l y s i n c e  to investigate  instructors' personal  with  study  influencing  productivity. It  could  n o t be d e t e r m i n e d i f t h e p r o f i l e o f  nonrespondents v a r i e d profile  i n a n y way  of respondents.  o t h e r than sex from t h e  I t should therefore  s t u d y i s l i m i t e d by t h e p o s s i b i l i t y some way  from  respondents.  be assumed t h i s  nonrespondents v a r i e d i n  77 Recommendations f o r F u t u r e  The  following  Research  recommendations r e s u l t from t h i s  research  project. 1.  Additional  studies  category design i s v a l i d  are  recommended t o d e t e r m i n e i f  i n o t h e r community  the  college  contexts. 2.  The  r e s u l t s obtained i n t h i s research  sense t h a t  the  treated  homogeneous o r g a n i z a t i o n s  as  community c o l l e g e s  programming d i f f e r e n c e s as  are  involved  global  the  were e s s e n t i a l l y  when i n f a c t  e x i s t w h i c h may  in  distinct  r e s u l t i n areas  such  u n i v e r s i t y t r a n s f e r programs h a v i n g a d i f f e r e n t emphasis  concerning f a c i l i t a t i n g for that  example, t e r m i n a l future  differences  studies  and  hindering  career  programs.  recognize  t o e x i s t and  f a c t o r s than would,  the  I t i s recommended  potential for  these  d e s i g n t h e i r methodology  accordingly. 3.  I t i s recommended t h a t  future  research  r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p r o d u c t i v i t y and satisfaction  and  motivation.  the  Some i n c i d e n t s  s t u d y , w h i l e l i n k e d t o p r o d u c t i v i t y by  also  appear to r e l a t e t o  4.  What i s t h e  c h a n g e , new  reported the  s a t i s f a c t i o n or  What s t i m u l a t e s  in  motivation. in  faculty: role  or d i f f e r e n t courses, professional  e n c o u r a g e m e n t a n d / o r s u p p o r t by  job  respondents,  r o l e o f work r e l a t e d s t i m u l a t i o n  affecting productivity?  the  concepts of  this  job  explores  administration  development, and  colleagues? future 5.  These i s s u e s  a r e recommended  as t o p i c s f o r  research.  I t i s a l s o recommended  future research  impact o f s u p p o r t and l e a d e r s h i p faculty productivity.  explores  by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s  the  on  79 REFERENCES  A n d e r s s o n , B., & N i l s s o n , S. ( 1 9 6 4 ) . S t u d i e s i n t h e r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y o f t h e c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t t e c h n i q u e . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 48, 398-403. B a l d w i n , R. G. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . A d u l t and c a r e e r d e v e l o p m e n t : What are the i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f a c u l t y ? In C u r r e n t Issues i n H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n : F a c u l t y c a r e e r d e v e l o p m e n t , 2, 13-20. W a s h i n g t o n , DC: A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n f o r H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n . (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 193 998) B a l d w i n , R. G. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . V a r i e t y and p r o d u c t i v i t y i n f a c u l t y c a r e e r s . I n New D i r e c t i o n s f o r H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n : I s s u e s i n f a c u l t y p e r s o n n e l p o l i c i e s . 41, 63-80. San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass. B a l d w i n , R. G. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . ( E d . ) , New D i r e c t i o n s f o r H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n : I n c e n t i v e s f o r f a c u l t y v i t a l i t y . 51. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. B a l d w i n , R. G. & B l a c k b u r n , R. T. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . The a c a d e m i c c a r e e r as a d e v e l o p m e n t a l p r o c e s s . J o u r n a l o f H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n . 52, 598-614. B a r d e c k i , M. J . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . W e t l a n d c o n s e r v a t i o n p o l i c i e s southern O n t a r i o : A D e l p h i approach. G e o g r a p h i c a l M o n o g r a p h s , 16..  in  B e s s , J . L . ( 1 9 7 7 ) . The m o t i v a t i o n t o t e a c h . J o u r n a l o f H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n , 48. 243-258. B e s s , J . L . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . U n i v e r s i t y O r g a n i z a t i o n . New Sciences Press.  York:  Human  B e v a n , J . M. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Who has t h e r o l e o f b u i l d i n g i n i n c e n t i v e s ? I n R. J . B a l d w i n ( E d . ) , New D i r e c t i o n s f o r H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n : I n c e n t i v e s f o r f a c u l t y v i t a l i t y . 51, 58. San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s .  45-  B l a c k b u r n , R. T. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . A c a d e m i c c a r e e r s : P a t t e r n s a n d p o s s i b i l i t i e s . In Current Issues i n Higher Education: F a c u l t y c a r e e r d e v e l o p m e n t , 2, 25-27. W a s h i n g t o n , DC: A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n f o r H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n . (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 193 998) B l a c k b u r n , R. T. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . F a c u l t y c a r e e r d e v e l o p m e n t : Theory and p r a c t i c e . I n S. M. C l a r k & D. R. L e w i s ( E d s . ) , F a c u l t y v i t a l i t y and i n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y ( p p . 5 5 - 8 5 ) . New York: Teachers C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y .  80 B l a n d , C. & S c h m i t z , C. C. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . F a c u l t y v i t a l i t y r e v i e w . J o u r n a l o f H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n , 59, 190-224. B o b e r g , A. L . & B l a c k b u r n , R. T. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . F a c u l t y d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and t h e i r c o n c e r n f o r q u a l i t y . Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 232 570)  on  work (ERIC  B o y e r , C. M. & L e w i s , D. R. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . M a i n t a i n i n g f a c u l t y v i t a l i t y t h r o u g h o u t s i d e p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n s u l t i n g . I n S. C l a r k & D. R. L e w i s ( E d s . ) , F a c u l t y v i t a l i t y a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y ( p p . 177-197). New Y o r k : Teachers C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y .  M.  B r o o k e s , M. C. T. & German, K. L . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . M e e t i n g t h e challenges: Developing f a c u l t y careers. