Faculty Workload Guideline

• That workload hours should focus on percentage of time allocated to “dimensions” of responsibilities (e.g. research, teaching, service, clinical care) with respect to 100% FTE in an equitable and proportional way across 9-month and 12-month faculty.
• Each unit should reevaluate the credit-hour requirement (and equivalencies) needed in an equitable and proportional way across 9-month and 12-month faculty.
• If TIUs have tenure track faculty on regional campuses (Lima, Mansfield, Marion, Newark), then their workload expectations and APT documents should align to allow faculty to achieve the specific criteria required for promotion, given the higher proportion of time allocated to teaching duties for regional campus faculty compared to tenure track faculty on the Columbus campus.
• Our university workload guidelines should eliminate the requirement that units align their overall teaching loads as a function of the level of degrees they offer (ie., 70%, 60%, and 50% of workload for baccalaureate, master's, and doctoral/professional programs, respectively)
• To ensure that workload guidelines are developed through a model of shared governance, the process of approval should include consultation of all faculty in the academic unit, according to Faculty Rule 3335-3-35, providing enough time for faculty discussion.

To determine the relative emphasis that a given college, department/school, or regional campus should place upon undergraduate programs, research, graduate/professional programs and extension, units should consider the research productivity of the faculty, including externally funded research, the need to provide patient care in clinical settings, administrative responsibilities and average number of graduate and/or professional degrees granted annually. 

The mission of the academic unit (e.g., department/school, colleges without departments, regional campuses) will determine the relative balance of effort in teaching, research and creative activity, and service. OAA recognizes that there is a range of variability in the missions of many TIUs across the university and, as a result, there will be differences among TIUs in the relative amounts of effort faculty spend in their duties. Within and across TIUs, different faculty types (tenured/tenure track; clinical/teaching/practice, research, associated) contribute differently to the multidimensional mission of the university, and as such, their workload will be comprised of different time allocations to different duties. The time allocations within each area of responsibility will begin with the proportional teaching/educational load, followed by the contributions expected in any other area of responsibility. These workload guidelines are to be used to align the workload responsibilities and time allocations for each individual faculty as part of the faculty annual review process.

As academic units form their workload policies, there are several core characteristics and associated principles that these policies should reflect, including:

• Equitable. Workload assignments should be fair and balanced across faculty members within the same faculty type and rank.
• Appropriate. Workload assignments should reflect faculty member competencies and role expectations consistent with the TIU’s tenure, promotion, reappointment and annual review guidelines. Workload assignments should also consider a faculty member’s career stage (e.g., pre- or post-tenure; probationary or non-probationary).
• Transparent. Workload guidelines and procedures should be developed through unit faculty governance processes (voted and approved by faculty during the governance document review process) and posted publicly in the unit’s POA. Assignment of teaching and service workload according to baselines defined in the POA workload guideline, should be made available to unit members in a transparent manner. Individual workload should be discussed annually during the annual review process.
• Clear. Workload guidelines should clearly establish, articulate and communicate unit workload expectations, metrics, “what counts” and how faculty workload is determined. TIUs may opt to have their workload guidelines span specified timeframes (e.g., one year) or to average faculty workload over a given period (e.g., 2–3 years).
• Flexible. Workload guidelines should be flexible and responsive to the changing needs of faculty members, academic units and the university. Accordingly, these guidelines should allow for faculty member contributions to evolve over their careers just as the needs of the unit and university evolve over time. Further, workload guidelines should recognize differing levels of effort as appropriate in instructional effort (e.g., class size, course level, studio courses), service effort (e.g., level of effort, committee leadership, level of committees), community engagement and outreach, research, scholarship, creative activities (e.g., sponsored research, research project/grant management, community engaged research, extension scholarship, etc.) and clinical practice.
• Accountable. Workload guidelines should ensure that faculty members engage in their workload assignments appropriately and within acceptable performance parameters. At the same time, to make the mission of the university work, all workload expectations should be accounted for in the different work assignments (without exceeding the percentage FTE of the faculty). Criteria for achievement in each work dimension (teaching, research/creative activities, extension, clinical care and service/engagement) must be identified in TIU POAs according to OAA template guidelines. POA guidelines should identify how assigned workload can be met and the appropriate actions for faculty members who do not meet expectations (as determined by unit annual review processes).
• Expansive. Workload guidelines should recognize faculty members who also are assigned and perform essential administrative and/or extension roles in addition to the standard roles and expectations for faculty members, if applicable. These multiple roles should be incorporated into the allocation of duties as part of, not in addition to, their FTE workload.

