Policy Statement

Through collaborative decision-making involving the faculty whom they are charged with leading, deans and chairs have the authority to assign individual faculty to specific duties that have been identified and accepted explicitly or implicitly by agreement on mission and collective responsibility. Responsibility and authority for management and use of university resources are inherent functions of administrative officers, in equal collaboration with faculty and according to the principles of fairness and equity.

Back to top

Reason for Policy

Two primary documents—University Policies and the IU Indianapolis Faculty Guide—set forth university and campus policies on the assignment of faculty work. Authority to set policies derives from the Board of Trustees. Although Faculty Council actions and campus administrative practices may come to be regarded as having the effect of policy, both are subject to review by the trustees and may be affected by their actions. Nothing in this statement, therefore, should be construed as speaking on behalf of the trustees.

An example of the trustees' interest in faculty work relates to their request that the campuses develop teaching capacity models. Individual schools and/or type of appointment may vary in the average numbers of course sections taught per faculty member. However, the IU Indianapolis average has been seen by trustees to be six course sections per year, with allowances for individual assignments for research, service, and administrative responsibilities. Sections may be taught within a schedule that suits both faculty and school.

Academic freedom ensures that faculty can pursue their scholarly interests, but only insofar as they may meet their responsibilities to their unit. "The teacher [including librarians] shall have full freedom of instruction, subject to adequate fulfillment of their academic duties" (University Policy ACA-32 “Academic Freedom”). Faculty teaching responsibilities include regular attendance at classes, holding required office hours, assuring class coverage in the event of their absence, and securing approval from the unit administrator (chair, division head, etc.) for any absences that may impact teaching (BOT-15 (formerly ACA-33) Academic Appointee Responsibilities and Conduct).

Back to top

Procedures

To respond to the trustees’ request, each school should have a faculty workload policy.  The dean of each school, in collaboration with the faculty, is expected to develop and administer policies for faculty work that ensure that responsibilities are met and individuals are treated fairly and equitably. The campus chancellor and the chief academic officer, in turn, are responsible for the effectiveness of deans in following this principle across the campus. Faculty should expect to receive, upon request, an explanation for work assignments. (If there has been consultation and shared understanding of faculty responsibilities, explanations will rarely be required.) The explanation must bear scrutiny by peers in the contexts of university, campus, school, and departmental missions. Instead of setting forth detailed work rules, therefore, administrators in each unit are expected to interpret and apply general policies in accord with the special missions of their units.

No one definition of an equitable faculty workload can meet the unique needs of each unit. Nevertheless, any definition of faculty workload should address research and creative activity, teaching activity, service expectations, and percentage of time/effort for these activities according to type of faculty appointment. For example, lecturers generally teach additional sections over what is taught by clinical faculty. Each school should define faculty workload expectations for its needs and the faculty categories it employs. In response to questions raised by faculty members, the remainder of this statement deals with these areas.

Research and Creative Activity

Each unit should address its research responsibilities and expectations in its mission statement and should periodically reaffirm or revise its statement. Although some faculty specialize in research or clinical assignments (as described in BOT-05 (formerly ACA-12) “General Provisions Regarding Academic Appointments”), tenured and tenure-track faculty are expected to combine teaching, research, and service at performance levels that their departmental and unit peers regard as satisfactory or better. It is assumed that tenure-related faculty members spend some time in research, appropriately balanced by teaching and service. If time spent in research will impinge on expectations of effort in the other two areas beyond what is considered normative, the faculty member must obtain the consent of the administrative officer. It is further assumed that faculty members' research relates to the unit's mission, documented by such measures of accountability as individual faculty annual reports.

Tenure-track faculty members are encouraged (in some schools expected) to actively seek and acquire the kinds of support needed to carry out and support their research programs. The type of support needed can vary across disciplines and faculty members. Some schools or programs expect faculty members to work towards obtaining externally funded teaching/research grants and awards. These kinds of support would sustain a faculty member’s research and scholarly activity, promote teaching graduate students, post-docs and fellows, nurture the research infrastructure of the university and generate high-skilled workforce for the Indiana and national economy. For a higher learning institution, the effort by the faculty to secure research support should be appropriately recognized by the university.

