University of Colorado Faculty Service: A Value Gap?

Material Information

University of Colorado Faculty Service: A Value Gap?
Snead, Robert C
Physical Description:
1 online resource (126 pages) : ;


Subjects / Keywords:
Ethnic Groups
Noninstructional Responsibility
Public Colleges
College Faculty
Dissertations/Theses - Doctoral Dissertations.
non-fiction ( marcgt )
Dissertations/Theses - Doctoral Dissertations
Target Audience:
Postsecondary Education.
Higher Education.


This dissertation investigates a possible service-value gap between faculty valuing of service categories and their perceptions of departmental valuing of these service categories at the University of Colorado. The service gap was shown to be statistically significant for most service categories on most campuses using a t-test for each campus/category combination. The theoretical framework for the study combines elements from the history of faculty service in the U.S., cognitive dissonance, organizational adaptation, faculty retention, and Boyer's (1990) model of scholarship. These areas provided the lenses through which the findings were viewed. The major independent variable used to examine the data was "time in unit". The hypothesis was that as faculty spent more time in their academic unit, they reframed their own values, thereby reducing the cognitive dissonance produced by gaps that may have existed as they began their time in their units. The dependent variable was a "dissatisfaction ratio" constructed from the value number that the faculty member placed on a service category divided by the value number that the faculty member perceived was held by her or his department. Qualitative data from the survey supports the quantitative findings that faculty are generally dissatisfied with the gaps that exist between their service values and the values of their departments. The majority of those who answered the question "If you could make any change in how service is evaluated in your unit or your university, what would you change?" Indicated that significant changes are needed in order to create a fair system of service evaluation. Multiple regressions were conducted to determine if a correlation between "time in unit" and the faculty "dissatisfaction ratio" could be found. While a statistically significant correlation was found for some campuses for some categories, the effect size was small according to Cohen (1988), and therefore just the campus with the highest correlation was reported to show the methodology used. However, comparing ethnic/racial groups results indicated that some relationship may exist between time in unit and service-value dissatisfaction for some ethnicities. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest llc. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page:].
General Note:
ProQuest LLC
General Note:
School of Education and Human Development

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
911605567 ( OCLC )
9781124232676 ( ISBN )

Full Text
Robert C. Snead
B.S. Air Force Academy, 1970
M.S. Air Force Institute of Technology, 1978
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado Denver
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Educational Leadership and Innovation

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
Degree by
Robert C. Snead
Has been approved
Rodney Muth
Joni Dunlap
Christine Johnson

Snead, Robert, C. (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation)
University of Colorado Faculty Service: A Value Gap?
Thesis directed by Professor Rodney Muth
This dissertation investigates a possible service-value gap between faculty
valuing of service categories and their perceptions of departmental valuing of these
service categories at the University of Colorado. The service gap was shown to be
statistically significant for most service categories on most campuses using a t-test for
each campus/category combination.
The theoretical framework for the study combines elements from the history
of faculty service in the U.S., cognitive dissonance, organizational adaptation, faculty
retention, and Boyer's (1990) model of scholarship. These areas provided the lenses
through which the findings were viewed. The major independent variable used to
examine the data was time in unit. The hypothesis was that as faculty spent more time
in their academic unit, they reframed their own values, thereby reducing the cognitive
dissonance produced by gaps that may have existed as they began their time in their
units. The dependent variable was a dissatisfaction ratio constructed from the value
number that the faculty member placed on a service category divided by the value
number that the faculty member perceived was held by her or his department.
Qualitative data from the survey supports the quantitative findings that faculty
are generally dissatisfied with the gaps that exist between their service values and the
values of their departments. The majority of those who answered the question "If you
could make any change in how service is evaluated in your unit or your university, what
would you change?" indicated that significant changes are needed in order to create a
fair system of service evaluation.

Multiple regressions were conducted to determine if a correlation between time
in unit and the faculty dissatisfaction ratio could be found. While a statistically
significant correlation was found for some campuses for some categories, the effect size
was small according to Cohen (1988), and therefore just the campus with the highest
correlation was reported to show the methodology used. However, comparing
ethnic/racial groups results indicated that some relationship may exist between time in
unit and service-value dissatisfaction for some ethnicities.
esents the content of this candidate's thesis. I recommend
Rodney Muth

This work is dedicated to the "under thirty generation" whom I hope most to serve by
obtaining my doctorate degreeto Elizabeth, Sarah, Breanna, Deena, Brittany, Andrew,
and Bella and their generations. May they come to know more and more that the Holy
Spirit is the best source of guidance for their daily lives.

I want to thank my dissertation advisor and committee chairperson, Rodney
Muth, for guidance, wisdom, and support through the long process of creating this
document. His passion for faculty service and for fairness and consistency for faculty
who serve have been an inspiration to me. Thanks also go to my committee members
Gregory Diggs, Joni Dunlap, and Christine Johnson for supporting, editing, and guiding
this work.
Thank you to (my children) Philip, Elizabeth, and Sarah for their love and
encouragement during the six years of my time at UCD. Special thanks go to Lisa Leith,
my sister, who went before me in the EDLI program and gave me lots of good advice.
I am grateful to the faculty in the school of Education and Human Development
and to the students who attended classes with me during my four years of taking EDLI
courses. Our discussions and interactions made the time worthwhile. I especially want to
thank Brent Wilson, who led the IDEAL lab and guided me as my academic advisor
during that time.
I thank God for the amazing grace and mercy that covers me and guides my life.
Finally, I want to thank my wife Sherry who sacrificed being with her best friend
for thousands of hours and still loved and encouraged me during my six year journey
and who has now promised to share the TV remote with me.

1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................1
Problem Statement............................................1
Historical Review of Faculty Service.........................2
The University and the Ivory Tower...........................3
CU Interest in Faculty Service...............................4
Conceptual Framework for this Study..........................6
Research Questions...........................................7
Methodology Plan.............................................8
Quantitative Methods..................................8
Qualitative methods...................................9
Significance Of This Study...................................9
What This Study Will Show............................10
What This Study Cannot Address.......................10
2. LITERATURE REVIEW...............................................11
Conceptual Framework........................................11
Organizational Adaptation...................................11
Cognitive Dissonance........................................14
A Change in Roles....................................17
Cognitive Dissonance Comes of Age....................17
Cognitive Dissonance Influence on Group Values.......20
Relevance of the Problem to Faculty Service..........20
Boyer's Model as a Framework for Progress...................22
Lessons from U.S. Faculty-Service History...................24
Early Trends................................................25
Civil War to World War II (1860-1945).......................25

Evolution of the University Service Model.....................26
The Influence of World War II.................................27
Mass Education Era............................................28
A Crisis of Purpose...........................................29
External Audiences and Service Demands........................31
Failure of Academic Scouts....................................32
Service Hardly Registers......................................32
Rewarded For Faculty Service?.................................33
Frustration Among Faculty.....................................34
The Universal Need For Faculty Service Reform.................35
Faculty Powerless to Change...................................37
UC Denver as a Service Case...................................37
3. METHODOLOGY.......................................................39
Portion of the Survey to be Researched........................41
Hypotheses and Other Research Questions.......................45
A Formula to Examine Hypothesis Two...........................47
Why Time in Unit?.............................................48
The Dissatisfaction Ratio.....................................48
4. FINDINGS..........................................................50
Quantitative Findings............................................50
Value Gaps t-test.............................................50
Multiple Regression to Predict Faculty Personal Values........53
Correlations Between Service Values and Other Variables.......57
Correlations Between Service Value Ratios & Other Variables..59
Dissatisfaction Ratio by Ethnic Group and Years in Unit.......60
Dissatisfaction Ratio by Campus and by Gender.................61
Qualitative Findings.............................................62
Rebuilding the Public Trust......................................72
President's Position: Local Needs?............................73

The Responsive University.....................................74
Partnering With Federal Programs..............................74
From Ivory Tower to a Community Bridge........................75
Limitations and Future Study.....................................77
A. Recommendations for Action from the 2008 CU Faculty Survey..........81
B. Definition of Boyers' Four Types of Scholarship.....................84
The scholarship of discovery (An activity of investigation):..84
The scholarship of integration (An activity of synthesis):....84
The scholarship of application (An activity of engagement)....84
The scholarship of teaching (An activity of transmission):....85
C. Eight questions which drove the creation of the 2008 Faculty Survey.86
D. 2008 Faculty Survey...............................................87
Service to the profession.....................................87
Academic or professional committee member.....................87
Service to department, constituency, university, and/or system..87
Faculty governance............................................88
Consultant or mentor role to students and faculty.............88
Public service................................................88
Honors and awards.............................................89
E. The 2008 Faculty Survey Questions.................................89
F. Definition of Service Learning...................................101
G. Benefits of Service-Learning....................................101

4.1 Personal value by years in unit of Public Service at UC Boulder....................60
4.2 Personal value by years in unit of Public Service at UCCS..........................61
4.3 Average Dissatisfaction ratios by ethnic group and years in unit..................66
4.4 Dissatisfaction ratios for all categories by campus................................67
4.5 Dissatisfaction ratios for all categories by gender................................68

1.1 Number and Percentage of Faculty Who Say That a Type of Service Is Discouraged......11
3.1 Demographics of the 2008 CU Faculty Survey by campus.................................46
3.2 Questions and variables chosen from the 2008 faculty survey..........................49
4.1 UC Boulder: paired samples statistics and t-test for questions 8 and 9...............55
4.2 UC Colorado Springs: paired samples statistics and t-test for questions 8 8t 9.......56
4.3 UCD Anschutz: paired samples statistics and t-test for questions 8 and...............57
4.4 UCD Auraria: paired samples statistics and t-test for questions 8 and 9 .............58
4.5 UCD 9th Avenue: paired samples statistics and t-test for questions 8 and 9 ..........59
4.6 Means and standard deviations for public service values and predictor values .......62
4.7 Correlations for public service values and predictor values..........................62
4.8 Coefficients for public service values and predictor values .........................63
4.9 Regression analysis summary for public service values and predictor values ..........63
4.10 Correlations of faculty demographics with personal and perceived values ..........64