• Overall workload expectations for each faculty type according to their roles and responsibilities, and to ensure a balance of faculty time and effort spent in teaching, research and creative activity, and service.
  • The academic unit leader (chair, director, dean of college without department, regional campus dean) is responsible for achieving this balance of time and effort for the academic unit (e.g., department/school, colleges without departments, regional campuses) through the assignment of duties to individual faculty.
  • If TIUs have tenure track faculty on regional campuses (Lima, Mansfield, Marion, Newark), then their workload expectations and APT documents should align to allow faculty to achieve the specific criteria required for promotion, given the higher proportion of time allocated to teaching duties for regional campus faculty compared to tenure track faculty on the Columbus Campus. 
• Types and amounts of instruction needed to accomplish the teaching mission of the unit. 
  • Normally, this will include an analysis of the likely numbers and types of courses/sections necessary to satisfy the demand for undergraduate general education, undergraduate major and minor programs, and graduate and/or professional programs. 
  • No faculty should be at 0% contribution to teaching unless they are in a 100% administrative role, on faculty professional leave (FPL), or under temporary special assignment/research buyout. Even research faculty have instructional responsibility (e.g. through mentoring). 
  • Traditionally, the OSU standard for a faculty with a 100% teaching load (e.g. Lecturers/Sr. Lecturers) has been 24 credit hours (eight 3-credit courses, or equivalent) for 9-month contracts and 30 credits (or equivalent) for 12-month contracts. This standard is to be re-evaluated by each academic unit, and equivalencies for credit hours need to be developed at the unit level in an equitable and proportional way across 9-month and 12-month faculty. These recommendations understand that credit hours are based on contact hours and not inclusive of the time required for course design and preparation.
  • Faculty who buyout their time to meet the research mission of the university will need to have their responsibilities in the other dimensions (teaching and/or service) be proportionally decreased. 
• Expectations of time allocation to research/creative activity by faculty types. 
• Expectations of time allocation to service and/or extension by faculty types. 
• Expectations of clinical practice not related to teaching or service, where appropriate.

1. Teaching and Mentoring/Extension Teaching
   Assigned faculty course load expectations, and activities that comprise instruction, can vary by unit, discipline and other factors. Equivalencies considered need to be established at the TIU level.
2. Research, Scholarship, Creative Activities, and Scholarship of Extension Scholarship
   Research, scholarship and creative activities can vary by unit, discipline and other factors. Equivalencies considered need to be established at the TIU level.
3. Service
   Public and professional service, as well as service to the university (e.g., the faculty member’s academic TIU, college, or university level) is expected of most faculty members. The level of effort required for any given service activity may vary and needs to be identified within the workload allocation. Equivalencies considered need to be established at the TIU level.

Academic units are required to develop and implement a faculty workload guideline (Faculty Rule 3335-5-07), which are to be integrated in their POA documents. It is anticipated that unit level policies will differ given the wide range of fields and field norms represented across the university. Nonetheless, unit level policies should address minimally the following elements:

• Course load expectations. Teaching loads assigned to faculty members may be adjusted due to such factors as course “buyouts” (which should be aligned with percent effort defined for role) that are supported from internal and external funds, service assignments with particularly heavy workloads, course enrollment and level of effort, course modality, required vs. elective course, partial credit for team-taught courses and decreased research productivity (as determined through TIU and university review processes).
• Research expectations. Recognizing that specific indicators of research productivity may vary by discipline and subdiscipline, even within the same academic units, TIUs should articulate within their POA the time allocation for overall research activities. Research time allocation for faculty can be adjusted based on indicators of an active research agenda (e.g., grants, fellowships, supervision of undergraduate and graduate students and/or postdoctoral associates, publications).
• Service expectations. Service workload assigned to a faculty member may be adjusted due to such factors as substantial research load (e.g., the receipt of numerous grants, the receipt of a prestigious fellowship), engagement in professional activities (e.g., professional society leadership, journal/book series editorship), decreased research productivity (as determined through TIU and University review processes) and other activities. TIU policies should articulate generally expected service requirements for faculty (e.g., participation on unit, college, and/or university committees, and service to the profession and/or discipline), while also recognizing that service, beyond the expected contributions, is not a replacement for workload expectations of teaching and/or research. 
• Faculty with clinical appointments in health science colleges. Faculty with such clinical appointments may require clarification of the equivalencies in their instructional activities that contribute to their teaching workload. Examples include conducting formal educational activities for medical and health professions students during required and elective clerkships; participating in formal teaching activities for residents/fellows serving within the specific division and the department; and participating in evaluations of medical and health professions students, residents and fellows.
• Faculty with extension appointments. Faculty with extension appointments may require different determinations of teaching, research and creative activities, and service due to their extension roles and assignments. Faculty with extension appointments should have a set of articulated (curricular) goals, a clear scope and sequence of instructional activities relating to the program (curricular) goals, appropriate target audience(s) given the position description and funding, and partners both within and external to the university. While extension teaching does fall under the broad category of teaching, extension effort should be called out separately from for-credit teaching to provide clarity for the faculty member and those evaluating them.
• Joint appointment. Faculty workload assignments for faculty with joint appointments (e.g., in other academic TIU or centers and institutes) should be proportional to the assigned FTE in the respective units.
• Unit administration. Assumption of administrative responsibilities within the unit (e.g., chair/director, vice/associate chair/director, program director, director of special departmental projects) requires reduction of expectations for teaching, research and creative activities, and/or service. The reduction may be dependent on the size of the unit, the scope of the administrative responsibilities and other relevant factors.
• Clinical work. Contributions to patient care in a clinical setting, without the engagement of learners, requires reduction of expectations for teaching, research and creative activities, and/or service. The reduction may be dependent on the scope and frequency of clinical patient care responsibilities and other relevant factors.
• Other administration. There may be instances in which faculty members will be asked to assume significant administrative roles, for example when a faculty member is assigned to lead a research center or strategic initiative. Assignment of additional time in the areas of administration and the consequent reduction of expectations for teaching and/or research and creative activity and/or service should be directly related to the duration and the extensiveness of the administrative commitment.
• New and early-career faculty. Assignments for new and/or early-career faculty members should take into consideration their need to develop or teach new courses, to begin or establish a research program, to establish extension programs or other factors to become established in their roles.
• Time interval. Unit policies should determine the interval considered for faculty workload expectations. For example, some units may assess faculty workload on an annual basis, while others may choose to assess faculty workload over a multi-year period (e.g., 2–3 years). Individual workload should be discussed annually during the annual review process.
• Workload adjustments. Unit policies should address how faculty workload is rebalanced when a faculty member voluntarily expresses a desire to adjust their workload (e.g., a desire to engage in additional teaching in lieu of some research activity, a desire to decrease one’s FTE proportion). Similarly, unit policies should address how faculty workload is rebalanced based on review processes (e.g., annual, fourth-year), which determine that a faculty member has not met unit performance expectations in one or more areas (e.g., research productivity, teaching, service). Workload adjustments must be equitable and meet the needs of the unit.
• Complaint mechanism. The TIU chair/director has the role of assigning courses. Unit policies should include a process for faculty members to file complaints regarding their assigned workload, if they exceed the designated number of courses (or equivalent teaching assignments).
  • Faculty members in departmentalized colleges should first seek to resolve the matter with their TIU head/director. If the matter cannot be resolved, the complaint should be reviewed by the dean.
  • Faculty members in colleges that are the TIU/regional campuses should first seek to resolve the matter with their dean or dean/director. If the matter cannot be resolved, the complaint should be reviewed by OAA.