Rewarding Extension Faculty

Currently, it's perceived that the effectiveness and contribution of faculty and staff members in Extension don't receive appropriate attention within universities when compared to those of research and teaching. This lack of recognition or inequality most often surfaces during salary adjustment, promotion, and tenure decisions. At the request of the provost (chief academic officer) and the University Governance System of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI & SU), a nationwide study was conducted to provide insight into the legitimacy of this belief.

In the evaluative process, three primary sources of information were used. The first source consisted of comments and testimony received at 32 hearings conducted in Virginia. Those providing testimony included the university president, provost, vice-provost for Extension and Continuing Education, college deans, Faculty Senate, faculty associations, and other faculty members. The second source was an extensive literature search that also served as a basis for questions used in the survey instrument.

The third and primary source of information was a survey conducted by the university Office of Institutional Research and Planning Analysis on the perceptions of chief academic officers at other universities. The intent of the survey was to determine: (1) how other colleges and universities weigh faculty performance in Extension and other service activities in promotion, tenure, and salary decisions and (2) how they measure the effectiveness of such activities.

In July 1988, the questionnaire was sent to the chief academic officers at 84 major state universities and colleges. A follow-up letter and second copy of the survey instrument were sent shortly after the initial mailing. By the first of September, 61 usable responses had been received, for a 72% return rate.

The survey questionnaire contained two major parts. In the first part, respondents who had Extension faculty with appointments in academic departments were asked to evaluate the importance of various Extension activities. In the second part of the survey, all respondents were asked to weigh the importance of 10 different service activities in decisions on promotion, tenure, and merit salary for all faculty members. In addition, the respondents were asked to describe evaluation criteria used to determine the effectiveness of activities for both parts of the survey. Furthermore, each respondent was asked to send faculty handbooks and guidelines for promotion, tenure, and salary adjustments when returning the questionnaire.

Among all Extension activities, those demonstrating the traditional use of academic and scholarly skills were weighed highest in promotion, tenure, and salary decisions. Providing information to the general public was rated lowest. Measures for determining the effectiveness and quality of service activities included evaluation by peers, participants, and clients as well as demand measures, such as enrollment and requests for services.

Most of the written guidelines returned by respondents completing the section on Extension faculty contained excerpts from their faculty handbooks that described the promotion and review standards and procedures for all faculty. These excerpts indicate a belief that Extension faculty should be treated similarly to other faculty in promotion and tenure decisions. The universities surveyed almost always expect Extension faculty to meet the same standards expected of faculty who don't have Extension responsibilities.

The majority of respondents expressed concern about Extension faculty being considered "second-class citizens" or not receiving equal consideration in evaluation decisions. Of those completing the section on Extension faculty, 78% agreed with the statement "on this campus, some Extension faculty allege they have less opportunity for promotion, tenure, or salary raises than do instructional/research faculty." Half of the respondents indicated, however, that this was a perceptual problem and not justified by the actual situation.

Respondents believed that the perception of inequity could be changed by taking two steps. First, identify Extension and service activities that are assigned duties. Second, link appropriate measures of performance to these activities. Respondents expressed a need to define more clearly the activities and expectations of faculty (especially in Extension) and to provide more details in writing. Such a change of action would need to originate at the departmental level.

Table 1 shows the importance of various activities in making decisions about faculty promotion, tenure and salary. According to these results, the three most important criteria are: (1) publishing, (2) applied research, and (3) public information work. Each had a mean of 2.79 (items 4, 7, and 8). These results indicate that all faculty are expected to publish, conduct applied research, and provide information to clients and the public. Table 2 shows the rank order of items by mean scores.

Faculty and staff members of a land-grant institution have three areas of responsibility: teaching, research and service (Extension). However, faculty perceive that Extension isn't highly valued by either colleagues or administrators. Testimony from chief academic officers who responded to the national survey and from VPI & SU administrators shows this is a false perception. However, at another level of survey and testimony, these same academic officers indicate difficulties exist in evaluating Extension work, and they placed it after research and teaching in importance.

During the last two decades, many universities have moved toward becoming major research institutions; as such, the expectation has become greater and greater that those involved in Extension should contribute directly to the generation of knowledge by doing research. However, Tables 1 and 2 show there's an expectation that those involved in research should be engaged in Extension (item 3 in Table 2).

The study documents numerous measures that can be used to determine the effectiveness of Extension activities. The key factor is to explain throughout a university community that different faculty may legitimately engage in different activities, but that excellence and professionalism in whatever the activity serve as the basis for recognition and reward.