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 232 516) Bumpus, J . F. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . C a r e e r v i t a l i z a t i o n a n d s t r e s s among p r o f e s s o r s : An a t t r i b u t i o n a l model. (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 207 478) C a r e s , R. C. & B l a c k b u r n , R. T. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . F a c u l t y s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n : Factors a f f e c t i n g career success. Research i n H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n , 9_, 123-136. C a r n e g i e C o u n c i l on P o l i c y S t u d i e s i n H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n . (1980). Three thousand f u t u r e s : t h e next twenty y e a r s f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s . C e n t r a , J . A. ( 1 9 7 8 a ) . T y p e s o f f a c u l t y d e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m s . J o u r n a l o f H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n , 49., 151-162. C e n t r a , J . A., ( 1 9 7 8 b ) . U s i n g s t u d e n t a s s e s s m e n t s t o i m p r o v e p e r f o r m a n c e a n d v i t a l i t y . I n W. R. K i r s c h l i n g ( E d . ) , New D i r e c t i o n s f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research: E v a l u a t i n g f a c u l t y p e r f o r m a n c e a n d v i t a l i t y , 20, 31-50. S a n F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass. C e n t r a , J . A. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . M a i n t a i n i n g f a c u l t y v i t a l i t y t h r o u g h f a c u l t y d e v e l o p m e n t . I n S. M. C l a r k & D. R. L e w i s ( E d s . ) , F a c u l t y v i t a l i t y a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y ( p p . 1411 5 6 ) . New Y o r k : T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e , C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y . C l a r k , S. M., B o y e r , C. M., & C o r c o r a n , M. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . F a c u l t y a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l v i t a l i t y i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . I n S. M. C l a r k & D. R. L e w i s ( E d s . ) , F a c u l t y v i t a l i t y a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l productivity: C r i t i c a l perspectivesf o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n ( p p . 3-24). New Y o r k : T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y .  81 C l a r k , S. M. & D. R. L e w i s ( E d s . ) . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . F a c u l t y v i t a l i t y and i n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y : C r i t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . New Y o r k : T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e , C o l u m b i a University. C l a x t o n , C. S. & M u r r e l l , P. H. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . D e v e l o p m e n t a l t h e o r y as a g u i d e f o r m a i n t a i n i n g t h e v i t a l i t y o f c o l l e g e faculty. I n C. M. N. M e h r o t r a ( E d . ) , New D i r e c t i o n s f o r T e a c h i n g and L e a r n i n g : T e a c h i n g and a g i n g , 19., 29-44. S a n F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass. C o c h r a n , M. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . The f a c i l i t a t i o n and h i n d r a n c e o f s c h o l a r l y a c t i v i t y as r e p o r t e d b y The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a E d u c a t i o n F a c u l t y members, U n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Vancouver. C o r c o r a n , M. & C l a r k , S. M. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . D e v e l o p m e n t o f guidelines f o r policy-relevant studies of f a c u l t y v i t a l i t y t h r o u g h a n i n s t i t u t i o n a l c a s e s t u d y . (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 245 655) C o r c o r a n , M. & C l a r k , S. M. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . The ' s t u c k ' p r o f e s s o r . I n The p r o f e s s o r i a t e : O c c u p a t i o n i n c r i s i s . Toronto: H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n Group, t h e O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r S t u d i e s i n Education. D e l b e c q , A. L . , Van de Ven, A. H., & G u s t a f s o n , D. H. (1975). Group t e c h n i q u e s f o r program p l a n n i n g : A g u i d e t o n o m i n a l g r o u p and D e l p h i p r o c e s s e s • G l e n v i e w , I L : S c o t t , F o r e s m a n and Company. D i e t z , T. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Methods f o r a n a l y z i n g d a t a f r o m D e l p h i p a n e l s : Some e v i d e n c e f r o m a f o r e c a s t i n g s t u d y . T e c h n o l o g i c a l F o r e c a s t i n g and S o c i a l Change, 31, 70-85. E w e l l , P. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . The s e l f - r e g a r d i n g i n s t i t u t i o n : Information f o r excellence. National Center f o r Higher E d u c a t i o n Management S y s t e m s . F l a n a g a n , J . C. ( 1 9 5 4 ) . The c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 51, 327-358.  technique.  F u r n i s s , W. T. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . R e s h a p i n g f a c u l t y c a r e e r s . W a s h i n g t o n , DC: A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l on E d u c a t i o n . G a f f , J . G. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Toward f a c u l t y r e n e w a l : A d v a n c e s i n f a c u l t y , i n s t r u c t i o n a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t . Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gardner, Row.  J . W.  ( 1 9 6 4 ) . S e l f - r e n e w a l . New  York: Harper  and  San  82 Gardner,  J . W.  G a r d n e r , J . W. Norton.  ( 1 9 7 8 ) . M o r a l e . New Y o r k : (1981). Self-Renewal  Norton.  ( r e v . e d . ) . New  York:  G o l d s c h m i d t , P. G. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . S c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y o r p o l i t i c a l c r i t i q u e ? T e c h n o l o g i c a l F o r e c a s t i n g a n d S o c i a l Change, 1, 195-213. G r o u p f o r Human D e v e l o p m e n t i n H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n . ( 1 9 7 4 ) . F a c u l t y d e v e l o p m e n t i n a t i m e o f r e t r e n c h m e n t . New R o c h e l l e , NY: Change M a g a z i n e P r e s s . H a n s e n , W. L . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . C h a n g i n g demography o f f a c u l t y i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . I n S. M. C l a r k & D. R. L e w i s ( E d s . ) , F a c u l t y v i t a l i t y and i n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y : C r i t i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s f o r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n ( p p . 2 7 - 5 4 ) . New Y o r k : T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e , C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y , 1985. K a n t e r , R. M. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Men a n d women o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . York: B a s i c Books.  New  K a n t e r , R. M. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . C h a n g i n g t h e s h a p e o f work: R e f o r m i n academe. C u r r e n t I s s u e s i n H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n , 1, 3-9. K a n t e r , R. M. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . The c h a n g e m a s t e r s . New Y o r k : and S c h u s t e r .  Simon  K i r s c h l i n g , W. R. ( E d . ) . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . E v a l u a t i n g f a c u l t y p e r f o r m a n c e a n d v i t a l i t y . New D i r e c t i o n s f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 20. S a n F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s . K o n r a d , A. G. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . F a c u l t y d e v e l o p m e n t i n C a n a d i a n c o l l e g e s . I n The p r o f e s s o r i a t e : O c c u p a t i o n i n c r i s i s . T o r o n t o : H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n G r o u p , The O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r Studies i n Education. L i n s t o n e , H. A. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . E i g h t b a s i c p i t f a l l s : A c h e c k l i s t . I n H. A. L i n s t o n e & M. T u r o f f ( E d s . ) , The D e l p h i m e t h o d : T e c h n i q u e s a n d a p p l i c a t i o n s . R e a d i n g , MA: A d d i s o n - W e s l e y . L i n s t o n e , H. A. & T u r o f f , M. ( E d s . ) . ( 1 9 7 5 ) . T h e D e l p h i m e t h o d : T e c h n i q u e s a n d a p p l i c a t i o n s . R e a d i n g , MA: A d d i s o n Wesley. L i n d q u i s t , J . (1978). S o c i a l l e a r n i n g and p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s t r a t e g i e s f o r i m p r o v i n g a c a d e m i c p e r f o r m a n c e . I n W.R. K i r s c h l i n g ( E d . ) , New D i r e c t i o n s f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l R e s e a r c h : E v a l u a t i n g f a c u l t y p e r f o r m a n c e a n d v i t a l i t y , 20, 17-30. S a n F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s .  83 M c K e a c h i e , W. J . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . P e r c e p t i o n s f r o m p s y c h o l o g y : F i n a n c i a l i n c e n t i v e s a r e i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a c u l t y . I n D. L e w i s & W. E . B e c k e r ( E d s . ) , A c a d e m i c r e w a r d s i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n ( p p . 3 - 2 0 ) . C a m b r i d g e , MA: Ballinger.  R.  M c K e a c h i e , W. J . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . F a c u l t y as a r e n e w a b l e r e s o u r c e . I n R. G. B a l d w i n & R. T. B l a c k b u r n ( E d s . ) , New D i r e c t i o n s f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l R e s e a r c h : C o l l e g e f a c u l t y : V e r s a t i l e human r e s o u r c e s i n a p e r i o d o f c o n s t r a i n t , 40, 57-66. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. M a i n , A.  (1985). E d u c a t i o n a l  staff  d e v e l o p m e n t . Croom Helm.  M e r r i a m , S. B. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . C a s e s t u d y r e s e a r c h i n e d u c a t i o n : Q u a l i t a t i v e a p p r o a c h . San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s .  A  N e w e l l , L . J . & S p e a r , K. I . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . New d i m e n s i o n s f o r academic c a r e e r s : R e d i s c o v e r i n g i n t r i n s i c s a t i s f a c t i o n s . L i b e r a l E d u c a t i o n . 69. 109-116. P a t t o n , C. V. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . M i d - c a r e e r c h a n g e and e a r l y r e t i r e m e n t . I n W.R. K i r s c h l i n g ( E d . ) , New D i r e c t i o n s f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l R e s e a r c h : E v a l u a t i n g f a c u l t y p e r f o r m a n c e and v i t a l i t y . 20, 69-82. San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s . P e l z , D. C. & Andrews, F. M. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . S c i e n t i s t s O r g a n i z a t i o n s ( r e v . e d . ) . New Y o r k : W i l e y .  in  R i e g e r , W. G. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . D i r e c t i o n s i n D e l p h i d e v e l o p m e n t s : D i s s e r t a t i o n s and t h e i r q u a l i t y . Technological F o r e c a s t i n g and S o c i a l Change. 29. 195-204. Sackman, H. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . D e l p h i c r i t i q u e : E x p e r t o p i n i o n . f o r e c a s t i n g , and g r o u p p r o c e s s . L e x i n g t o n , MA: The Rand Corporation. S a r a s o n , S. B. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Work, a g i n g , and s o c i a l c h a n g e : P r o f e s s i o n a l s and t h e one l i f e - one c a r e e r i m p e r a t i v e . New Y o r k : The F r e e P r e s s . S c h n e i d e r , B. Motivation. 602)  & Z a l e s n y , M. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Human Needs and F a c u l t y (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 216  S c h u r r , G. M. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . F r e e i n g t h e ' s t u c k ' and a i d i n g t h e terminated: Expanding the career horizons of tenured c o l l e g e p r o f e s s o r s . (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 195 197)  84 S c h u s t e r , J . H. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . F a c u l t y v i t a l i t y : O b s e r v a t i o n s f r o m t h e f i e l d . I n R. J . B a l d w i n ( E d . ) , New D i r e c t i o n s f o r H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n : I n c e n t i v e s f o r f a c u l t y v i t a l i t y , 51, 2 1 32. S a n F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s . S m i t h , D. K. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . F a c u l t y v i t a l i t y a n d t h e management o f u n i v e r s i t y p e r s o n n e l p o l i c i e s . I n W.R. K i r s c h l i n g ( E d . ) , New D i r e c t i o n s f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l R e s e a r c h : E v a l u a t i n g f a c u l t y p e r f o r m a n c e a n d v i t a l i t y , 20, 1-16. S a n F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass. S o r c i n e l l i , M. D. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . S a b b a t i c a l s a n d l e a v e s : C r i t i c a l e v e n t s i n t h e c a r e e r s o f f a c u l t y . (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 270 014) T h o r b u r n , S. & B l a c k b u r n , R. T. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y g e n e r a l e d u c a t i o n : A method o f f a c u l t y d e v e l o p m e n t . (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 268 878) W o o l s e y , L . K. