Faculty Norming at a Public Comprehensive University

I recently completed a rite of passage for new assistant professors: new faculty orientation. Although this is my first tenure-track gig, it is not my first new faculty orientation. I helped organize new faculty orientation at my previous institution, a research one university. As a result of this experience, and the three-day academic bootcamp at UNCW, I've come to understand new faculty orientation as a norm-setting process. Professors are taught what it means to excel in their new university and helped to adjust to a new culture. New faculty orientation, in other words, is a reflection of the norms by which professors are expected to abide. As such, the format and content of new faculty orientation reveals a great deal about campus environments. Spending several days learning about my public comprehensive university was a startling reminder that attending a research one university did not prepare me for faculty life at every type of school.

At my previous institution, new faculty orientation was not mandatory and lasted one day. Only about one-third of new faculty showed up. A few remarks were given over breakfast by an academic administrator (though it is worth noting that neither the president nor chief academic officer were present). The presentation that probably received the most attention focused upon the promotion and tenure process, encouraging new faculty to start on the right foot by establishing their individual research programs. There were then two breakout sessions: one dedicated to securing grants and another centering upon tips for effective teaching. After lunch, new faculty were split into groups by college for more intimate conversations with facilitators. The event ended with a resource fair, wrapping up in the early afternoon. The fact that new faculty orientation was not mandatory sent a message about the strength of the academic community and the institutional commitment to developing junior professors. Overall, the core message of the orientation was to concentrate one's energies on their individual research in order to get tenure. These are faculty norms at the university, and collectively they form part of the culture in which I was socialized as a doctoral student.

By contrast, UNCW offered a multi-day introduction to the campus, students, and city. On the first day, we met two-dozen administrators across the campus, including the chancellor and provost. We learned about the make-up of the student population and the values of the university. For the last half of the day, we split into groups to consider various aspects of liberal arts learning objectives. This was the first of several sessions dedicated to teaching. That evening, we were invited to the chancellor's house for a swanky reception. The second day consisted of campus tour, including a detailed history of higher education in the state. We visited several facilities to showcase the university's contributions to the region and faculty engagement with the public. On the final day of orientation, we took part in a teaching institute largely related to applied learning, which is a significant initiative at the university as a result of its recent accreditation. The tone of new faculty orientation was clearly different from what I experienced at the research one institution. We heard over and again that faculty at UNCW cared first and foremost about the quality of their teaching. They were involved in the region. And you know what stood out most to me? Research was hardly mentioned. Tenure never entered the conversation.

Despite ending completely exhausted, I was impressed with the scope of orientation at UNCW. I was inspired and intimidated by the talented senior faculty members I met over the course of the event. They were running clinics in the community, leading study abroad programs, addressing food desserts in nearby housing projects. And they were clearly passionate about teaching. It was apparent to me that the university's teaching-orientation was not just rhetoric. It was the substance of faculty life. And I wasn't at all prepared for it. Sure, I had known in taking the job that the university was teaching-oriented. But this was the first time that this concept really sunk in. I saw it firsthand. In order to be successful, I need to put serious thought into the design of my courses and my practices as an educator. I have no doubt that research is still important. Tenure may not have been a discussion topic during orientation, but it is still part of the deal. Overall, however, my exposure to norms at UNCW confirmed that my doctoral training at a research one university did not prepare me for the realities of a public comprehensive institution. I spent the majority of summer thinking about nothing except my research program and journal submissions. I felt early pressures to begin building my tenure case. I fiddled around with courses, but generally figured I would follow the familiar formula of courses I took in my graduate program. I'm beginning to think this was the wrong strategy, one too heavily influenced by research one norms.

To anyone looking to go on the job market this fall, I urge you to give thought to faculty norms and how you will fit in a campus culture that may differ significantly from where you trained. If you decide to take a job at a public comprehensive university, consider that teaching-orientation isn't just rhetoric. Don't give into the temptation of assuming that, regardless of the school, research is the crux of faculty life. In many ways, teaching is what makes public comprehensive universities vital to higher education. At a time when colleges and universities are subjected to constant critique and scrutiny, there are places whose culture places a premium on teaching and engagement. I'm thrilled to be at such an institution, even if its norms caught me off guard.