Search results

The purpose of this study was to determine not-yet-tenured university library faculty members’ views of 27 methods their department chair may use to support and enhance the faculty member's professional development. The methods were derived from earlier qualitative research on department chairs in higher education. While academic teaching department chair roles have been the subject of the research literature for many years, little research has addressed library faculty perceptions of the department chair's role. The survey instrument used consisted of two parts: (1) a demographics section, consisting of five questions; and (2) a researcher-developed survey of faculty perceptions of the department chairs’ role in faculty development. Survey participants were asked to rate the importance of methods chairs may use in enhancing the professional activities of faculty. According to the not-yet-tenured library faculty members responding to this study, a chair engaging in the most important practices to enhance their faculty's professional development would be one who utilizes good communication, while acting as an administrative advocate.

Department chairs represent one of the most intriguing, complex, and important leadership roles in higher education. Despite the important role chairs play, there is limited research about ongoing dynamics and how they manage the complexities that come along with the position. The tension between the academic and administrative cores creates inherent stress in the position. What stresses department chairs? Has it changed over time? The theoretical construct used to investigate these questions is based on the four-stage chair stress cycle (identification, perception, response, and consequences), and in particular the first two stages of identification and perception. The data for this study are derived from two data sets collected in 1991 and 2016 surveying 800 and 982 department chairs respectively. Each survey assessed personal profiles, professional and organizational variables, and two validated stress and role instruments. Findings collected 25 years apart suggested some shifts in chair gender, motivation to serve, professional identity, preparation, tenure status, and ethnicity. When comparing top stressors from 1991 to 2016, more stress emanated from chairs trying to balance scholarship and leadership as well as work-life balance. Top department chair stressors underscored the difficulty to find some balance between professional and personal roles. Many of these imbalances appeared to be more structural and inherent in the position while others fall within the chairs' control to be personally managed. Female chairs experienced higher stress than men from having insufficient time to stay current in their academic fields and balancing administrative and scholarly demands. The researchers expected to find significant differences according to marital status, ethnicity, and age, but no significant trends emerged. Ultimately, higher education institutions will continue to have a leadership crisis if the conditions for chairing departments remain unmanageable.

The purpose of this study is to explore unionization’s impact on university department chairs for academic human resource decision-making in terms of faculty hiring; re-employment, promotion and tenure; other faculty evaluation decisions; and discipline and discharge.

The subjects were department chairs with more than one year of experience in institutions with faculty bargaining units in the USA. Half of the department chairs were members of the bargaining unit and half were not members of the bargaining unit. T-test and Chi square statistics were used to examine and compare 136 chair responses.

While there were significant differences between the groups when making all academic human resource decisions based on role affiliation, there was a weak identification as a bargaining unit member. There was no difference between groups when determining how the participants perceived the process rules, and the majority of the responses indicated membership in the union does not complicate making academic human resource decisions.

Based on these findings, this study provides the first empirical evidence against a long-held administrative belief department chairs should not be unionized as they will side with union colleagues in difficult academic human resource cases. The findings of this study also produce three key recommendations for practice and faculty development.

Leadership and management are concepts regularly used in organizational change and reform literature. This is particularly evident in educational settings and oftentimes understood as interchangeable. The school administrator is considered a leadership position, as is department chair in an institution of higher education. Yet, most are engaged daily in management tasks with little to no time spent on leadership (Bush, 2008). In higher education, the complex role of department chair necessitates a multi-task oriented individual (Hecht, Higgerson, Gmelch, & Tucker, 1999) who can both serve and coordinate multiple constituencies and ultimately balance the role of chair with the continuing roles of teacher and scholar. Although they are pulled in many directions there may be no more important leadership position in the institution for those interested in affecting the future of young people as well as their colleagues. In this chapter we discuss the commonalities and differences between leadership and management across the PreK-16 continuum; present the general roles and responsibilities of school-based administrators and university-level department chairs, and; compare leadership readiness and transition processes of school-based and university-level department chairs. Implications for theory and practice are presented.

Seeks to answer the following research questions: What job dimensions are perceived as stressful by department chairs? To what degree do chairs exhibit stress from their dual faculty and administrator roles? What influence does academic discipline have on chair stress? and What influence do personal attributes have on chair stress? Over 800 department chairs, stratified by discipline, were selected from research and doctorate granting institutions and completed the Department Chair Stress Index along with demographic questions. A response rate of 70.2 per cent was achieved. The results of the study indicate that, overall, stress among department chairs appears to be monolithic in its effect. Also chairs expressed high stress both in faculty and in administrative areas of concern.

The advancement of equity, diversity and inclusion in higher education is dependent on institutional culture changes in academia. Faculty equity, diversity and inclusion efforts must engage departmental leadership. The purpose of this paper is to describe the growth and expansion of the ADVANCE leadership program at the University of Washington (UW) for department chairs that was designed to provide department chairs the skills, community and information needed to be agents of change within the academy.

The paper chronicles the program’s growth from a campus-based workshop program to national workshops (LEAD) to a web-based toolkit (LiY!) to support institutions in running their own UW ADVANCE-inspired leadership workshops.

The paper demonstrates the success of each growth stage and the expansion of program impact.

The paper offers recommendations for growing a model from a local to national scale and adapting the described leadership development model at other institutions.

The paper shares a successful model for equipping department chairs to be advocates of gender equity, diversity and inclusion in STEM and to be change agents in higher education.

The purpose of this study is twofold. The first purpose is to inform faculty who are thinking of becoming a department head about the challenges they face if they choose to pursue a department head opportunity. The second purpose is to provide insight into the leadership of the accounting departments by looking at various workload aspects of department heads. The authors surveyed accounting department heads from programs with the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accounting accreditation, AACSB business only accreditation, and non-AACSB accreditation. Surveys were sent to 918 individuals listed as the leader of an accounting program in the 2016–2017 Hasselback Accounting Directory with 144 individuals responding (15.7% response rate). In addition to the workload of the department head in the areas of teaching, research, and service, the study analyzed the major challenges and difficulties the department head faces. The study also sought responses from survey participants on additional issues such as the benefits of AACSB accreditation and compensation.

We examine chairs’ beliefs about the role of gender and gender inequality in their departments. Because work-family concerns have been central to explanations of gender inequality in the academy, we pay special attention to these issues.

We analyze interview data collected from 52 department chairs at one research-intensive, public university.

Although the chairs we interviewed were sympathetic and aware in many respects, their views on gender, work, and family were filtered through the lens of personal responsibility and choice, an outmoded view of work as separate and distinct from family life, and a notion of gender as a personal characteristic rather than an entrenched feature of academic work and careers.

Our focus on departmental leaders fills an important gap in the literature, which has focused more on the perspectives of faculty and less on those with the power to frame gender issues.

The study explores factors affecting workplace–mentoring relationships of young female faculty members and their department chairs.

The author used a qualitative interview research design to answer the research questions of the study. Semi-structured interviews of ten female faculty members from Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan were analyzed with the help of thematic coding and its interpretation.

The study suggests implementing women-only formal mentorship programs with Kochan's (2013) cultural framework for an organizational culture change. The reason is that study provides some insights into the traditional values that underpin age and gender biases in the professional community of Kazakhstani academia. However, but the results differ for participants who are informally mentored by department chairs with modern values. The author acknowledges that the small sample limits the findings and it's interpretation. Hence more research in the interdisciplinary field of gender, education and workforce in the context is required.

The study presents new evidence to support existing Western research on factors influencing workplace relationships and mentorship for young female faculty members. This empirical research adds on findings to the existing data from the Central Asian context, particularly to the sector of women studies and organizational culture in higher education institutions.