Although some schools have developed a practice that faculty have, as a right, one day a week for research, no campus policy states this assignment of time. Exceptions could be made by the chair or dean within the context of a faculty member's overall responsibilities with an expectation of demonstrated outcomes.

Teaching Assignments

Assigning faculty to specific courses is complex and reflects the best aspects of mutual responsibility between faculty and unit administrators. The process must be based on a faculty's collective responsibility. An individual has a right to fair and equitable treatment that withstands review among peers and within program expectations; however, no absolute right exists with regard to assignment or effort distribution. Peers within a department should ideally reach consensus on assignments, but when consensus is not possible the chair must decide, using a pre-specified procedure for conflict resolution when appropriate.

It is always in the best interest of the unit to take advantage of individual faculty members' competencies, strengths, and interests when matching them to specific departmental needs. Chairs and deans must develop a schedule of classes each term based on curricular requirements, direct and indirect promises of course availability, and student needs. The process should involve the unit's faculty and derive from the faculty's authority to determine curriculum. In acting on behalf of the faculty to implement the curriculum, academic administrators should assume that their peers will scrutinize and review their judgments. They also are expected to give priority to unit needs and responsibilities over those of individual faculty. A balance of interests and programmatic needs is the goal to be reached successfully in the shared process of planning teaching activities. 

Faculty workload is not equal to the number of hours spent in the classroom, reflecting the complexity of instruction in higher education. Appropriate consideration of faculty workload must include various instructional modalities employed in addition to lecture—small group including problem-based learning, laboratory/clinical, and distance instruction including online. It is essential that workload assignments adequately manage individual instruction in the form of capstone experiences or graduate research mentoring. Therefore, it cannot be based solely on course numbers or credit hours.

In response to student and public needs, many academic units of IU Indianapolis have accepted responsibilities to conduct classes at off-campus locations or online. Faculty members, regardless of conditions when they began their appointment, take part in delivering courses by methods that the unit deems appropriate at a particular time, considering safe practices and precluding extenuating circumstances of individual faculty. This includes teaching online and at such places as off campus IU Indianapolis learning centers, high schools, corporate or institutional sites, hospitals, shopping malls, other communities within commuting distances, and even other countries based on contracts. Units based in Indianapolis that have program responsibilities at Bloomington, Columbus, Fort Wayne, or other campuses may also involve off-campus assignments, subject to equity and fairness as affirmed by peer review, with possible exceptions for individual hardship.

A frequent issue involves levels of course work and subject areas. In some units, there is a presumption that some faculty do not have to teach lower division courses and there may be concerns about eligibility to teach graduate courses. Occasionally, a department chair must ask an individual to teach a course or part of a course beyond the faculty member's expectations or specialization. Chairs and deans must make these decisions, but they also are accountable for the consequences to students and to faculty in providing fairness and equity. At an evolving university, faculty also are expected to grow as scholars and teachers with encouragement and tangible support from their chairs and deans.

Finally, the concept of peer review underlies policies associated with observing and assessing faculty performance. The academic world has long recognized the necessity and value of peer review in research, but has only recently embraced the process as an inherently valuable aspect of teaching and professional service.  Although each unit should develop its own practices in regard to peer review, faculty must also acknowledge the obligation of chairs/deans or their delegates to observe colleagues’ teaching activities, in both physical and online teaching environments. Peer review should be formative and allow sufficient opportunity for improvement of performance.

Ten Month Appointments

Faculty members who hold 10-month appointments may engage in compensated activities without accountability to the university during the time period they are not engaged in university business. Moreover, faculty should not be expected to participate in university activities when they are uncompensated but must act in accordance with university employee regulations.

Summer Teaching

Faculty members who teach during the summer are required to be actively engaged in course-related teaching activities from the first day of classes through the day grades are due. Because of the intensive nature of summer teaching and service, faculty teaching full-time in the summer should not expect to engage in remunerated outside activities. Each school should have a summer teaching policy that also addresses service expectations, such as student advising. Before undertaking outside activities, even continuing activities begun during the academic year, faculty should establish expectations in advance of summer work with the chair or dean. Ten-month faculty may engage in summer teaching as an additional teaching load. When this occurs, faculty members taking part in paid outside activities require prior approval of the faculty member's chair and dean as provided in school-specific policies. Faculty should be encouraged to balance summer teaching with requirements for promotion and tenure.