Although faculty service at the University of Colorado (CU) is clearly of
great importance, faculty and administrators often find service and
service activities sources of confusion and tension because expectations
about and rewards for service frequently are unclear during evaluation
processes ... faculty in one setting might feel that they perform more
service than faculty in other settings for the same rewards; in other
cases, faculty might feel that their service goes unrecognized and
unrewarded. Further, some faculty may see that similar activities of
their colleagues in other settings are honored, while others might say
that they are penalized for engaging in the same types of service
because their evaluators do not recognize it as important or useful.
(Muth, Krebs, & Snead, 2009, p. 1)
Problem Statement
Faculty service, a longstanding tradition in higher education, significantly supports
operations, professional associations, and other factors essential to institutional and
disciplinary well-being (Ward, 2003). Faculty also often play a huge role in institutional
outreach (Boyer, 1990; O'Meara, 2002; Ward, 2003). In Colorado, a state steadily decreasing
its support for higher education (Bowman, 2009; Zumeta, 2004), such outreach may be
fundamental to marketing higher education to the state and its citizens, supplying often
needed support for indirect economic and social outcomes, and ensuring a continuing place
for higher education in the state's budget (Fingerhut, 2008; R. Muth, personal
communication, March 8,2010). However, the level and kind of outreach may not be
sufficient for what is needed. So, what happens if state higher-education institutions do not
value such outreach and thus faculty do not participate, instead serving only narrower
institutional or professional needs?
This study reports on a portion of the data that were gathered by a 2008 online
faculty survey (see Appendix D) taken by about 20% of the entire faculty from all five

campuses of the University of Colorado (CU). The University of Colorado System,
founded in 1912, is a system of public universities in Colorado. At the time of the study,
CU consisted of three universities at five campuses: University of Colorado at Boulder
(UCB), University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (UCCS), and University of Colorado
Denver(UCD) in downtown Denver, at 9th Avenue and Colorado, and at the Anschutz
Medical Campus in neighboring Aurora. It is governed by an elected, nine-member
Board of Regents of the University of Colorado and directed by the current president,
Bruce D. Benson.
Former CU President Betsy Hoffman once said that 40% teaching, 40% research
and 20% service model is an expectation of how faculty will divide their time (Goodland,
2002) and "if faculty don't do service, a lot of activities of the university wouldn't get
done" (p. 1). She added, "If you look at the best-run companies, the average employee of
that company will engage in service, whether as a team leader or planning outside
activities" (p. 1). With something as important as faculty service, should not the CU
administration guarantee that policies and practices surrounding it be clear and well
Historical Review of Faculty Service
The University of Colorado is but one of many universities that has wrestled
with the issue of faculty service (O'Meara, 2002; Brazeau 2003). So if one is going to
examine faculty service at any one university system such as CU, it is important to see it
in context with the state of faculty service in our American universities. Chapter 2
examines how the history of faculty service in our universities has evolved into what I
am calling an ivory tower perspective in the minds of many observers. This perspective
has caused what some might see as a dangerous gap between our communities and our
universities, a gap which may call into question the relevance of today's colleges and
universities, as waning support for higher education may indicate (Muth et al., 2009).
This dissertation then relates how many universities are beginning to close that gap and

gives further suggestions for how the service gap problem can be resolved, especially
through fair reward and tenure policies.
The University and the Ivory Tower
The term "ivory tower" originated in the Biblical Song of Solomon (7,4) in which
Solomon is extolling the beauty of his beloved and comparing her neck to ivory, a
symbol of strength and purity. Centuries later in 1837, Charles-Augustin Saint-Beuve, a
French literary critic and poet wrote a poem called Penses d'Aout which describes an
ivory tower environment where intellectuals engage in pursuits that are disconnected
from the practical concerns of everyday life (Quinian, 2009). This study will discuss how
the university has been compared to an ivory tower, a place where academic pursuits
are often disconnected from the communities that support them.
Academic institutions at the turn of the 21st century faced two primary
criticisms, each posing questions about faculty roles (Fairweather, 1996). The first is the
belief that faculty in American colleges and universities, protected by tenure systems,
have little understanding of the true marketplace or about the anxiety that a changing
economy creates for the nation. Second, communities envision faculty elite who live in
an ivory tower and follow self-determined research and teaching agendas. This has led
to criticism about the way in which faculty spend their time.
In this regard, many people outside the academy see higher education as out of
touch, arrogant, and archaic (Kellogg Commission, 1999). Much of this critical
perception of higher education arises because the academy has tended to be internally
focused and has failed to communicate well what it does for its community and society
as a whole (O'Meara, 2002). Many outsiders tend to view faculty as "highly paid
eccentrics, protected by tenure, who engage in esoteric and self-centered research,
assign teaching to assistants, and infuse the curriculum with their political agendas"
(Kolodny, 1998, as cited in Ward, 2003, p. 9).

Further, Boyer (1990) credited the "myopic focus on research and faculty work"
for creating "skewed and outmoded reward structures" (p. 11) at self-centered
campuses. The ambiguities between internal and external criteria and between
professed institutional missions and actual reward structures also make assessment of
faculty effectiveness problematic (Cameron, 1978).
CU Interest in Faculty Service
In their recommendations for best practices for tenure review, the University of
Colorado Advisory Committee on Tenure-Related Processes said in their report that in the
comprehensive review that measures progress toward tenure, faculty member's evaluation
should be based primarily on accomplishments and progress in teaching, research, and
service (April, 2006). However, on May 10, 2006, the same CU Advisory Committee expressed
the need for service reform. They said that "Faculty service efforts will have to be more
highly valued if the University is to successfully implement many of the 39 recommendations
contained in the Estes report on tenure reform" (Goodland, 2006, p.l). About a year later,
April 12, 2007, CU Vice President of Academic Affairs, Michael Poliakoff reported that a
review was in progress of how faculty service is defined and rewarded at CU (Swearingen,
During the same timeframe, an interest in faculty service issues was growing at
ail levels of the university (Muth et al., 2009). Because of this, then CU President Hank
Brown, asked then Vice President of Academic Affairs, Michael Poliakoff, to work with
the Faculty Council to address the problems associated with faculty service. He asked
that eight key questions about faculty service (as listed in Appendix C) be answered and
clarified (Muth et al. 2009). In this context, Brown and Poliakoff, recognizing the need to
study service at CU, requested that a faculty service survey be accomplished. The CU
faculty were indeed surveyed in the spring and summer of 2008, and in February of
2009, Muth et al. (2009) reported that the results of the faculty survey of 2008
suggested that three areas needed to be addressed:

(1) clarifying what services are valued and approved by each institution,
college or school, and department such that the faculty who provide
service and those who evaluate it are in accord; (2) ensuring that such
valued and approved faculty service is appreciated, supported, and
rewarded appropriately; and (3) developing, maintaining, and regularly
assessing processes that accomplish the first two points, (p. 15)
In short, the faculty survey at the University of Colorado showed that the
confusion and tension in the area of faculty service were indeed real and operative at
the time of the survey (Muth et al., 2009; Spahr, 2009, pp. 1-2). Table 1.1 from that
study shows that faculty say that they are actually discouraged from participating in
some service activities. For example, 208 faculty members (27% of all respondents) say
that public service is discouraged. Faculty at the UCD Denver campus (35%) were most
likely among the CU campuses to report this as their department's attitude toward
service to the community (Muth et al., 2009). For a more complete presentation of the
findings of this report, see Appendix A.
Table 1.1
Number and Percentage of Faculty Who Say That a Type of Service Is Discouraged
Area of Service UCB UCCS UCD Anschut z UCD Denver UCD 9th and Colorad 0 Syste m Total
32 10 19 27 2 1 91
Profession 11% 14% 10% 17% 4% 17% 12%
20 6 11 14 1 1 53
Committee 7% 9% 6% 9% 2% 17% 7%
18 3 11 8 2 1 43
Department Et 6% 4% 6% 5% 4% 17% 6%
55 14 31 29 3 1 133
Faculty Governance 19% 20% 16% 18% 5% 17% 17%
20 6 25 24 4 1 80
Conferences 7% 9% 13% 15% 7% 17% 10%
42 13 12 22 1 0 90
Consultant or 15% 19% 6% 14% 2% 0% 12%
74 14 50 55 13 2 208
Public Service 26% 20% 26% 35% 23% 33% 27%

13 5 8 12 0 0 38
Honors and Awards 5% 7% 4% 8% 0% 0% 5%
158 38 117 73 39 4 429
None of These 55% 55% 60% 46% 70% 67% 56%
Table 1.2 shows the number of surveyed faculty who agree or disagree on
establishing annual expectations for service. It is important to note that 79% of the faculty
agree or strongly agree with this projected policy. This is yet another perspective on faculty
attitudes that show the need for service reform at CU.
Table 1.2
Number and Percentage of Faculty Who Agree or Disagree on Establishing Annual
Expectations for Service____________________________________________________________
Agree or UCB UCCS UCD UCD UCD 9th and System Total
Not Anschutz Denver
Strongly 11 1 3 11 0 0 26
disagree 4% 1% 1% 6% 0% 0% 3%
Disagree 20 2 5 5 2 0 34
7% 3% 2% 3% 3% 0% 4%
Neutral 56 8 28 21 5 1 119
18% 11% 13% 12% 8% 14% 14%
Agree 115 33 97 67 32 5 349
38% 46% 45% 38% 52% 71% 42%
Strongly 102 28 81 74 22 1 308
34% 39% 38% 42% 36% 14% 37%
Grand 304 72 214 178 61 7 836
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Conceptual Framework for this Study
In this study, two important questions are addressed: Do significant differences
exist between how faculty value service and how they perceive their departments and
deans value service and do faculty change their values toward faculty service over time?
Of major concern is whether internal dissonance about service expectations blunts the

university's mission, creates internal dissension, and ultimately produces a bland
conformity which diminishes the university's mission (Muth et al., 2009). A second
concernfor which we do not have data but which is worth listing as a contributor to
changes in faculty valuesis whether some faculty leave CU because of this dissension
(B. Wilson, personal communication, November 24, 2009). Finally, organizational
adaptation, which generally has a positive effect, may in this case be an issue that
perpetuates this problem (Wenger, 1998).
To examine these issues, I will introduce in Chapter 2 the four elements of the
framework for this study. The first two, organizational adaptation and cognitive
dissonance, are related in that they both deal with differences in faculty service values
that might exist among the time in unit classes of faculty as postulated by the second
hypothesis in this study. The third element, Boyer's model of scholarship, is presented as
at least a partial solution to the problem of any faculty service gap or faculty
dissatisfaction with current service policies (Boyer, 1996; Sandmann, 2007). The fourth
element is the history of faculty service in the U.S. universities. Through understanding
the history of faculty service, we can understand many of the forces that drive the
balance among research, teaching, and service. And we gain a clearer lens for how
faculty service is positioned in our universities today (Sandmann, 2007; Ward, 2003).
Research Hypotheses
In this section, I articulate the primary and secondary research hypotheses that
guided this study. Each question is addressed fully in Chapters 3 and 4.
Primary Research Hypotheses
Two primary hypotheses guided the analysis of the survey data:
1. For at least some of the CU campuses, I expected to show that a gap exists
between faculty values of service categories and faculty perception of how their deans
and departments value those categories. I examined each category by campus to

determine whether such a gap exists for a particular service category at a particular
2. For the CU campuses overall, I expected to show that a correlation exists
between years in a unit and the value of service to the department, constituency,
university, or system. That is, the longer faculty members have been in a unit, the more
likely they would be to value this type of service. At the same time, I expected to show
that a negative correlation exists for all CU campuses between years in a unit and the
value placed on participating in conferences, mentoring, or public service. That is, the
longer faculty have been in a unit, the less likely they are to value participating in these
Secondary Research Hypotheses
I have also included what I might call "second tier" research hypotheses. They
are not the primary focus of the study, but I felt that exploring these areas was
worthwhile because of their relationship to the primary hypotheses. In this regard, I
examined whether correlations existed between the values placed on categories in
questions eight and nine (see survey, Appendix D) and other variables in the survey. I
also researched what part ethnicity plays in faculty service satisfaction.
Methodology Plan
In this section, I describe the quantitative and qualitative methods that I will use
to analyze the research questions that were presented in the previous section.
Quantitative Methods
Faculty and staff from the five campuses of the University of Colorado
participated in a system-wide online survey in the spring and summer of 2008 using the
online software Zoomerang to collect data from the faculty on all of the CU campuses
UC Boulder (UCB), UC Colorado Springs (UCCS), and all three UC Denver campuses
(Muth et al., 2009). Question 8 asked for the faculty member's personal value for a
service category, while Question 9 asked for the faculty member's perceived value that