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . The c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t i n n o v a t i v e q u a l i t a t i v e method o f r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l l i n g . 20, 242-254.  t e c h n i q u e : An Canadian  85  APPENDIX A DELPHI GROUP RECRUITMENT LETTERS AND AGREEMENT FORMS  RESPONSE F O R M PRODUCTIVITY R E S E A R C H P R O J E C T  Please return to:  92  Casey Sheridan c/o Fraser Valley College 33844 King Road Abbotsford, B.C. V2S 4N2 From:  , President College  Date: March  , 1989  1. Will you permit this productivity research project to be carried out at College? YES  NO  If Y E S , then: 2. Please provide the names of 3 college administrators and 3 continuing contract faculty you feel have the expertise, and hopefully the willingness, to participate in a Delphi group to develop a definition of community college faculty productivity. Administrators: a.  Faculty: •  a.  b.  b.  c.  c.  3. Are you willing to participate in the Delphi group? YES  SIGNED  NO  RESPONSE F O R M PRODUCTIVITY R E S E A R C H PROJECT  Please return to:  93  Casey Sheridan c/o Fraser Valley College 33844 King Road Abbotsford, B.C. V2S 4N2 From:  , President Faculty Association College  Date: March  , 1989  1. Are you willing to participate in this productivity research project at College? YES  NO  If Y E S , then: 2. Please provide the names of 3 college administrators and 3 continuing contract faculty you feel have the expertise, and hopefully the willingness, to participate in a Delphi group to develop a definition of community college faculty productivity. Administrators:  Faculty:  a.  a.  b.  b.  c.  c.  3. Are you willing to participate in the Delphi group? YES  SIGNED  NO  RESPONSE F O R M PRODUCTIVITY R E S E A R C H PROJECT  Please return to: Casey Sheridan c/o Fraser Valley College 33844 King Road Abbotsford, B.C. V2S 4N2 From: ~ F2 ~ F l ~ Fraser Valley College 33844 King Road Abbotsford, B.C. V2S 4N2 Date:  , 1989  Are you willing to participate in the productivity Delphi group as described in the covering letter? The first round will occur early in May.  YES  SIGNED  NO  NEGATIVE RESPONSE F O R M PRODUCTIVITY R E S E A R C H PROJECT Please return to: Casey Sheridan c/o Fraser Valley College 33844 King Road Abbotsford, B.C. V2S 4N2  From: Red Deer College 56 Avenue - 32 Street, Box 5005 Red Deer, Alberta T4N 5H5  Date:  , 1989  I am unable to participate in the productivity Delphi group as described in the covering letter.  SIGNED  95  96  APPENDIX B DELPHI GROUP OUTGOING AND INCOMING COMMUNICATION ROUNDS 1-4  ROUND O N E R E S P O N S E F O R M PRODUCTIVITY R E S E A R C H PROJECT From:  Please return to:  ~F2~F1" Fraser Valley College 33844 King Road Abbotsford, B.C. V2S 4N2  Casey Sheridan c/o Fraser Valley College 33844 King Road Abbotsford, B.C. V2S 4N2  97  ****************************************  How would you define a productive community college faculty member? Please answer this question by completing the statement below in point form with productivity measures you feel are important. A productive community college faculty member is one who:  ROUND O N E RESPONSE F O R M PRODUCTIVITY R E S E A R C H PROJECT From: ~F2~F1~ Red Deer College 56 Avenue - 32 Street Red Deer, Alberta T4N 5H5  Please return by F A X to: Casey Sheridan c/o Fraser Valley College 33844 King Road Abbotsford, B.C. V2S 4N2 ; ****************************************  How would you define a productive community college faculty member? Please answer this question by completing the statement below in point form with productivity measures you feel are important. A productive community college faculty member is one who:  98  ROUND TWO RESPONSE FORM CATEGORY ASSIGNMENT A p r o d u c t i v e community c o l l e g e 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.  103  f a c u l t y member i s one who:  C a r r i e s t h e expected l o a d o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l and n o n i n s t r u c t i o n a l tasks I s s u p p o r t e d w i t h adequate r e s o u r c e s Uses t h e s e r e s o u r c e s e f f i c i e n t l y C o n t r i b u t e s t o a c h i e v i n g t h e c o l l e g e ' s m i s s i o n and g o a l s I s an e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t o r , and i s a c t i v e l y committed t o r e m a i n i n g effective I s s t u d e n t c e n t r e d , s t i m u l a t i n g and h e l p i n g them t o l e a r n and how to learn Updates and r e v i s e s c o u r s e s r e g u l a r l y P a r t i c i p a t e s i n p r o f e s s i o n a l development and renewal a c t i v i t i e s P a r t i c i p a t e s i n t h e c o l l e g e beyond h i s / h e r s p e c i f i c t e a c h i n g r o l e P a r t i c i p a t e s i n community a c t i v i t i e s Other (none o f t h e above accommodate t h i s p r o d u c t i v i t y measure)  P l e a s e s e l e c t a c a t e g o r y from t h e above f o r each o f t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y measures you r e p o r t e d i n round one as l i s t e d below. Not a l l c a t e g o r i e s need t o be used and a c a t e g o r y may be used more t h a n once.  ROUND TWO RESPONSE FORM CATEGORY IMPORTANCE  104  The numbered statements below complete the sentence a t the t o p o f l e f t column. For each statement, p l e a s e c i r c l e t h e number which c o r r e s p o n d s t o the importance you g i v e t h a t statement. A PRODUCTIVE COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY MEMBER IS ONE WHO: 1.  C a r r i e s the expected l o a d of i n s t r u c t i o n a l and noninstructional tasks  2.  I s s u p p o r t e d w i t h adequate resources  3.  Uses t h e s e r e s o u r c e s  4.  C o n t r i b u t e s t o a c h i e v i n g the c o l l e g e ' s m i s s i o n and g o a l s  5.  Is an e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t o r , i s a c t i v e l y committed t o remaining e f f e c t i v e  6.  Is student c e n t r e d , s t i m u l a t i n g and h e l p i n g them t o l e a r n and how to learn  7.  Updates and regularly  8.  Participates in professional development and renewal activities  9.  P a r t i c i p a t e s i n the c o l l e g e beyond h i s / h e r s p e c i f i c t e a c h i n g role  10.  efficiently  LOW HIGH IMPORTANCE IMPORTANCE  2  3  4  5  2  3  4  5  and  r e v i s e s courses  P a r t i c i p a t e s i n community activities From: ~F2" ~F1" Red Deer C o l l e g e 56 Avenue - 32 S t r e e t Red Deer, A l b e r t a T4N 5H5  the  ******** P l e a s e r e t u r n by FAX t o : Casey S h e r i d a n c/o F r a s e r V a l l e y C o l l e g e 33844 K i n g Road Abbotsford,' B.C. V2S 4N2'  PRODUCTIVITY PROJECT ROUND THREE RESPONSE FORM  106  A.EVALUATION OF CATEGORY IMPORTANCE The numbered statements below, the same as reviewed i n Round 2, are c o l l e c t i v e l y intended to provide a concise d e f i n i t i o n of a productive community college faculty member. For each statement, please c i r c l e the number which corresponds t o the importance you place on i t as a measure of community college f a c u l t y productivity. An analysis of Round 2 i s shown f o r your information. Also, i f your new response i s more than one unit from the average shown f o r Round 2, please explain why you consider the statement's importance to be higher or lower than the average response (no comment i s needed i f your new response i s within one unit of the average). A PRODUCTIVE COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY MEMBER IS ONE 1.  