Service

University, campus, school, departmental, and community service responsibilities should be determined equitably among faculty members. Service activities should be coordinated with faculty preferences, areas of expertise, and school and organizational needs. In addition, individual administrative units may have policies concerning service expectations of particular academic appointments (e.g. reduced service expectations for untenured faculty).

Twelve Month Appointments

Outside Work

This section addresses several policies associated with faculty members' obtaining compensation from outside sources. Faculty members with 12-month appointments are expected to devote their primary professional time and energy to carrying out their administrative teaching, research, and service responsibilities of the university. Faculty members may engage in remunerated outside work if compatible with IU policy on conflict of interest and conflict of commitment (BOT-34 (formerly UA-17) ). As that policy states (section B.1.a.5), "full-time tenure-track faculty and librarians are permitted to spend, on average, one non-weekend day each week, not including official university holidays, during the period of appointment on outside professional activities." This does not apply to non-tenure track academic appointees. Faculty members will report outside work to the appropriate unit administrator (chair, division head, etc.) and will ensure that such activities do not interfere with their primary professional responsibilities. 

Vacations

Twelve-month appointees have 22 working days per calendar year for vacation (BOT-17 (formerly ACA-47) ).  The scheduling of vacations must be coordinated with chairs and deans.

Faculty Leave of Absence

Leaves of absence without pay are described in section E of BOT-17 (formerly University Policy ACA-47) “Leaves for Academic Appointees.” Subject to approval of school and campus administrative officers, leaves of absence without pay can be approved that permit a faculty member to engage in remunerated activities. On occasion and for reasons beneficial to the unit, a leave may, with the dean's and chief academic officer’s approval, be extended beyond a year. Such leaves are not a right and are not guaranteed by this document.

Changes to Initial Faculty Appointment Conditions

Conditions at time of initial appointment vary.

Letters of appointments: While letters of offer must be reviewed carefully and while the university, campus, and school are each committed to honoring them, faculty must recognize that conditions of work can change. Individual faculty members should expect to contribute proportionately to program, departmental, or school norms for the faculty. In some units, research and/or teaching expectations differed when some faculty members were initially appointed. Accordingly, those faculty members should expect to accept added responsibilities that bring their overall level of contribution to the program, departmental, or school norm.

Conflicts of Interest

Faculty workload shall be consistent with the policies on Conflicts of Interest and  Commitment as stated in BOT-34 (formerly University Policy UA-17) “Conflicts of Interest and Commitment.”

Faculty Complaints

Individual faculty have the right to request a hearing before peers with regard to the decisions of deans and chairs through school grievance procedures and, if not resolved on that level, through the Faculty Board of Review process (see University Policy ACA-17 “Faculty Boards of Review Uniform Standards” or Article V of the University Faculty Constitution, which says Boards shall consider complaints of faculty concerning, among other things, "the nature or conditions of work"). Similarly, an appeals process is provided for contesting administrative decisions with regard to conflicts of interest. Peer review by a Faculty Board of Review helps assure faculty that their administrative officers will act in accord with the best interests of the unit, campus, and university and will exercise their authority fairly and equitably.

Faculty who disagree with work assignments should first communicate this to the person making the assignment and, if unsatisfied, to that person's superior. Some schools have created procedures or committees to address grievances, and this immediate recourse, if available, is likely to be most satisfactory. If there is no administrative remedy, then the faculty member should request a hearing by a Faculty Board of Review to avoid any possibility of misconduct charges. While protesting, the faculty member should meet assigned duties and responsibilities. If there is concern about adverse consequences of delay, the faculty member should seek a Board of Review as quickly as possible, while still carrying out assignments.

Back to top

History

Originally written by William Plater, Executive Vice Chancellor and Dean of the Faculties in 1996.

Proposed by the Faculty Affairs Committee

Approved by IFC, 3-4-14

Edited to update University Policies, 4-13-15

Edited to update University Policy ACA-32 language, 5-28-19

Edited to update University Policy UA-17 language, 5-28-20

Edited to update University Policy ACA-47 to BOT-17, 2-27-26

Edited to update University Policy UA-17 to BOT-34, 2-27-26

Back to top