their department placed on a service category. I analyzed paired samples of the two
population means that can be calculated from the results of questions eight and
question nine. This analysis examined categories of service in which the faculty
member's value and their perception of the department value seemed to be quite
different. For the paired sample inference, I used a t-test to determine if a difference
existed in these two populations.
To show evidence for hypothesis two above, I analyzed the data from question 8
and correlated it with the data from question 30, which asks what length of time the
faculty member has been in their current unit. I used multiple regression analysis to
show the strength of this correlation with each of the categories of service that seem to
change with time in unit, using demographic data as mediating variables.
Qualitative methods
In order to enhance the findings from hypothesis one above, I examined three open-
ended questions from the 2008 survey. These questions are (a) What is most highly valued
form of service in your unit? (b) Are you evaluated fairly for your service contributions in your
annual merit review? and (c) If you could change how service is evaluated in your unit or
university, what would you change?
I performed a thematic analysis (Creswell & Clark, 2007) on these three questions to
explore common themes, which would give another perspective on how faculty perceived
the policies toward service in their unit and university levels. My method was to read through
the open-ended faculty answer data a few times to identify reoccurring ideas and create
answer categories. Going through the data a final time, I tallied the number of responses in
each category so that I could report them in my findings.
Significance Of This Study
This section identifies what analysis is presented in Chapters 3 and 4. The three
analyses concern the faculty service gap, the correlation between time in unit and

faculty service values, and correlations between faculty service values and various
demographic variables. It also mentions what analyses cannot be covered in this study.
What This Study Shows
The quantitative analysis in this study shows that a faculty-service gap exists at CU at
a statistically significant level between faculty personal values of service categories and their
perceptions of how their departments and deans value these same service categories. The
analysis is broken down by campus, so that the gap sizes can be seen for each category for
each of the five CU campuses. The qualitative analysis further shows that a high level of
frustration exists due to the current faculty-service gap. It also shows the number of faculty
who desire service policy change as well as specific faculty recommendations for new service
This study determined that a highly significant correlation did not exist between time
that a faculty member has been in her or his unit and faculty service values. However, the
data do suggest that further study with a larger ethnicity sample may reveal some important
differences in faculty values by ethnicity when compared to their time in unit. This study
additionally shows some low level correlations between faculty values for certain service
categories and various demographic variables. While these correlations are statistically
significant, they explain only a small portion of the variance between variables.
What This Study Cannot Address
This study is limited to the CU campuses; it does not address other universities
or whether the same service-value gaps may be found there. Further, the study does not
break down the data by department. Therefore, although the literature shows that
departments vary widely in their service policies and values, I do not have data from the
2008 faculty survey to distinguish departmental results. And because of the limited
number of minority faculty at CU, not enough data on faculty minority service values
exist to provide statistically significant data by ethnicity. Nonetheless, because of the
suggestion of trends in the data, I have included an analysis of faculty service values by
ethnicity and by time in unit.

In this chapter, I explore the following elements. First, I lay out the conceptual
framework, including the elements of organizational adaptation, cognitive dissonance,
and Boyer's model. Second, I examine lessons from the history of faculty service in the
U.S. to set a historical context for this study. Third, I examine faculty frustration and the
need for service reform, both across the U.S. and specifically at the University of
Conceptual Framework
In this section, I examine the elements that provide a framework for the research
questions that I mentioned in Chapter 1 and that are analyzed in Chapters 3 and 4.1 begin
with a discussion of organizational adaptation, in which I examine how faculty are often in
conflict with their attempt to be good citizens and to blend into a community of practice
when their values do not necessarily coincide with others in their organization. Second, I
describe how cognitive dissonance studies can help us to understand how we deal with such
mental conflicts, including how self-affirmation and attrition play a part in this resolution.
Finally, I discuss Boyer's model as a framework for dealing with some of the issues that
surround faculty service in our universities today.
Organizational Adaptation
A faculty member becomes a professor at a university and wants to become a
good citizen of her or his departmental community as well as a citizen of the community
that surrounds the university (J. Dunlap, personal communication, March 17, 2010). But
faculty can experience frustration and discontentment in trying to understand their
responsibilities as a citizen with the current American university approaches to
evaluating teaching, research, and service activities (Brazeau, 2003). For example,

faculty at some universities reported being told by some administrators that research,
teaching, and service were all important, but then being informed by other faculty that
"service will probably be detrimental to your career" (Austin & Rice, 1998, p. 9). This
statement is repeated at most colleges and universities nationwide that focus on
research first and teaching secondservice seems to come last in most institutions
(Ward, 2003).
Because of the collegial nature of faculty and faculty service, I am including in
the framework of this study the concept of "community of practice," especially as
defined by Wenger (1998). Included in Wenger's definition of practice is both the
"practical and the theoretical, ideals and reality, talking and doing." This definition is
especially important when we combine it with the idea of reification, which is a central
theme in forming a community of practice. Reification gives form to our experience so
that a tool, a procedure, a form, or a story provide a focal point for a community so that
they can share and experience their practice together (pp. 58-59).
Rather than the community of practice being a "mutual engagement" or a "joint
enterprise" (pp. 73-77) as Wenger calls her first and second dimensions of practice,
service activities are not like the claims processing office that Wenger uses as an
example of his community. Compared to those office tasks, service tasks are often
performed in relative isolation (Nitschke-Shaw, 1996). A "shared repertoire," Wenger's
third dimension of practice, is a common a part of the faculty experience in that "ways
of doing things" (p. 83), especially as they become reified through stories and
conversations, are commonly shared. This can be quite positive; for example, former CU
President Betsy Hoffman often praised Jim Markusen of CU-Boulder economics, who
gave economic talks to various community audiences on the North American Free Trade
Agreement. She said that Markusen put out a "good face for the University" (Goodland,
2002, p. 2).
Similarly, when I was doing storytelling research during my academic years at
CU, I became of aware of the work that Alan Davis (2004) was doing at Smiley Middle
School, which included encouraging the creation of middle schoolers' stories; in the

process, their self self-image was improved. And as tenure-track faculty find themselves
in the early organizational stage of socialization, their beliefs about public service
develop largely by trial and error based on faculty such as Markusen or Davis that they
observe and befriend. These kinds of service stories serve to encourage other faculty
and provide a community of practice history that guides and encourages later action
(Tierney & Rhoads, 1994).
So the stories, the conversations, the legends among faculty are perhaps more
the commonly shared reifications than tools or forms, especially when it comes to
faculty service. But how often do the service-related legends misrepresent reality?
There is a disconnect, especially in the public service category, because other faculty
including deans, are often unfamiliar, or at least psychologically disconnected, from a
service that a faculty member is providing (Brazeau, 2003). Wenger (1998) says that the
power of reification as a focusing agent can be a danger as well as a positive force. It can
give the illusion that the group has found a common understanding, when in fact blind
spots occur. The first hypothesis of this study was formulated to analyze just such a
blind spot: that faculty and their deans do not have a common understanding when it
comes to the value of the service categories. So a reified department or university policy
concerning faculty service may not really be true in practice when it comes to rewards
and tenure decisions (Brazeau, 2003; Wenger).
The influence of another senior colleague, such as a department head, is widely
believed to be the most critical element for determining faculty rewards (Plater, 1999).
Despite the greater socializing influence of department heads than presidents, deans, or
provosts, messages from department heads are sometimes viewed with a skeptical eye.
For example, in a recent study at the University of Arkansas, a faculty member was told
by her department head that the college based promotion and tenure on the Boyer
model, but according to the faculty member, all that really mattered was how much
each one published (Geissler, 2008). And public-service perspectives have the potential
to change depending on the background and priorities of a department head (Brazeau,
2003). Messages about faculty participation in public service can be in conflicting, even

among faculty or administrators at the same level. In that case, higher ranking faculty,
such as tenured faculty, play an important role in the decision making of tenure-track
faculty, who will likely follow collegial advice when confronted with mixed messages
(Brazeau, 2003).
One way to see this dilemma of mixed messages is that even though official
procedures may allow a faculty member to present to their dean a justification for
allowing credit for research for a given project, the unfavorable climate in the minds of
the faculty for faculty service, whether real or imagined, may lead them away from
presenting a service project that would be a benefit to the community in favor of one
that is considered research (R. Muth, personal communication, February 2, 2010). One
might compare this situation to the baby elephant that is anchored to the ground by a
relatively weak stake, but because of the small size of the baby elephant, it cannot
budge the stake. So that when the elephant becomes fully grown, it remembers that it
cannot move the stake, even though in actuality it now has the strength to break free. In
like manner, faculty may be so acclimatized to an environment that has not actively
fostered particular kinds of service that they may "remember" that they have no power
to progress to a new level of faculty service (Austin & Rice, 1998)and they may as well
simply recognize that what they value is not similarly valued by important others so they
choose not to engage in behaviors that go continuously unrewarded.
Cognitive Dissonance
If hypothesis two is found to be true, that faculty service values are related to time in
unit, one possible explanation for changes in faculty service values over time might be found
in the concept of cognitive dissonance (Cooper, 2007). Cognitive dissonance is a state of
unrest in the mind that "occurs when people believe that two of their psychological
representations are inconsistent with each other" (p. 6). Thus, over time, faculty may decide
to change their opinions about the value of a service category in order to resolve the
cognitive dissonance in their minds. This dissonance could result from their desire to please
their dean or their faculty community, either or both of which may hold a disparate set of

service values. Conflict is a reality of human interaction that often starts because of
dissonance. A person experiences dissonance when he or she becomes preoccupied with the
belief that things "are not the way they're supposed to be" (Cornelius, 2009). In this section, I
examine the development of the theory of cognitive dissonance to provide a framework to
examine its application in this study.
Festinger (1957) devoted an entire book to explaining his theory of cognitive
dissonance. However, when it comes to actually defining it in a sentence, his words are
sparse: "the existence of non-fitting relations among cognitions" (p. 3). He continues,
defining cognitions as "any knowledge, opinion, or belief about the environment, about
oneself, or about one's behavior" (p. 3). Festinger also said that anytime cognitive
dissonance is present, people want to eliminate or reduce its effect, emphasizing that
this reduction was not just a preference, but a drive, just like sex or hunger.
Congruent with the axiomatic writing and thinking styles of the times, Festinger
(1957) created a taxonomy of axioms about cognitive dissonance. A subset of these is
stated here so that each can be referenced later in the dissertation:
1. Dissonance almost always exists after a decision has been made between
two or more alternatives.
2. Dissonance almost always exists after an attempt has been made, by
offering rewards or threatening punishment, to elicit overt behavior that is at variance
with private opinion.
3. The open expression of disagreement in a group leads to the existence of
cognitive dissonance in the members. The knowledge that some other person, generally
like oneself, holds one opinion is dissonant with holding a contrary opinion.
4. If forced compliance is elicited, the magnitude of the dissonance decreases
as the magnitude of the reward or punishment increases.
5. If forced compliance fails to be elicited, the magnitude of the dissonance
increases as the magnitude of the reward or punishment increases.