WHO:  c a r r i e s the expected load of i n s t r u c t i o n a l and noninstructional tasks Round 2 Analysis Average Response: 4.42 Low: 2 High: 5 Your Response: Standard Deviation: .95 Your Response Now  Low Importance  High Importance  4  5  Comment:  i s supported with adequate resources Round 2 Analysis Average Response: 4.55 Low: 3 High: 5 Your Response: Standard Deviation: (1 no response) Your Response Now Low Importance  .66  High Importance  Comment:  uses these resources e f f i c i e n t l y Round 2 Analysis Average Response: 4.25 Your Response: Your Response Now Low Importance  Comment: ["Fl"]  Low: 3 High: 5 Standard Deviation: High Importance  .72  PRODUCTIVITY PROJECT ROUND THREE RESPONSE FORM  107  contributes t o achieving the college's mission and goals Round 2 Analysis Average Response: 4.08 Low: 3 High: 5 Your Response: Standard Deviation: .76 Your Response Now Low Importance  High Importance  Comment:  5.  i s an e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t o r , and i s a c t i v e l y committed t o remaining effective Round 2 Analysis Average Response: 4.75 Low: 4 High: 5 Your Response: Standard Deviation: .43 Your Response Now Low Importance  High Importance  Comment:  i s student centred, stimulating and helping them t o learn and how t o learn Round 2 Analysis Average Response: 4.58 Low: 3 High: 5 Your Response: Standard Deviation: .64 Your Response Now Low Importance  High Importance  Comment s  7.  updates and revises courses r e g u l a r l y Round 2 Analysis Average Response: 4.25 Low: 3 High: 5 Your Response: Standard Deviation: Your Response Now Low Importance  Comment:  [~F1-]  High Importance  .60  PRODUCTIVITY PROJECT ROUND THREE RESPONSE FORM 8.  108  p a r t i c i p a t e s i n professional development and renewal a c t i v i t i e s Round 2 Analysis Average Response: 4.50 Low: 4 High: 5 Your Response: Standard Deviation: .50 Your Response Now Low Importance  High Importance  Comment:  9.  p a r t i c i p a t e s i n the college beyond his/her s p e c i f i c teaching r o l e Round 2 Analysis Average Response: 4.25 Low: 3 High: 5 Your Response: Standard Deviation: .60 Your Response Now Low Importance  High Importance  Comment:  10.  p a r t i c i p a t e s i n community a c t i v i t i e s Round 2 Analysis Average Response: 3.17 Low: 1 High: 5 Your Response: Standard Deviation: Your Response Now Low Importance  Comment:  ["Fl"]  High Importance  1.07  PRODUCTIVITY PROJECT ROUND THREE RESPONSE FORM  109  B.FACTORS RESPONDENTS COULD NOT CATEGORIZE IN ROUND 2 The p a r t i c i p a n t s who o r i g i n a l l y submitted t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y measures below r e p o r t e d t h a t Round 2 c a t e g o r i e s d i d n o t accommodate t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r items. F o r each o f t h e s e measures p l e a s e do one o f t h e following: a. b. c.  a s s i g n a c a t e g o r y number t o i t (use t h e numbers 1 s e c t i o n A above) i f you f e e l an e x i s t i n g c a t e g o r y accommodate t h e measure, o r e n t e r "A" i n t h e space i f you f e e l t h e measure i s enough t o be ADDED as a s e p a r a t e c a t e g o r y , o r e n t e r "D" i n t h e space i f you f e e l t h e measure i s important and s h o u l d be DELETED has a " r e a s o n a b l e " workload as determined and numbers o f s t u d e n t s p e r s e c t i o n  t o 10 from does important not  by number o f s e c t i o n s  i s healthy, vibrant, v i t a l has a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e - b e l i e v e s change i s p o s s i b l e and welcome p r o v i d e s a r o l e model f o r s t u d e n t s and c o l l e a g u e s meets o t h e r o b l i g a t i o n s t h a t may be d e s c r i b e d i n t h e c o l l e c t i v e agreement o r c o l l e g e p o l i c y can manage c o n f l i c t e f f i c i e n t manner  ( i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l ) i n a p r o d u c t i v e ,  ******** From:  Please return t o :  ~F2" " F l " Fraser Valley College 33844 K i n g Road A b b o t s f o r d , B.C. V2S 4N2  Casey S h e r i d a n c/o F r a s e r V a l l e y C o l l e g e 33844 K i n g Road A b b o t s f o r d , B.C. V2S 4N2 '  PRODUCTIVITY PROJECT ROUND FOUR RESPONSE FORM  HI  EVALUATION OF CATEGORY IMPORTANCE The numbered statements (productivity categories) below, derived from responses to rounds one to three, are intended to c o l l e c t i v e l y provide the basis f o r a concise, general d e f i n i t i o n of a productive community college faculty member ( i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y relevant and appropriate measurement c r i t e r i a would be up to each college to develop). As explained i n i t i a l l y i n the l e t t e r requesting your p a r t i c i p a t i o n , the d e f i n i t i o n w i l l be used when faculty are surveyed i n the second stage of t h i s research project. The f i n a l d e f i n i t i o n w i l l consist of those statements the Delphi group considered most important. An analysis of Round 3 responses and participant comments are shown for each statement. This information i s provided to help you r e evaluate your own responses and more f u l l y understand how opinions of the other p a r t i c i p a n t s were formed. For each statement, please c i r c l e the number which corresponds to the importance you now place on i t as a measure of community college f a c u l t y productivity. A PRODUCTIVE COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY MEMBER IS ONE 1.  c a r r i e s the expected load of i n s t r u c t i o n a l and noninstructional tasks Round 3 Analysis Average Response: 4.50 Low: 3 High: 5 Your Response: Standard Deviation: .76 Comments Made By Respondents a. To me "productive" means more than carrying the minimum expected load. b. What i s expected could be outlandish. Needs to be compared with expectations and performance of others. c. Begs the question as to who defines "expected." A negotiated version would be rated higher than some others. Your Response Now  Low Importance 1  2.  