Abstract
Much of the current research on faculty vitality—including studies of faculty workload, reward structures, and morale—are focused on research universities and liberal arts colleges. Results of two surveys of faculty vitality at DePaul University, administered in 1986 and 1992, suggest that the earlier models of faculty vitality, although useful, need to be reexamined for comprehensive universities. This case study suggests that nontangible correlates, particularly institutional direction and mission articulation and their relationship to faculty workload and the reward's structure, play an important role in ensuring a balanced effort at promoting faculty vitality at comprehensive universities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baldwin, Roger (1990). Faculty vitality beyond the research university: Extending a contextual concept.The Journal of Higher Education 61: 160–180.
Bevan, John M (1985). Who has the role of building incentives? In Roger W. Baldwin (ed.).Incentives for Faculty Vitality (pp. 45–57). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, Howard, and Schuster, Jack (1986).American Professors: A National Resource Imperiled. New York: Oxford University Press.
Boyer, Ernest (1990).Scholarship Reconsidered. New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Chan, Susy (1988). Faculty participation in strategic planning: Incentives and strategies.Planning for Higher Education 16(2): 19–30.
Clark, Burton R (1993). Faculty: Differentiation and dispersion. In Arthur Levine (ed.),Higher Learning in America, 1980–2000 (pp. 163–178). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Clark, Shirley M., Boyer, Carol M., and Corcoran, Mary (1985). Faculty and institutional vitality in higher education. In Shirley M. Clark and Darrell Lewis (eds.),Faculty Vitality and Institutional Productivity: Critical Perspectives for Higher Education (pp. 3–24). New York: Teachers College Press.
Clark, Shirley M., Corcoran, Mary, and Lewis, Darrell (1986). The case for an institutional perspective on faculty development.Journal of Higher Education 57: 176–195.
Clark, Shirley M., and Corcoran, Mary (1985). Individual and organizational contributions to faculty vitality: An institutional case study. In Shirley M. Clark and Darrell Lewis (eds.).Faculty Vitality and Institutional Productivity: Critical Perspectives for Higher Education (pp. 112–138). New York: Teachers College Press.
Clark, Shirley M., and Lewis, Darrell R. (1988). Faculty vitality: Context, concerns, and prospects. In John C. Smart (ed.),Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 4 (pp. 282–318). New York: Agathon Press.
Dey, Eric L, Astin, Alexander W., Korn, William S., and Riggs, Ellyne R. (1992).The American Freshmen. Los Angeles: American Council on Education and The University of California.
Schuster, Jack H. (1985). Faculty vitality: Observations from the field. In Roger W. Baldwin (ed.),Incentives for Faculty Vitality (pp. 21–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chan, S.S., Burton, J. Faculty vitality in the comprehensive university: Changing context and concerns. Res High Educ 36, 219–234 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02207789
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02207789