6. The magnitude of the dissonance introduced by disagreement from others
increases with increase in the importance of the opinion to the person, in the relevance
of the opinion to those voicing disagreement, and in the attractiveness of those voicing
7. The strength of the pressure to reduce dissonance is a function of the
magnitude of the existing dissonance.
8. Post-decision dissonance may be reduced by perceiving some characteristics
of the chosen and unchosen alternatives as identical.
9. If forced compliance has been elicited, the dissonance may be reduced by
changing private opinion to bring it into line with the overt behavior or by magnifying
the amount of reward or punishment involved.
10. Dissonance introduced by disagreement expressed by other persons may be
reduced by changing one's own opinion, by influencing the others to change their
opinion, and by rejecting those who disagree.
It is evident from this list that dissonance is dependent upon the particular
situation. For example, according to this list, when an individual if forced to comply,
cognitive dissonance is reduced. And while the above ten axioms may be generally true
for most people, Festingerfelt that individual differences exist among people in the
degree to which, and in the manner that, they react to the existence of dissonance. He
felt that for some people, dissonance is an extremely painful and intolerable thing, while
others seem to be able to tolerate a large amount (1957). He further felt that this
variation in tolerance for dissonance would seem to be measurable in at least a rough
way. Persons with low tolerance for dissonance should show more discomfort in the
presence of dissonance and should manifest greater efforts to reduce dissonance than
persons who have high tolerance (Festinger, 1957). Although Cooper cited many studies
of cognitive dissonance whose outcomes varied depending upon the circumstances that
individuals found themselves in, I could find no evidence that Cooper or any other
researcher that he cited studied the individual differences in people that would make
them react differently (2007).

A Change in Roles
Festinger (1957) claims that if a person is subjected to a sudden change in her or
his way of life, some cognitive dissonance may result. As a result, a new set of
circumstances facing an individual will very likely be dissonant with some previous
opinions or values. Therefore, one might expect certain changes of opinion occurring
during this time, because such a change could reduce the dissonance between
previously existing opinions and knowledge of the new actions now engaged in (Cooper,
2007). In Chapter 4,1 explore to what degree differences in service values might be
associated with differences in faculty role. If significant differences exist, a new college
dean might acquire a different set of values associated with that position. For example,
a new college dean may see a greater value for internal service than for external service
because of the increased responsibility for making things work within that college. For
example, they might acquire a sense of value for a faculty committee that studies
attrition because of her or his new concern for maintaining the viability of the college
(Festinger, 1957).
Cognitive Dissonance Comes of Age
A lot has changed in 50 years since Festinger wrote his book (1957). Dissonance
is no longer just about whether a cognition in the brain is consistent with another
cognition. Modern dissonance theory now involves social cognition (Mackie et al., 1998),
self-affirmation (Steele 8t Liu, 1983), and certain conditions that must be present for real
dissonance to exist. For example, dissonance requires freedom of choice, a commitment
to a position where behavior leads to adverse consequences that must have been
foreseeable (Brehm, 1962; Cooper, 2007). Further, the one experiencing dissonance
must be involved and responsible for the consequences, like smoking or writing an essay
(Gosling, Denizeau, & Oberle, 2006). Something outside oneself such as whether it is
raining or sunny does not produce dissonance as Festinger originally hypothesized
(Aronson, 1995).

Unfortunately, modern dissonance theory does not deal as strongly with the
environment that exists around faculty service and hypothesized gaps between faculty
and their deans and departments as one might hope or expect. For one thing, the
experiments that have shaped cognitive dissonance theory over the last fifty years occur
in labs within just a day or two (Cooper, 2007). In contrast, the predicted changes that
may occur with faculty service values are not gauged within a day or two but rather over
years of employment in a unit.
A partial match lies in the study of social interaction with regard to dissonance.
One is likely to discover that within a department social forces exist that motivate a
faculty member to identify with the ideas of other faculty members in her or his
department. In fact, much of the experimentation in the social cognitive theory
concerns vicarious dissonance. That is, if a group member identifies with another group
member so that if those conditions mentioned above happen to someone who is in their
group, they tend to experience vicarious dissonance themselves (Hogg, 2001; Hogg &
Cooper, 2006). It should be noted that this study does not treat a faculty member's
compassion for the cognitive dissonance of another faculty member. Even so, social
interaction is important in that a group culture can have an impact on the cognitive
processes of any employee, including an individual faculty member (Wenger, 1998) and
therefore future studies would do well to deal with this issue.
Alleviation of Dissonance
How do faculty alleviate dissonance? One explanation for the difference in
values between junior and senior facultyif I can show that it existsmay be that those
whose values do not match the status quo set of department service values can alleviate
dissonance by leaving the University. They may begin to look for a faculty position in a
university that has similar values to their own. O'Meara (2002) stated that evaluating
faculty service as scholarship is the "swampy lowlands" since it can be considered by
many to be nebulous, mysterious, messy, and subjective. This confusion, frustration, and
discontentment in a faculty member could even be a contributory factor for leaving the

academy. It seems reasonable that this could also contribute to the reluctance of junior
faculty to accept or to stay in an academic position when they see the difficulties
encountered by their faculty mentors or advisors (Brazeau, 2003). And to resolve this
attrition issue, one needs to examine not only the department attitudes toward faculty
service, but also whether an unbalance exists with other faculty duties such as research
and teaching (Sharobeam, 2002).
Another aspect of modern dissonance theory that is worth examining concerns
whether dissonance caused by lack of self-affirmation for a given set of actions or
omissions can be alleviated by a somewhat non-related action. Many researchers have
contributed results to show the applicability of this self-affirmation model (Aronson et
al., 1995; Higgins, 1989; Steele & Liu, 1983; Stone & Cooper, 2001). So for example, if
someone was asked to write an essay which argued for reduced funds for the
handicapped and they were opposed to such a reduction, a significant amount of
dissonance could be alleviated by allowing the essay writer to bring to mind other
aspects of her or his ethical beliefs and practices of which he or she was proud (Cooper,
2007). One could conjecture that this model could be applied, for example, to faculty
who find themselves not performing external service tasks which they highly value.
Perhaps by performing teaching, or research, or internal service tasks, they could reduce
dissonance and still feel self-affirmed in their work. An alternative explanation for the
apparent change in faculty preferences and behavior is that, in the face of no reward for
a preference or behavior, people change their actions and preferences to coincide with
what is rewarded (Edwards, 1995; Rowe, 2004; Watson, 1924).
Although the above models have merit for examination in this dissertation, the
parallels of faculty service and cognitive dissonance cannot be fully examined with the
data from the CU service survey. Thus, I make recommendations for future research in
Chapter 5, especially research that examines how dissonance patterns emerge over
longer periods of time, even years of cognitive thought on an issue, because this is the
time frame involved in the faculty service data. For example, in Chapter 4, figure 4.3

suggests that Latino faculty may be dealing with service value changes even after
working ten or more years in their unit.
Cognitive Dissonance Influence on Group Values
Another way to state the second hypothesis is that the longer faculty have been
in their units, the more likely they are to value internal service rather than external
service. In this regard, I examine whether faculty feel that their departments or
programs value external service, especially public service, and whether various
pressures such as a lack of associated past rewards may prompt a change in attitudes.
While new faculty may place relatively more value on these services, perhaps
anticipating a benefit with tenure decisions, faculty may abandon such ideas the longer
they stay in a unit. I examine how faculty values may change over time with a possible
(at least partial) explanation of cognitive dissonance causing a reshaping of their
attitudes. I compare years in unit with values as presented in question 8 to determine if
an association exists between these variables. So even though the same deans or
department heads have not been in place for each cohort of new faculty, a pattern of
shifting faculty values may suggest successive capitulation to the prevailing values of
those in authority.
Relevance of the Problem to Faculty Service
In Chapter 4, as I examine the service gap between faculty and their
departments, certain questions arise. For example, if deans or department heads truly
do not value external service to the community as much as a group of faculty do, are
deans likely to reward external service behavior as much as that group may expect? One
could speculate that a difference in reward expectation sets up a conflict in the minds of
these faculty. On the one hand, they want to comply with the desires of their
supervisors and their senior peers, but on the other hand, they may want to be true to
and act according to their values. Festinger (1957) and others such as Cooper (2007)

might argue that this causes cognitive dissonance in the minds of these faculty and then,
eventually, these faculty change attitudes to resolve this incongruence.
I discuss further whether faculty may have changed their attitudes toward
external service over time in order to resolve this cognitive dissonance. Admittedly, this
cause and effect pattern is not really proven by these data, but it does set up a logical
pattern that may be worth exploring in future research. In other words, I am speculating
that faculty may reduce their valuation of a service over time because value conflicts
may induce new behaviors and eventually values.
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) showed that the larger the payoff for doing
something that is contrary to our values and attitudes, the less cognitive dissonance
exists, because the subject blames the strong financial inducement for their change in
activity rather than having to face the cognitive dilemma of why they changed their
activity for such a small inducement. In like manner, when one is coerced to act in a
certain way (such as to favor research over service, and such as might occur between a
department chair and a faculty member), the same result occurs. The faculty member in
this case would be expected to blame her or his changed activity on the strong pressure
asserted by the chair for different actions rather than having to change their attitudes to
reconcile their cognitive thinking with their new behavior.
And faculty certainly have a lot to gain or lose by going along with the values of
their supervisors regarding service, especially as it compares with allocating their time
with teaching and research. However, if I can show that significant value changes occur
even with strong payoff or coercion from supervisors, logic may bring us back to the
earlier learning theorists such as Hovland (1953), who published volumes on human
persuasion, and reinforcement by reward was at the heart of the motivation for attitude
and behavior change. When faculty perceive that their department does not value a
service, will they reduce their valuation as well because they believe that they are not
likely to be rewarded for performing it?