WHO:  2  High Importance 3  4  5  i s supported with adequate resources Round 3 Analysis Average Response: 4.17 Low: 1 High: 5 Your Response: Standard Deviation: 1.21 Comments Made By Respondents a. Statement doesn't speak to issue - i . e . , d i r e c t l y to issue of productivity, rather describes i n s t i t u t i o n a l conditions. b. Productive r e l a t i v e to resources. c. "Adequate" i s tough to p i n down, but i t ' s a c r i t i c a l consideration. d. I s t i l l believe that t h i s i s not a p r o d u c t i v i t y measure. I t i s a conditional statement or a prerequisite but not a measure. Your Response Now  [~F1~]  Low Importance  High Importance  PRODUCTIVITY PROJECT ROUND FOUR RESPONSE FORM  112  uses these resources e f f i c i e n t l y Round 3 Analysis Average Response: 4.33 Low: 3 High: 5 Your Response: Standard Deviation: .75 Comments Made By Respondents a. E f f i c i e n c y i n whose terms? Much of educational experimentation, which may r e s u l t i n very e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n , may not always appear e f f i c i e n t i n terms of resource a l l o c a t i o n . b. We a l l know who tends to get to define " e f f i c i e n t l y , " and that t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n rarely includes educational values. Your Response Now Low Importance 1  2  High Importance 3  4  5  contributes t o achieving the college's mission and goals Round 3 Analysis Average Response: 4.17 Low: 3 High: 5 Your Response: Standard Deviation: .55 Comments Made By Respondents a. I s t i l l think t h i s i s very open t o interpretation - doing one thing, while saying another1 b. Again, there i s the problem of who defines and interprets the college's mission and goals. Your Response Now Low Importance 1  2  High Importance 3  4  5  i s an e f f e c t i v e instructor, and i s a c t i v e l y committed t o remaining effective Round 3 Analysis Average Response: 5.00 Low: 5 High: 5 Your Response: Standard Deviation: 0.00 Comments Made By Respondents a. I assume effectiveness w i l l not be measured s o l e l y by numbers of students, sections, e t c . Your Response Now Low Importance  High Importance  PRODUCTIVITY PROJECT ROUND FOUR RESPONSE FORM  113  i s student centred, stimulating and helping them t o learn and learn how t o learn Round 3 Analysis Average Response: 4.67 Low: 3 High: 5 Your Response: Standard Deviation: .62 Comments Made By Respondents a. Ah, yes, i t ' s so nice to note the importance of students at a college. b. "Student centred" has become a buzz-word f o r the 80s. I t ' s not clear to me that teaching my d i s c i p l i n e needs to be student-centred except i n some very precise ways. The concept needs c l a r i f i c a t i o n . Your Response Now Low Importance 1  2  High Importance 3  4  5  updates and revises courses regularly Round 3 Analysis Average Response: 4.25 Low: 4 High: 5 Your Response: Standard Deviation: .43 Comments Made By Respondents a. Redundant to #'s 5 & 6? Perhaps should ask whether applies PD a c t i v i t i e s to i n s t r u c t i o n a l tasks? Your Response Now Low Importance 1  2  High Importance 3  4  5  p a r t i c i p a t e s i n professional development and renewal a c t i v i t i e s Round 3 Analysis Average Response: 4.50 Low: 4 High: 5 Your Response: Standard Deviation: .50 Comments Made By Respondents a. Who defines what count as PD and renewal a c t i v i t i e s ? Does i t include, e.g., reading books? Your Response Now Low Importance  High Importance  PRODUCTIVITY PROJECT ROUND FOUR RESPONSE FORM  114  9•participates in the college beyond his/her specific teaching role Round 3 A n a l y s i s Average Response: 4.33 Low: 4 High: 5 Your Response: Standard D e v i a t i o n : .47 Comments Made By Respondents a. Doesn't t h i s o v e r l a p w i t h #1 ( " n o n i n s t r u c t i o n a l t a s k s " ) ? Didn't n o t i c e t h i s before. b. There s h o u l d be room f o r l o n e r s i f they do n o t c r i p p l e others. Your Response Now Low Importance  1 10.  2  High Importance  4  3  5  p a r t i c i p a t e s i n community a c t i v i t i e s Round 3 A n a l y s i s Average Response: 3.25 Low: 1 High: 5 Your Response: Standard D e v i a t i o n : 1.01 Comments Made By Respondents a. A t r u l y p r o d u c t i v e i n s t r u c t o r i n a community c o l l e g e c o n t r i b u t e s beyond t h e c l a s s r o o m . They have an important c o n t r i b u t i o n t o make t o t h e communities they s e r v e . b. I t h i n k you c a n be p r o d u c t i v e without t h i s - a l t h o u g h o f course i t i s u s e f u l . Some d i s c i p l i n e s may need t o have t h i s ( i . e . , ECD, S o c i a l Work, e t c . ) . But an E n g l i s h i n s t r u c t o r , f o r example, may n o t . c. Perhaps I s h o u l d q u a l i f y t h i s , as I have i n mind community a c t i v i t i e s related to college duties. d. I t h i n k t h i s i s i r r e l e v a n t , u n l e s s d o i n g so i s a s p e c i f i e d p a r t o f t h e i n s t r u c t o r ' s j o b . A p r o d u c t i v e f a c u l t y member w i l l i n f l u e n c e t h e s t u d e n t s , who w i l l i n f l u e n c e t h e community. He/she doesn't have t o go o u t and do i t personally! Some people a r e i n c l i n e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e w h i l e o t h e r s a r e n ' t . Both may be g r e a t t e a c h e r s , o r n e i t h e r may bel e. N i c e b u t n o t e s s e n t i a l f o r everyone. f. I n keeping w i t h a s s i g n e d C o l l e g e r o l e ( r e p r e s e n t s C o l l e g e i n v a r i o u s groups, e t c . ) Your Response Now Low Importance  1  2  High Importance 3  4  5  ******** From:  Please return to:  ~F2~ " F l " Fraser Valley College 33844 K i n g Road A b b o t s f o r d , B.C. V2S 4N2  Casey S h e r i d a n c/o F r a s e r V a l l e y C o l l e g e 33844 King Road A b b o t s f o r d , B.C. V2S 4N2 "~  Final Results of the Faculty Productivity Delphi Project 1) Carries the expected load of instructional and noninstructional tasks. # 1 2 3 4 5  FREQ C U M % NORM%  R E V % RESPONSE CATEGORY  0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Low Importance 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 16.7 16.7 16.7 2 33.3 16.7 16.7 8 100.0 66.7 66.7 High Importance  W A 4.50 12 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTALS  SD .76  2) Is supported with adequate resources. # 1 2 3 4 5  FREQ C U M % NORM%  R E V % RESPONSE CATEGORY  1 8.3 8.3 8.3 Low Importance 0 8.3 0.0 0.0 3 33.3 25.0 25.0 3 58.3 25.0 25.0 5 100.0 41.7 41.7 High Importance  W A 3.92 12 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTALS  SD 1.19  3) Uses these resources efficiently. # F R E Q C U M % N O R M % R E V % RESPONSE CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5  0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Low Importance 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 25.0 25.0 25.0 4 58.3 33.3 33.3 5 100.0 41.7 41.7 High Importance  W A 4.17 12 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTALS  SD .80  4) Contributes to achieving the college's mission and goals. # F R E Q C U M % N O R M % R E V % RESPONSE CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5  0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Low Importance 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 16.7 16.7 16.7 7 75.0 58.3 58.3 3 100.0 25.0 25.0 High Importance  W A 4.08 12 100.0 100.0 100.0  TOTALS  SD .64  5) Is an effective instructor, and is actively committed to remaining effective. # F R E Q C U M % N O R M % R E V % R E S P O N S E CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5  0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 12 100.0 100.0  0.0 Low Importance 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 High Importance  W A 5.00 12 100.0 100.0 100.0  TOTALS  SD  .00  6) Is student centred, stimulating and helping them to learn and learn how to learn. # F R E Q C U M % N O R M % REV% R E S P O N S E CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5  0 0.0 0 0.0 1 8.3 2 25.0 9 100.0  0.0 0.0 8.3 16.7 75.0  0.0 Low Importance 0.0 8.3 16.7 75.0 High Importance  W A 4.67 12 100.0 100.0 100.0  TOTALS  SD  .62  7) Updates and revises courses regularly. # F R E Q C U M % N O R M % REV% R E S P O N S E CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5  0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Low Importance 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 8.3 8.3 8.3 8 75.0 66.7 66.7 3 100.0 25.0 25.0 High Importance  W A 4.17 12 100.0 100.0 100.0  TOTALS  SD  .55  8) Participates in professional development and renewal activities. # F R E Q C U M % N O R M % REV% R E S P O N S E CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5  0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 5 41.7 41.7 7 100.0 58.3  0.0 Low Importance 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 High Importance  W A 4.58 12 100.0 100.0 100.0  TOTALS  SD  .49  118 9) Participates in the college beyond his/her specific teaching role. # F R E Q CUM.% N O R M % R E V % R E S P O N S E CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5  0 0.0 0 0.0 1 8.3 8 75.0 3 100.0  0.0 0.0 Low Importance 0.0 0.0 8.3 8.3 66.7 66.7 25.0 25.0 High Importance  W A 4.17 12 100.0 100.0 100.0 10)  # 1 2 3 4 5  TOTALS  SD  .55  Participates in community activities. F R E Q C U M % N O R M % REV% RESPONSE CATEGORY 1 8.3 2 25.0 4 58.3 4 91.7 1 100.0  8.3 8.3 Low Importance 16.7 16.7 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 8.3 8.3 High Importance  W A 3.17 12 100.0 100.0 100.0  TOTALS  SD 1.07 ********  Based on the results of this Delphi process the following definition will be used in the survey of faculty: Representatives from faculty and administration at each college being surveyed participated in development of a faculty productivity definition for use in this questionnaire. The statements below are collectively intended to provide a concise, general definition of a productive community college faculty member (institutionally relevant and appropriate measurement criteria would be up to each college to develop). A productive community college faculty member is one who: 1. is an effective instructor, and is actively committed to remaining effective 2. is student centred, stimulating and helping them to learn and learn how to learn 3. participates in professional development and renewal activities 4. carries the expected load of instructional and noninstructional tasks 5. updates and revises courses regularly 6. participates in the college beyond his/her specific teaching role 7. uses resources efficiently 8. contributes to achieving the college's mission and goals  APPENDIX C LETTER REQUESTING PARTICIPATION IN PILOT SURVEY  121  APPENDIX D QUESTIONNAIRES, COVERING LETTERS AND FOLLOW-UP LETTERS  126 FACULTY PRODUCTIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE ( College)  INSTRUCTIONS There a r e t h r e e p a r t s t o t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e : * PART I asks a few p e r s o n a l q u e s t i o n s i n o r d e r t o d e v e l o p a p r o f i l e of t h e respondents. * PART I I g a t h e r s d a t a about work r e l a t e d i n c i d e n t s which were p e r s o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n e i t h e r f a c i l i t a t i n g o r h i n d e r i n g your productivity. * PART I I I p r o v i d e s a l i s t of f a c t o r s which you a r e asked t o r e l a t e t o your p r o d u c t i v i t y . The f i r s t and t h i r d p a r t s w i l l o n l y t a k e a few minutes t o complete. PART I I , however, r e q u i r e s you t o r e c a l l d e t a i l s about s p e c i f i c o c c u r r e n c e s and c o n s e q u e n t l y w i l l t a k e a l i t t l e l o n g e r . T o t a l t i m e r e q u i r e d i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10 minutes. P l e a s e answer a l l t h e q u e s t i o n s i n t h e sequence p r o v i d e d and r e t u r n t h e completed survey i n t h e e n c l o s e d envelope. The d a t a c o l l e c t e d by t h i s survey w i l l be used f o r academic r e s e a r c h purposes. I n d i v i d u a l responses are anonymous and w i l l be aggregated w i t h r e p l i e s from o t h e r s surveyed. I n f o r m a t i o n w i l l not be r e l e a s e d i n any way which would p e r m i t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a respondent.  ******** DEFINITION OF PRODUCTIVITY R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a t each c o l l e g e b e i n g surveyed p a r t i c i p a t e d i n development of a f a c u l t y p r o d u c t i v i t y d e f i n i t i o n f o r use i n t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The statements below a r e c o l l e c t i v e l y intended t o provide a concise, general d e f i n i t i o n of a p r o d u c t i v e community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y member ( i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y r e l e v a n t and a p p r o p r i a t e measurement c r i t e r i a would be up t o each c o l l e g e t o develop). A p r o d u c t i v e community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y member i s one who: 1. i s an e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t o r , and i s a c t i v e l y committed t o r e m a i n i n g effective 2. i s s t u d e n t c e n t r e d , s t i m u l a t i n g and h e l p i n g them t o l e a r n and l e a r n how t o l e a r n 3. p a r t i c i p a t e s i n p r o f e s s i o n a l development and renewal a c t i v i t i e s 4. c a r r i e s t h e e x p e c t e d l o a d o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l and n o n i n s t r u c t i o n a l tasks 5. updates and r e v i s e s c o u r s e s r e g u l a r l y 6. p a r t i c i p a t e s i n t h e c o l l e g e beyond h i s / h e r s p e c i f i c t e a c h i n g r o l e 7. uses resources e f f i c i e n t l y 8. c o n t r i b u t e s t o a c h i e v i n g t h e c o l l e g e ' s m i s s i o n and g o a l s  127  F a c t o r s Reported By I n s t r u c t o r s As Affecting Their Productivity PART I :  PERSONAL PROFILE  P l e a s e check t h e a p p r o p r i a t e response f o r each of t h e f o l l o w i n g statements and q u e s t i o n s . 1.  Sex (1)  FOR OFFICE USE ONLY C O D E 1 2 3 4 5  Male  (2)  Female  2.  Age a t l a s t b i r t h d a y (1) < 26 (2) 26-30 (3) 31-35 (4) 36-40 (5) 41-45  3.  Your c u r r e n t main t e a c h i n g a r e a i s b e s t d e s c r i b e d as ( s e l e c t one o n l y ) : (1) C a r e e r / v o c a t i o n a l / t r a d e s programs (2) U n i v e r s i t y t r a n s f e r / a c a d e m i c programs (3) C o l l e g e p r e p a r a t o r y / d e v e l o p m e n t a l programs  8  4.  