Along these lines, if the survey found a slight negative correlation between years
in unit with the perceived departmental value of conferences and a stronger negative
correlation of years in service with perceived departmental value of mentoring and
public service, would we conclude that the longer that faculty remain in their units, the
more likely they are to perceive that their department does not value these services and
the less likely they are as a whole to perform such service? And if so, is it reward
reinforcement or resolving cognitive dissonance that brings the change? Or is it simply
that those who are most dissatisfied by their department's values are most likely to
leave the university?
Boyer's Model as a Framework for Progress
One formula for building community bridges is found in Boyer's (1990)
perspective on not three but a four-part faculty system. He says that "it is our central
premise ... that other forms of scholarship, namely teaching, integration, and
application, must be fully acknowledged and placed on a more equal footing with
discovery" (p. 75). A new category of faculty life, integration, arrives on the scene and
Zamorski (2003) defines Boyer's new category thus: 'Through the scholarship of
integration, we give meaning to isolated facts by fitting them into larger patterns,
making connections across disciplines, and interpreting what has been discovered in
ways that provide a larger, more comprehensive understanding" (pp. 3-4). With this
integrated framework, a university would educate greater numbers of students, respond
to national service needs, partner with industry in a even greater way, and create new
intellectual patterns. For a detailed description of Boyer's four types of scholarship, see
Appendix B.
Notice that Boyer (1990) emphasizes overlapping functions, all of which work
together and could be called a scholarship of engagementengagement with students,
with the profession, and with the community. He claimed that the four forms of
scholarship should be seen as one thing, and not compartmentalized into three or four
separate silos. So the scholarship of engagement provides a model to combine all of the

aspects of scholarship. It is possible through an integrated view of faculty work to see
that all their work can be categorized as a scholarship of engagement (Sandmann, 2000).
Educators who grasp the meaning of the scholarship of engagement tend to use service-
learning and community-based research and action as powerful strategies for
generating knowledge and practices to solve problems that affect communities (Bringle,
Games, & Malloy, 1999). In this regard, Spanier (1997) emphasizes relationships
between universities and communities: "in the integrated model of the university's
missions, outreach ... is a partnership through which the university opens itself up to
society" (p. 8). He was one of the first to emphasize the value of integrating teaching,
research, and public-service missions: "... it is through their synergies that we will
create and support the broad-based and active learning community that is best
prepared to cope with society's challenges" (p. 8).
Despite Boyer's (1990) clear message of how scholarship should integrate
research, teaching, and service, the current methods of evaluating and rewarding faculty
effectiveness (e.g., annual reports, tenure and promotion dossier, post-tenure review
documents) may still cause faculty members to separate their teaching activities from
their service activities or their service activities from their research activities. Further,
faculty members can become confused when their contributions to the community and
to the institution do not seem valued by those responsible for evaluating faculty
In evaluating faculty member performance, the scholarship of teaching and the
scholarship of research seem to be better defined compared to service (Brazeau, 2003).
This lack of clarity may be what is leading some on the outside to look with disdain on
faculty service. In a discussion about faculty service at the Colorado State Capitol Rep.
Keith King (R-Colorado Springs) said "Why give faculty 20 percent of their time for
service when they spend only seven hours a week in the classroom? I do not think
service should be used in the evaluation of a professor," King said, because service tends
to be undefined and lacks objective standards. "Theres no objective to how its
evaluated or whether there is a positive outcome to society" (Goodland, 2002, p. 2).

Surely King's charge might be dismissed by some simply because his assessment does
not reflect actual faculty time in preparing for or doing teaching. But if American
universities are to fully respond to such criticism, they must implement a plan such as
proposed by Brazeau (2003): "As an academy, we need to develop processes complete
with institutional standards and expectations that can guide junior and senior faculty
members to effectively document service activities as a form of scholarship for annual
evaluations, tenure and promotion and post-tenure review" (p. 4).
If we can achieve such a transition in our institutions, it is exciting to think not
only in terms of a better environment for faculty, but also gains for students. Surely
students either observe the work that is done by their professors, or may even
participate in some way, if only in robust classroom discussion. According to Brazeau
(2003), "our professional, undergraduate and graduate students will benefit from this
culture as they will see and experience first-hand how faculty members with positive
attitudes effectively integrate service, teaching and research activities in and outside the
classroom" (p. 7). Similarly, Simpson (2000), getting impetus from Boyer's (1990)
Scholarship Reconsidered saw the potential of application for scholarship when it truly is
understood: "Sometimes the very act of application leads to new insights, methods,
policies, theories and practices that contribute directly to the scholarship of discovery
and integration" (p. 9).
Lessons from U.S. Faculty-Service History
One of the key patterns in the history of faculty service in the United States is
how community perspectives on the university have changed. This section shows that,
whereas universities were in their early beginnings considered a major part of the
solution to society's problems, the partnerships with communities have often broken
down at times in our history and service to community is largely forgotten (O'Meara,
2002; Ward, 2003). In this study, causes for this breakdown are examined as well as
solutions for regaining the public trust. I conjecture that, although faculty are often
geared to serve their communities, especially as they begin their careers, differences

between their service values and the service values of their department pushes faculty
toward a bland conformity in which they often disregard their original service
aspirations (Muth et al., 2009).
Early Trends
If this is so, it may be beneficial to study how the American university evolved to
its current service values. To realize the strong part that service played in the
development of the American university, I briefly examine the history of service in the
United States. Academic institutions have played important roles down through the
years in the development of American society, and the traditional emphases on
teaching, research, and service have resulted in substantial economic and cultural
contributions. They have played an important role in forming an educated citizenry
required to maintain democratic institutions (Fairweather, 1996). The land grant
colleges, particularly, took pride in service. Not until World War I and especially World
War II did American universities, responding to a new national agenda and redirected
federal funding, direct their attention wholeheartedly to research, and in many cases,
away from service (Boyer, 1990).
As communities formed in the Western U.S. during the early 19th century, just
the presence of a college was a sign of progress. College and community were
intertwined in the denominational college in the early 19th century (Brubacher & Rudy,
1997). These colleges were not ivory towers; rather, they were sites of economic and
social gain and intimately involved with the community (Potts, 1977). Even those who
never attended college often saw the social benefits of higher education. This era saw
the ideal of higher education as a public good and the number of those who were able
to attend college was slowly growing (Ward, 2003).
Civil War to World War II (1860-1945)
Beginning in the 1850s, faculty started to be involved outside of the institution
as specialists and educators. One example is Brown University, where a chemistry

faculty member offered academic expertise in weights and measures to the Rhode
Island state government (Ward, 2003). This practice of offering academic knowledge to
government agencies became more firmly established in Wisconsin later in the century
(Finkelstein, 1984).
The Morrill Act of 1862, also known as the Land Grant College Act (Ward, 2003),
provided publicly supported education to those with limited financial resources. The act
had the greatest impact on the land-grant universities. Teaching, research, and service
missions were firmly rooted in the founding of land-grant universities, a model adopted
by other sectors of higher education as well (Hartnett, 2006). Before the Hatch Act of
1887, American higher education was devoted primarily to the intellectual and moral
development of students; however, as universities embraced the Hatch Act, they
adopted service as a primary mission (Boyer, 1990).
Evolution of the University Service Model
The founding of the American Association of University professors in 1915 was
an important development in the advancement of professional rights for faculty,
particularly academic freedom and tenure (Geiger, 1999). The emergence of tenure is
germane to conversations about service because many of the faculty involved in
controversial activities were acting in ways that are similar to what we would define as
public service today. For example, Professor Edward Ross, an economics professor at
Stanford, organized a public forum against conservative capitalism at the turn of the
20th century. His populist-progressive views on social issues soon brought him in conflict
with influential conservatives in California, and he ultimately lost his job at Stanford
(Coe, 2006; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). Such controversies over faculty dismissal led to
the formation of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) (Versey,
1965). And as faculty became more specialized in these various forms of public service
which was often combined with research, and as the university model evolved, service
was more firmly added to faculty responsibilities (Cohen, 1998).

Of major importance in broadening the university service model and shaping
American public service was the Wisconsin Idea (Bower, 2002), which led to new
associations between campus and state government. Much of the development of
service in American universities emanated from the University of Wisconsin, which
proclaims that "the boundaries of the university are the boundaries of the state" (Kenny,
2002, p. 82). The practical beginnings of Wisconsin's involvement with educating the
community had as many antagonists as protagonists. Some felt that the university had
no place in providing off-campus courses and that it did not keep with the traditions of
the university. It took a group of persistent supporters headed by Frank Hutchins and
Charlie McCarthy to convince then Wisconsin University President Van Hise to continue
with the community outreach program. McCarthy noted to Van Hise that Wisconsinites
spent $800,000 annually on out-of-state correspondence courses. That encouraged the
Regents and the University administration to ask the legislature to fund both agricultural
(including dairy) and non-agricultural extension courses (Bower, 2002).
It is important to note the contrast between the Wisconsin Idea and other ideas
that emerged with the 20th century emphasis on research and on making money to
provide for budget shortfalls. The guiding principles of the Wisconsin Idea clash with
"education as consumerism," "curricular vocationalism," and universities depending on
external research for funding due to reduced state financial support (Ward, 2003, pp.
56-57), mentioned earlier in this chapter. I would consider the Wisconsin extension
courses to be an early forerunner to the Boyer model of scholarship and his combination
of research, teaching, and service into one central idea of engagement. After all, the
activity involved teaching extension courses to the public, but the university
characterized these courses as a type of service to the community. And the people of
Wisconsin received it as such (Bower, 2002).
The Influence of World War II
But in the 1940s, as a devastating war changed the American every day
experience from standing in bread lines (in the Great Depression) to working in war

material assembly lines, the stage was set for a dramatic transformation of academic
life. At that historic moment, Vannevar Bush of MIT and James Bryant Conant of Harvard
volunteered the help of the universities in bringing victory to the nation with the
National Defense Research Committee (Boyer, 1990). As faculty expertise developed
and with emerging national needs, faculty moved into positions of federal service and
performed research and development activities that help our nation and its allies to
prevail in World War II.
By the end of World War II, academic roles had morphed into the highly
differentiated model by which we recognize the professor today: teaching, research,
student advisement, administration, and institutional and public service (Ward, 2003).
Further, connections between campus and government ultimately enabled higher
education to support war efforts and greater involvement in international affairs, areas
that would become hallmarks of the research university throughout the 20th century
(Ward, 2003). In the new economy which followed, more investment in research and
development was required to produce more industrial output (Fairweather, 1996).
Ironically, on the contemporary campus, research for industry has continued through
the years, but the often myopic emphasis on it has become one of the biggest barriers
to realizing the involvement of faculty in service to other needs of communities which
surround universities (Ward, 2003).
Mass Education Era
During the Mass education era from 1945 to 1975, the teacher-scholar model of the
faculty member gave way to a more research-focused image. Boyer (1990) observes,
"ironically, at the very time America's higher education institutions were becoming more
open and inclusive, the culture of the professoriate was becoming more hierarchical and
restrictive" (p. 12-13). Also ironic was that public trust in education during this period
(especially at the beginning) was high. The public appreciated that universities could use
their specialized knowledge to make significant contributions (Ward, 2003). Ironic because
the federal funding of higher education that became prevalent in this era created what was

essentially a federal-grant university (Kerr, 1963). That put professorial focus more directly
on research, with much less attention given to teaching and service (Cuban, 1999). And that
in turn created much of the "ivory tower" perception that much of the public had of
universities leading up to the turn of the 21st century (Bok, 1982).
A Crisis of Purpose
In the 1950s and 1960s, universities responded to the national call to better
prepare our students in science to meet the challenges of the Soviets who sent Sputnik
into space. Many universities at first shifted their focus from local interests to serve the
national interest. But over time, even national interest was no longer a guiding light
(Ward, 2003). As Boyer (1996, as cited in Tierney, 1998) argued, "increasingly, the
campus is being viewed as a place where students get credentialed and faculties get
tenured, while the overall work of the Academy does not seem particularly relevant to
the nation's most pressing civic, social, economic, and moral problems" (p. 62).
So, if the work of the academy is irrelevant to many of those outside of it, how
did the work of the academy become irrelevant? It may be because on many campuses
todayas in past yearsa crisis of purpose exists. Too many colleges and universities
operate not by self-defined objectives but by the external pressures of prestige (Boyer,
1990; O'Meara, 2007). For example, the U.S. News and World Reports (2009) reviews of
college and university rankings are taken very seriously by those in higher education.
Because of this, "their mission becomes blurred, standards of research are
compromised, and the quality of teaching and learning is disturbingly diminished"
(Boyer, p. 55).
Similarly, because institutions seem to pay particular attention to those
activities that generate prestige, it is not too much of an exaggeration to argue that the
faculty activities most championed are those that facilitate the pursuit and management
of prestige (Fairweather, 1996). From this perspective, enhancing prestige depends on
criteria relevant to the academic world and not necessarily on criteria important to
those outside academe or those institutions that directly support such work.

Curricular Vocationalism
So what is the proper function of colleges in contemporary society? Some in the
last thirty years have emphasized curricular vocationalism (Altbach, 1999), whereby
students demand more focus on job preparation to better find jobs and earn a living.
Proponents of this outlook are interested less in the traditional goals of a liberal
educationcritical thinking, appreciation for literature, art, culture, creating a well-
rounded individualand more in practical matters related to gainful employment.
Vocationalism is alive and well today and currently reflected in the rise of education in
engineering, business, and other technical and professional fields in our public
universities, whereas in the last century it was most commonly found just in proprietary
schools that market themselves as job-oriented (Schudson, 2007).
The following two examples illustrate the ongoing conflict between those who
promote vocationalism and those who oppose it: Hittle (2004) praises the retiring
President of Lawrence University, Dr. Richard Warch, because under Warch's leadership
Lawrence would never give in to "creeping vocationalism" (p. 1), keeping secure the
place for teaching and research in the liberal tradition and honoring the faculty's highest
values. Grubb (2005), on the other hand, praises vocationalism and expresses pleasure
that it is now so deeply embedded in American higher education that it cannot be torn
away by its detractors. He claims that reforms are now needed to "integrate vocational
purposes with broader civic, intellectual, and moral goals" (p. 2).
So it is important to be aware of the expanding links between higher education
and industrial vocations. These links have put pressure on higher education to incorporate
needed skills in the curriculum. Ward (2003) says that this focus on practical skills and
training can create conflict, particularly in liberal arts institutions. "Faculty who attempt to
stand by what they see as the traditional role of the university and the professor-
intellectual work, promoting the life of the mindcome in for criticism that they are not
responding to changing social conditions and the needs of the public" (p. 42). So

opposition to vocationalism is another way in which universities are perceived as ivory
External Audiences and Service Demands
Is faculty service to their institution's communities one answer to the public's
ivory-tower perception? Fear and Sandmann (1995), for instance, indicate that
distinguishing internal service (the "business" of the university) from external service
(outreach to the community) is important in any discussion of academic service. The
audience for internal service, which typically includes other faculty and administrators,
generally tends to be familiar with the requirements of faculty service. External
audiences (usually the local community), in contrast, are usually less familiar with the
service demands of faculty life, particularly service to the department, college, and
discipline (that is, not public service). This internal or professional focus, often to the
exclusion of any public outreach, can be one cause of resentment in the community,
which may think that the University is insensitive to its needs. Could it be a question of
balancea question of doing what a university does bestbut then ensuring that what
it does blesses the community that supports it? Erik Ashby approached the heart of this
dilemma when he called for a kind of balance: "A university must be sufficiently stable
to sustain the ideal which gave it birth and sufficiently responsive to remain relevant to
the society which supports it" (Berdahl, Altbach, &Gumport, 1999, p. 4).
The external audience also does not see the same depth of commitment to
change in higher education toward serving communities as it does in lower (K-12)
education. Indeed, the meaning of the word service itself has drifted significantly in
recent years, from active engagement with external agencies to the inwardly focused
role of faculties accomplishing university governance; and that reflects the acted-out
shift in emphasis between inward and outward foci (Tierney, 1998). Of course, the
business of the university could not happen if internal functions such as faculty
governance did not exist. But one result of this shift in emphasis has been to reinforce
the growing isolation of most institutions from their surrounding communities (Tierney).

Yet, a university is most aligned with public purposes when it addresses problems that
are both visible and local. Examples of such outreach include reduction of youth
violence by universities located in major urban areas, synthetic materials development
and rebuilding automotive industrial areas of the Midwest, or tertiary oil recovery in the
Rocky Mountain West (p. 132).
Failure of Academic Scouts
But are our universities detached from such visible and local problems? Derek
Bok (1990), then president of Harvard, warned of the danger of detachment when he
wrote that, "armed with the security of tenure and the time to study the world with
care, professors would appear to have a unique opportunity to act as society's scouts to
signal impending problems long before they are visible to others" (p. 105). And yet, Bok
notes that members of the academy do not normally discover emerging issues and bring
them to the attention of the public. Is it because the challenge of meeting society's
needs hardly registers in the minds of most faculty? According to Butin (2007),
"Community engagement has immense potential to improve that situation, but today's
faculty are not trained, prepared, or rewarded for linking their courses to their
communities; grounding their research in real-life community dilemmas; or
disseminating their research to non-academic audiences" (p. 37).
Service Hardly Registers
Ample evidence suggests that colleges and universities of all types have
increasingly emphasized research and publishing in the years after World War II
(Fairweather, 1998; Schuster 8i Finkelstein, 2006). In addition, for most faculty, public
service such as direct involvement in economic development hardly registers because it
represents such a small percentage of their job. Fairweather blamed faculty governance
and the faculty reward structure, the principal expressions of institutional conservatism,
for maintaining a status quo which rewards teaching and research more than service.
New faculty especially have faced increasingly demanding standards for promotion and

tenure as expectations for hours in the classroom and for engagement in research
activities increase (Boyer, 1990; Fairweather, 1996). Over the years that followed the
war, these heavy demands have decreased the time that might otherwise be spent
pursuing service activities (Boyer, 1990; Fairweather, 1996; Ward, 2003), particularly if
such external service is rewarded.
Because service has so often been vaguely understood and defined in the last
thirty to fifty years, it has been viewed as less meaningful and less important than the
more easily defined (and rewarded) roles of teaching and research (Ward, 2003;
O'Meara, 2002). Typical in a number of studies has been the non-emphasis on service.
For example, Konrad and Pfeffer (1990) created a model to predict faculty pay. Although
they included demographics as controls and included a measure of teaching
productivity, time spent on public service and administration were not part of their
study. In other words, they apparently considered service to be a non-predictor of pay.
A more recent example of overlooking service is a 43-page white paper written
for the Teagle Foundation about current faculty activities (Wheatley, 2007). While
research and teaching were discussed throughout the study, faculty service was
mentioned in only one sentence: "These activities could include independent study, a
senior thesis, or a project required for a course or as part of a community service
activity, to name a few possibilities" (p. 19). These examples suggest a continuing
diminution of the importance of faculty service.
Rewarded For Faculty Service?
Often in the last few decades, concern also has been raised about making
knowledge and technology transfer central to the public-service role for faculty and
about enhancing the value of public service in faculty personnel and reward decisions
(Boyer, 1996; Crosson 1983, as cited by Fairweather 1996). For example, Erin College in
New England had to wrestle with ideas concerning service value before allowing service
to be officially listed as a potential form of scholarship for the purpose of promotion
(and reward) consideration in 1998 (O'Meara, 2002). Further, faculty have become

increasingly disengaged from the student body and tend not to involve themselves in
activities outside of classroom instruction and research for many reasons, including the
failure of many institutions to prioritize faculty engagement with students in their
reward systems (O'Meara & Braskamp, 2005).
One important category of service is mentoring, which can include close faculty
engagement with students, encouraging them in their journey through their respective
programs. Chickering and Gamson's (1987) first principle of seven for undergraduate
education is that "frequent student-faculty contact in and out of classes is the most
important factor in student motivation and involvement. Faculty concern helps students
get through rough times and keep on working" (p.2). However, the irony is that in the
present era, student disengagement comes at a time when engagement is needed more
than ever. The majority of students are older, work part-time, arrive with a greater
diversity of learning styles and life experiences than ever before, and want to see the
relevancy of their studies to real life (Keller, 2001, as cited by O'Meara & Braskamp,
2005). It is in this context that I now begin to discuss more recent cases where CU and
other universities are grappling with the dilemma of service values and reward
structures. Below, I examine how history conveys some lessons on the value of faculty
Frustration Among Faculty
Confusion and tension often lead to frustration if a problem persists or is
ignored. If not resolved, frustration can evolve into anger. Anger that is expressed
inappropriately can turn out to be an even larger problem than the original offending
event (Cornelius, 2009). Confusion and tension have led to frustration among many of
the CU faculty about the place of faculty service in their departments and at the
University. Many are frustrated with the reward system, non-recognition of service work
done, and the uncertainty of whether certain categories of service will be honored,
ignored, or even disdained (Muth et al., 2009). Jaeger and Thornton (2006) claim that
the lack of rewards for public service contribute to the faculty moving away from public

service, even at universities where strong traditions of public service have been the rule.
Faculty will continue to move away from public service unless important rewards are
directly connected to public service efforts (Jaeger & Thornton).
The Universal Need For Faculty Service Reform
The need for faculty-service reform goes way beyond the boundaries of the CU
campuses. One example of this is shown in a recent survey that was given to over 1,600
faculty at Southern University to examine faculty socialization in regard to public service
performed beyond the walls of the institution (Jaeger & Thornton, 2006). They had a
23% response rate (n = 371). The data were inconclusive as to whether faculty perceived
that public service activities were adequately defined (51%). And even though faculty
showed a clear perception of strong university support for public service, they perceived
a lack of consideration in the reward structure, which prompted additional review of
institutional documents as well as focus groups (Strauss & Corbin, 1990 as cited in
Jaeger & Thornton, 2006). Only 35% believed that faculty service was highly valued at
review time. Here are some findings from the faculty focus groups and follow-up
1. For most faculty, public service was not valued by their superiors as important in the
reappointment, promotion, and tenure process.
2. Socialization of faculty to devalue public service work, especially during the tenure
process, is a consistent message across faculty.
3. Although faculty have realized for many years that institutional and financial support
of faculty, public service is limited at Southern University, "attempts to improve the
situation for faculty involved in public service have largely been thwarted by strong
socialization forces"(p. 10).
Jaeger and Thornton (2006) also report that the decreased support from state
governments in the form of undesignated grants has forced some college administrators
to think of the university as a market system which exists to compete for funds from
government grants or the private sector. Nine years earlier, Slaughter and Leslie (1997)

identified this somewhat narrow-focused behavior and defined it as academic
capitalism. Under this system, institutions pour funds back into the areas that are
making money to help pay for their increased research costs. The rewards, both pay and
tenure, are for those engaging in this "academic capitalist" behavior and typically not for
those who emphasize public service and teaching.
A study of four universities by O'Meara (2002) sought to understand such
market pressures and to learn how these universities in their colleges of education were
able to overcome their faculty service issues. She studied how they began to assess
service as scholarship on an equal par with teaching and research for tenure and
promotion decisions. The significance of this work is the identification of forces that
temporarily hindered the implementation of programs evaluating service and service as
scholarship in these institutions. One of the stronger external forces concerned the
budget difficulties in the university with diminished state support. Another was the
presence of a faculty research culture that was resistant to changes in the tenure and
promotion process. Faculty were reluctant to implement processes which supported
faculty service, even with administrative support (Brazeau, 2003).
Blackburn and Lawrence (1995, as cited in O'Meara, 2005) claim that faculty
make decisions about how to use discretionary time based on their self-judged
competence and preference for a role and their "perceived institutional expectation of
effort given to a role" (p. 226). Research on faculty well-being (which may be applied to
any employee) suggests faculty are more productive and successful if they are experts at
the work they do most often, have sufficient control of their work and social support for
it, and receive feedback on the quality of their work on a regular basis; and faculty job
satisfaction is associated with achievement and recognition (Walker, 2002). Also,
chances for advancement play a major role, as do relationships with students
(Hagedorn, 2000). Moreover, faculty are most successful and satisfied at institutions
where a strong fit exists between their personal values and the values of the college
(Maehr & Braskamp, 1986).