Your c u r r e n t c o l l e g e p o s i t i o n i s b e s t d e s c r i b e d as ( s e l e c t one o n l y ) : (1) S e s s i o n a l (temporary c o n t r a c t ) i n s t r u c t o r (2) Part-time continuing contract i n s t r u c t o r (3) Full-time continuing contract i n s t r u c t o r w i t h no time r e l e a s e f o r o t h e r r e spons i b i 1 i t i e s (4) Full-time continuing contract instructor w i t h some time r e l e a s e f o r o t h e r responsibilities (5) Full-time continuing contract i n s t r u c t o r w i t h f u l l time r e l e a s e f o r o t h e r responsibilities  9  5.  How l o n g have you (1) < 6 (2) 6-10 (3) 11-15  (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)  46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 > 65  been an i n s t r u c t o r at t h i s c o l l e g e ? years (4) 16-20 years years (5) 21-25 years years (6) > 25 y e a r s  ******** PART I I :  PRODUCTIVITY FACTOR IDENTIFICATION  The purpose of the q u e s t i o n s which f o l l o w i s t o o b t a i n from you a number of i n c i d e n t s which you f e e l were personally s i g n i f i c a n t i n f a c i l i t a t i n g or hindering your p r o d u c t i v i t y . An i n c i d e n t i s any o c c u r r e n c e , event o r happening a t a p o i n t i n time, r e c u r r e n t l y over time, or c o n t i n u o u s l y o v e r a p e r i o d o f time. For example, r e c e i v i n g r e c o g n i t i o n o r b e i n g unable t o o b t a i n a r e q u i r e d p u b l i c a t i o n at the c o l l e g e l i b r a r y a r e i n c i d e n t s a t a p o i n t i n time. Crowded c l a s s r o o m space i n a c o u r s e you t e a c h or p a r t i c i p a t i o n on a c o l l e g e committee are examples o f r e c u r r e n t i n c i d e n t s . A s a b b a t i c a l o r secondment would be c o n s i d e r e d an  6-7  10  F a c t o r s Reported By I n s t r u c t o r s As Affecting Their Productivity  128  i n c i d e n t continuous i n nature. F o r purposes o f t h e s e q u e s t i o n s t h e i n c i d e n t i s c o n s i d e r e d p e r s o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i f i t had a n o t a b l e e f f e c t i n e i t h e r f a c i l i t a t i n g o r h i n d e r i n g your productivity. A. F a c i l i t a t i n g I n c i d e n t s 6. P l e a s e t h i n k back t o t h e l a s t time a p e r s o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d a t t h e c o l l e g e which f a c i l i t a t e d your p r o d u c t i v i t y .  C O D E  (1)  Describe the incident  11-12  (2)  How d i d t h i s i n c i d e n t f a c i l i t a t e your productivity?  13-14  Can you t h i n k o f another p e r s o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n c i d e n t a t t h e c o l l e g e which f a c i l i t a t e d your productivity? (1)  Describe the incident  15-16  (2)  How d i d t h i s i n c i d e n t f a c i l i t a t e your productivity?  17-18  C O D E  F a c t o r s Reported By I n s t r u c t o r s As Affecting Their Productivity  129  B. H i n d e r i n g I n c i d e n t s 8. P l e a s e t h i n k back t o t h e l a s t time a p e r s o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d a t t h e c o l l e g e which h i n d e r e d your p r o d u c t i v i t y .  9.  (1)  Describe the incident  19-20  (2)  How d i d t h i s i n c i d e n t h i n d e r your p r o d u c t i v i t y ?  21-22  Can you t h i n k o f another p e r s o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n c i d e n t a t t h e c o l l e g e which h i n d e r e d your productivity? (1)  Describe the incident  23-24  (2)  How d i d t h i s i n c i d e n t h i n d e r your p r o d u c t i v i t y ?  25-26  ********  130  F a c t o r s R e p o r t e d By I n s t r u c t o r s As Affecting Their Productivity PART I I I !  PRODUCTIVITY FACTOR  ASSESSMENT  The f o l l o w i n g statements r e f l e c t work r e l a t e d f a c t o r s which may a f f e c t community c o l l e g e f a c u l t y productivity. P l e a s e c i r c l e t h e number which c o r r e s p o n d s t o your p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e p r i o r i t y t h e f a c t o r has i n a f f e c t i n g your p r o d u c t i v i t y . FOR OFFICE USE ONLY C O D E  WORK RELATED FACTORS AND YOUR PRODUCTIVITY  LOW PRIORITY  10.  appropriate  holdings  1  2  3  4  5  27  11.  adequate l a b o r a t o r y  space  1  2  3  4  5  28  12.  contemporary equipment  1  2  3  4  5  29  13.  o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o attend p r o f e s s i o n a l meetings  30  14.  opportunities leaves  31  15.  s t i m u l a t i o n o f good s t u d e n t s  1  2  3  4  5  32  16.  a manageable work l o a d  1  2  3  4  5  33  17.  adequate  1  2  3  4  5  34  18.  r e c o g n i t i o n by  1  2  3  4  5  35  19.  a p p r e c i a t i o n by  1  2  3  4  5  36  20.  clear institutional  objectives  1  2  3  4  5  37  21.  clear institutional  priorities  1  2  3  4  5  38  22.  meaningful f a c u l t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n governance  1  2  3  4  5  39  23.  openness i n d e c i s i o n making  1  2  3  4  5  40  24.  f a i r n e s s i n d e c i s i o n making  1  2  3  4  5  41  25.  intellectual  1  2  3  4  5  42  26.  stimulation of colleagues  1  2  3  4  5  43  27.  opportunities growth  f o r career  1  2  3  4  5  44  28.  opportunities advancement  for hierarchical  library  laboratory  HIGH PRIORITY  f o r sabbatical  compensation administration administration  freedom  45  F a c t o r s Reported By I n s t r u c t o r s As Affecting Their Productivity  131  WORK RELATED FACTORS AND YOUR PRODUCTIVITY  LOW PRIORITY  HIGH PRIORITY  29.  s t i m u l a t i n g work  1  2  3  4  5  46  30.  s a t i s f y i n g work  1  2  3  4  5  47  31.  f u l f i l l i n g work  1  2  3  4  5  48  32.  o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o l e a r n new things  1  2  3  4  5  49  33.  o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o t a k e on new challenges  1  2  3  4  5  50  34.  o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o t a k e on new responsibilities  1  2  3  4  5  51  35.  opportunities f o r outside professional consulting  1  2  3  4  5  52  36.  opportunities t o teach i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y courses  1  2  3  4  5  53  37.  opportunities f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l development  1  2  3  4  5  54  38.  opportunities development  for professional  1  2  3  4  5  55  39.  a c o l l e g e environment t h a t i s flexible  1  2  3  4  5  56  40.  an i n f o r m a l work environment  1  2  3  4  5  57  41.  a work environment which supports q u a l i t y  1  2  3  4  5  58  42.  o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o teach d i f f e r e n t courses  1  2  3  4  5  59  43.  o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o t e a c h new courses  1  2  3  4  5  60  44.  o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r temporary nonacademic assignments  1  2  3  4  5  61  Thank you v e r y much f o r t a k i n g time t o respond. q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n t h e addressed envelope p r o v i d e d Casey S h e r i d a n c/o F r a s e r V a l l e y C o l l e g e 33844 K i n g Road, R.R. #2 A b b o t s f o r d , B.C. V2S 4N2  Return the or t o :  C O D E  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055838/manifest

Comment

Related Items