Faculty Powerless to Change
But if this satisfaction is found to be lacking, as it is shown to be lacking at CU
in Chapter 4, why would that condition persist? In that case, perhaps a college
administration feels powerless to change, to bring about a fit between faculty and
college values. Fairweather (1996) found that many administrators, including those
committed to enhancing the value of teaching and public service at their institutions,
feel powerless to change institutional norms. Similarly, he says that faculty often feel
driven by a system outside their control. In this regard. Gray, Froh, and Diamond
(1996) found that faculty feel pressure by their departments to publish and spend
time on research. Yet, the same faculty participate in promotion and tenure decisions,
often voting for a research-oriented reward system even though it conflicts with the
values that they profess (Fairweather, 1996). Why do faculty members seemingly go
against their own values? I have observed that when a person who represents the
status quo (e.g., a faculty member) with more seniority or more influence advocates a
position, others may follow along even if they don't value that position. So perhaps it
is the fear of stepping out in a new direction, which could potentially step on the toes
of those who champion the status quo, and thereby suffering a rebuke for such a
position (Cooper, 2007; Jaeger & Thornton, 2006). Such a reward disparity is a good
candidate for examination of cognitive dissonance, a framework in this proposal for
explaining changes in faculty views of the value of various types of service.
UC Denver as a Service Case
Kenny, Simone, and Lerner (2002) reported several years ago on the University
of Colorado Denver (UC Denver) as a university that sees beyond its own campus. They
said that UC Denver is not just an institution that happens to be located in a big city, but
UC Denver is an urban university (Kenny et al.). And what is that? They defined an urban
university as one which is uniquely equipped to revitalize the economy of the city and its
region and to help in the solution of difficult problems, both because of its skilled
professors and because it can produce educated citizens who will help shape the city's

or region's destiny. I agree that UC Denver enjoys a significant advantage over rural
universities because of its location in downtown Denver and its proximity to state
government, the business community, and nonprofit organizations. It has a strong
presence in the community, a large cadre of local supporters, and a large alumni base in
the Denver metro area (Kenny et al.). Kenny et al. further state that "students as well as
faculty are actively engaged in seeking solutions, through research and service, to the
pressing problems of modern urban, contemporary existence" (p. 319). This may well be
true, but how can UC Denveror any of the other CU campuses for that matterreach
its full service potential when faculty and administration may not agree on the basics of

The next few sections show the demographics of the participants in the 2008 CU
Faculty Survey, describe the survey methodology that was used, and list the categories
of faculty service that were considered in the survey. The demographic and attitude
variables are listed and defined. Questions 8, 9, and 10 on the survey are described as
the primary questions reviewed in this study. The procedures for administering the
faculty survey and gathering the faculty data are identified. The statistical tests for
testing the hypotheses, namely t-tests and regression analyses, are presented. Reasons
are given for the use of time in unit in the regression equation. Finally, the
dissatisfaction ratio is defined and a description of its usefulness in this study is given.
Eight hundred and thirty five faculty and staff from the five campuses of the
University of Colorado participated in an online survey in the spring and summer of 2008.
Table 3.1 shows some of the important demographics of the participants by campus.
Table 3.1
Demographics of the 2008 CU Faculty Survey by Campus.
gender race / ethnicity time in unit (years)
campus Male Female White Afr Amer Latino Asian Other 1-3 4-10 11+
UCB 172 129 253 5 13 15 1 61 106 135
UCCS 31 37 59 1 4 2 0 20 19 29
UCD Anschutz 95 113 176 2 7 15 0 70 74 64

UCD Auraria 76 86 133 4 5 6 0 38 56 70
UCD 9th &CO 21 38 48 1 1 7 0 17 24 17
System 1 6 7 0 0 0 0 5 2 0
Because issues about faculty service, including faculty participation in faculty
governance, often have been discussed at all levels in the University of Colorado, in July
2007 then-President Hank Brown requested that expectations for faculty service at the
university be clarified, according to eight key questions (Appendix C). In the following
year, Muth, Snead, and Wise (2008) developed a 32-question system-wide survey (see
Appendix D) using the online software Zoomerang, which was used to collect data from
the faculty on all of the CU campusesUC Boulder (UCB), UC Colorado Springs (UCCS),
and all three UC Denver campuses. Muth et al. (2009) reported that of the 4,436 faculty at
CU at the time of the survey, 1540 attempted to fill out the survey. Question one asked
for faculty rank, and those who answered "Do not hold faculty rank" did not continue the
survey. Therefore, only 832 surveys were completed sufficiently by faculty to be included
in most analyses (Muth et al.). Table 3.2 shows the breakout of faculty by status and by
faculty/administrator category for each of the five campuses. The totals in the CU Total
column are less than 832 because some faculty did not answer these questions.

Table 3.2
Faculty Status and Faculty Administration by Campus
UCB UCCS UCD Anschutz UCD Denver 9th & Colorado CU Total
Q2. Faculty
Tenured 157 41 34 83 12 327
Tenure-track 66 17 73 41 25 222
Non Tenure-track 81 14 108 54 24 281
TOTAL 304 72 215 178 61 830
Q3. Faculty or
Primarilv faculty 276 63 198 156 60 753
Primarily an administrator 25 9 17 20 1 72
TOTAL 301 72 215 176 61 825
Note. See Muth et al. (2009, p. 24)
Below is a list of service activities that were presented in this 32-question online
survey. The categories of service in the faculty survey originated in part from the
University of Wisconsin (University of Wisconsin Board of Regents, 2004). The participants
were asked to refer to this list while answering the questions in the survey. Subcategories
under these service-activity types can be found in Appendix E.
A. Service to the profession
B. Academic or professional committee member
C. Service to department, constituency, university, and/or system
D. Faculty governance
E. Conferences
F. Consultant or mentor role to students and faculty
G. Public service
H. Honors and awards (Muth et al., 2009)
The survey was examined for face validity by reviewing it with several faculty
and staff who took the survey and then commented on how easy it was to understand
and answer the individual questions. In addition, members of the university

administration were asked to review the survey and gave many helpful suggestions. The
intent of the survey was to look at each item individually, so no plan was developed for
analyzing any underlying latent variables. Content validity (Muth et al., 2009) was
established by "faculty in system and campus faculty governance and by system and
campus administrators" (p.3) to ensure that the survey sufficiently covered teaching,
research, and service to adequately inform any policy decisions that might emanate
from the survey results.
Portion of the Survey Used in This Dissertation
This section first discusses the demographic variables used in this study, such as
gender and faculty status. Next, a table of questions and variables that were chosen
from the 2008 CU Faculty Survey is presented with the measures that were used with
each question. Finally, the attitude variables are discussed. These variables deal with
personal values and perceived department values that the faculty hold for the various
service categories.
Demographic variables. The demographic variables in this study are similar to
variables that have been chosen in past faculty research studies (California State
University Academic Senate, 2002; Dobernick, 2006; Snyder, 2007). For example, past
studies have shown that men and women often respond differently to inquiries about
the amount of service that they perform and the service values that they hold
(Finkelstein, 1998; O'Meara, 2002). In addition, this study is limited to the variables that
were collected in the Faculty Service Survey of 2008 (Muth et al., 2009). The questions
from the survey (Appendix D) that were used in this study include the following:

Table 3.3
Questions and variables chosen from the 2008faculty survey.
variable variable type question from 2008 faculty survey
faculty rank scale: professor ranks, instructor, or do not hold rank Ql. What is your current faculty rank?
faculty status nominal: tenured, tenure-track, or non-tenured Q2. What is your current faculty status? (tenure, tenure-track, non tenure-track)
faculty non tenure dichotomous: non- tenured true or false Q2 modified to count tenure or tenure-track as a 0, and non-tenure track as a 1.
faculty or admin dichotomous: faculty or admin Q3. Do you currently serve primarily as a member of the faculty or as an administrator?
See table 4.1 or Appendix E for a listing of the service categories for question 8 scale: not valued to high value; range of 1 to 10 Q8. For the following categories, please indicate to what degree you value their importance to the university. Please provide a number for each category, and you may assign the same number to more than one category.
See table 4.1 or Appendix E for a listing of the service categories for question 9 scale: not valued to high value; range of 1 to 10 Q9. For the following categories, please indicate to what degree your department (or program) values their importance to the university. Please provide a number for each category, and you may assign the same number to more than one category.
campus nominal: choose from 5 campuses or System Q26. What is your current university location?
gender dichotomous: male or female Q27. What is your gender?
salary cat ordinal: 7 salary categories from less than $40K to over $100K Q29. Which of the following annual salary categories reflect your CU compensation?
time in unit scale: number of years Q30. Your length of time in your current unit (actual years).
ethnicity Nominal, seven categories Q31. Which of the following racial categories best describe you? You may choose more than one.
time in higher ed scale: number of years Q32. Your length of time in higher education (actual years).
Note. Adapted from Muth et al. (2009).

Survey question two, for example, asked the respondents about their current
faculty-tenure status. The reason for this faculty status variable is that those who have
gone through or are going through the tenure process may have had differing sets of
attitudes toward service from those who had not. Question four asked them whether
they were primarily faculty or administrators. This variable faculty or admin will help us
determine whether administrator have different service values from faculty members.
Question 26, which concerns campus, does not involve a variable. Separate analyses
were run for each of the five campuses. Question 27, which asked for gender, is a
standard variable for research of this type, given that women often respond to issues
differently than men, and it is important to clarify whether extant characteristics of
respondents are more explanatory of results found than the key relationships addressed
in the study hypotheses (Miyazaki & Taylor, 2008). Continuing with the list, question 29
provides us with salary information, which may be a factor in values. Question 30,
concerning time in unit, is a key variable in the analysis of the second hypothesis below.
Ethnicity has been included as a variable even thought the number of minority
professors does not allow for statistically significant findings. Still, the limited findings
from the data may point to a need for future research if possible patterns are found.
Attitude variables. This study focuses primarily on survey questions 8 and 9 (see
Table 3.2), while integrating demographic questions from the survey for a more
complete explanation of variance. As shown in Table 3.2, Survey questions 8 through 10
focused on how faculty value various components of faculty service. I contrast their
values with how they perceive that their departments and deans value the same
services. In question 8, for instance, faculty were asked to state the value of the various
service categories. They rated each of the eight areas on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1
being the lowest value and 10 being the highest (Muth et al., 2009).
For question 9, faculty were asked to indicate on a scale of 1 to 10 to what
degree their department (or program) values each category's importance to the
university. For example, a faculty member might have valued Service to the Profession

highly, with a value of 8, but believed at the time of the survey that the department only
valued it at 4.
For question 10, faculty were asked to rate the value placed on the item by their
dean. Faculty responses to question 9 and 10 were similar. A likely explanation for this
congruence is that "few departments would spend time and energy promoting service
activities that are not valued by a dean, the final arbiter of what does and does not get
rewarded in evaluation decisions" (Muth et al., 2009, p. 6).
The faculty survey was performed at the request of then President of the
University of Colorado Hank Brown, and then Vice President Richard Poliakoff. Emails
were sent out to faculty and staff with the URL they could click on to participate in the
survey. The URL took them to a Zoomerang website, where they could take the survey
anonymously over a couple of month's time. The intent of the sample was to capture as
much data as possible. Therefore the participants were self-selected and represented
about 20% of the total faculty and staff at all campuses. This is just less than typical
according to Bell (2008), who cites Dr. Don McCabe of Rutgers University as estimating a
national faculty survey response rate at 25%. When the survey deadline arrived, the
survey was deactivated and the contents were exported to an Excel file. Susan Krebs and
I, Bob Snead, collected the information and began to analyze it to look for interesting
patterns and especially to assist Dr. Rod Muth in answering the eight questions that are
listed in Appendix C. I performed the quantitative analysis and Susan Krebs did the
qualitative analysis.
Hypotheses and Other Research Questions
Two primary hypotheses guided the analysis of the survey data: (a) A gap exists
between faculty values of service categories and faculty perception of how their deans and
departments value those categories; (b) A positive correlation exists between years in a
unit and the value of service to the department, constituency, university, or system, while

a negative correlation exists between years in unit and value placed on participating in
conferences, mentoring or public service.
I have also included what I call "second tier" research questions. I examined
whether correlations existed between the values placed on categories in questions eight
and nine and other variables in the survey. I also examined what part ethnicity played in
faculty-service satisfaction concerning time in unit, even though these data were
A Formula to Examine Hypothesis One
To show evidence for hypothesis one above, I analyzed data from the over 800
faculty who responded to the survey. I looked at paired samples of the two population
means that can be calculated from the results of Question 8 and Question 9 for
categories of service that seem to be different in value from the faculty member's value
and their perception of the department value for that service category. For this paired
sample inference, I used a t-test to determine if a difference exists in these two
populations. If d is the mean sample difference and Sd is the standard deviation of the
sample differences, then t = (d 0) / (Sd/Vn) with the null hypothesis being that
the population difference is 0. In this equation, t is the t statistic, which was calculated in
an Excel (Microsoft, 2007) statistical program. The letter n stands for the sample size for
a particular set of service category responses. If t is above the t value that is associated
with a 95% confidence level, we reject the null hypothesis and accept the hypothesis
that the sample mean from a service category of Question 8 is significantly different
from the sample mean from a service category of Question 9, thereby identifying a
"service gap." A 95% confidence level of the t statistic is a level at which there is a 95%
chance that the two sample means would not be this much different if they were in fact
from populations with the same mean. I chose a 95% level of confidence for t because it
represents two standard deviations to the left or right of the mean in a normal
distribution. It is reasonable to assume beyond this level that the populations are
different, because it is rare for values to fall outside of two standard deviations of the

mean by chance (Leech, Barrett, & Morgan, 2008). And although the Excel f tests we
performed (Microsoft, 2007) do not prove that the distributions are normal, unless the
skewness is severe, or the sample size very small, the t test is reasonably accurate (BNN
Corporation, 1996).
A Formula to Examine Hypothesis Two
To show evidence for hypothesis two above, I analyzed the data from question 8
and correlated it with the data from question 30, which asked what length of time the
faculty member had been in her or his current unit. I used multiple regression analysis to
show the strength of this correlation with each of the categories of service that seem to
change with time in unit. Multiple regression is a statistical technique which predicts
values of a dependent variable from values of two or more independent variables
(George & Mallery, 2003). Other variables of interest helped to explain the variance in
the data. One main variable was campus. Because the campuses operated somewhat
independently each governed by a separate chancellor at the time of the data collection,
it was likely that the attitudes of the faculty and administrations with regard to service
could be quite different. I mentioned that the role that the faculty played (e.g., tenured
professor, department chair, or instructor) might make a difference in their value
system. Another variable which could help to explain variance was gender, which as I
mentioned earlier, has been shown to be an important factor in previous faculty
attitude studies (National Academy of Science, 2010). I used SPSS (SPSS, 2006) to
perform the multiple regression and analysis of variance and of residuals. The expected
model was as follows:
Yc (value of a service category) = p0 + Pi(salary) + p2(gender) + p3(time in unit) +
p4(faculty or admin) + p5(faculty non tenure) + random error
Y has a subscript of a "c" to indicate that this formula was applied separately to
each campus. Beta values such as Pi are standardized regression coefficients which vary
between plus and minus 1.0 (George & Mallery, 2003). Preliminary analysis indicated
that time in unit is more highly correlated with the value of a service category than total

time in higher education. Therefore, I used time in unit as the longevity variable. The
faculty status variable/ocu/fy non tenure is a dichotomous variable that represent a true
or false value for non tenure-track.
Why Time in Unit?
An assumption that I made with the absence of longevity data was that faculty
have remained pretty much the same over the last twenty or thirty years. That is the
case because the idea of using time in unit as a predictor of faculty service values
assumes that no huge generational shifts have caused faculty to favor one type of
service over another. So one may ask, "Have faculty changed a lot over the last few
decades?" That question may be a tough one to answer in its totality. But the
demographics of faculty apparently have not changed much in the last the last thirty
years (Trower, 2002). For example, 87 percent of the full-time faculty members in the
United States were white as of 1997; male professors in 1997 outnumbered females by
about 2 to 1; and only 5 percent of the full professors in the U.S. were black, Hispanic, or
Native American. This male, white dominance has existed from the beginning of
universities in the U.S. (Trower). Although other generational forces may be in effect
that are not apparent here, at least these statistics support the notion that the
population and their underlying attributes may not have changed much at all.
The Dissatisfaction Ratio
A "dissatisfaction ratio" was created (R. Muth, personal communication,
February 9, 2010) by dividing the personal value of a service category by the perceived
department value of the same service category. The purpose of this value was to
quantify the gaps in the service values between personal faculty values and the values
that they perceived were held by their departments. The measure simulates the amount
of dissatisfaction that faculty might have had with the gap between their value of a
service category and the perceived department value of the same service category. For
example, a faculty member might value "public service to the profession" highly, with a

value of 8, but believe that the department only values it at 4. In this case the
dissatisfaction ratio would be 8/4 = 2, which is a common level of dissatisfaction for this
study. For example, figure 4.3 in Chapter 4, the Findings chapter, gives a breakout of
dissatisfaction ratios by ethnic group and years in unit which shows 2 to be a typical
level of dissatisfaction among the surveyed faculty.

Quantitative Findings
I began this study with two hypotheses which I discussed in Chapter 1 and
substantiated in Chapter 2. In Chapter 3,1 provided methodological rationales for them,
and in this chapter I lay out the results that spring from the analyses also discussed in
Chapter 3.
Hypothesis one: A gap exists between faculty values of service categories and
their perception of dean/department values, on at least some of the CU campuses.
Hypothesis two:
a) A positive correlation exists between years in a unit and the value of service to
the department, constituency, university or system.
b) A negative correlation exists between years in unit and value placed on
participating in conferences, mentoring or public service.
Second tier research questions:
1. Do correlations exist between the demographic variables and the values placed
on categories in questions eight and nine in the survey?
2. Do ethnic groups differ significantly in their dissatisfaction ratios when
compared by years in unit?
Value Gaps t-test
To test the first hypothesis, a t-test was performed which compared the
personal values that faculty gave for each of the several service categories and the
values that they perceived were held by their departments. In other words, the results
of Question 8 were compared with the results of Question 9. The means for these values
are shown in the Mean column of tables 4.1- 4.5. The N value indicates the number of
faculty who responded to these questions at a particular campus.

Table 4.1
UC Boulder: paired samples statistics and t-testfor questions 8 and 9.
Std. Std. Err Sig. (2-
UCB Q8 and Q9 category Mean N Dev Mean t df tailed)
Pair 1 Q8a Service to profession 7.48 291 2.070 0.121 7.83 290 0.000
Q9a Service to profession 6.25 291 2.442 0.143
Pair 2 Q8b Acad or prof com m ittee 6.92 289 2.000 0.118 6.16 288 0.000
Q9b Academic or professional committee 6.02 289 2.281 0.134
Pair 3 Q8c Service to dept constituents, Univ, or system 7.20 290 1.933 0.114 5.78 289 0.000
Q9c Service to dept constituency, univ, or system 6.36 290 2.231 0.131
Pair 4 Q8d faculty governance 5.58 285 2.378 0.141 4.62 284 0.000
Q9d Faculty governance 4.82 285 2.324 0.138
Pair 5 Q8e Conferences 6.91 290 2.345 0.138 8.29 289 0.000
Q9e Conferences 5.63 290 2.550 0.150
Pair 6 Q8f Mentor 7.79 286 1.984 0.117 13.73 285 0.000
Q9f Mentor 5.77 286 2.417 0.143
Pair 7 Q8g Public Servce 6.13 285 2.407 0.143 11.66 284 0.000
Q9g Public Service 4.23 285 2.337 0.138
Pair 8 Q8h Honors and awards 6.06 280 2.282 0.136 -1.57 279 0.117
Q9h Honors and awards 6.30 280 2.343 0.140
Table 4.2
UC Colorado Springs: paired samples statistics and t-testfor questions 8 & 9.
Std. Std.
Deviati Error Sig.(2-
UCCS Q8 and Q9 category Mean N on Mean t df tailed)
Pair 1 Q8a Service to profession 7.77 70 1.972 0.236 4.06 69 0.000
Q9a Service to profession 6.60 70 2.318 0.277
Pair 2 Q8b Acad or prof com m ittee 7.48 69 1.868 0.225 3.19 68 0.002
Q9b Academic or professional committee 6.54 69 2.541 0.306
Pair 3 Q8c Service to dept, constituents, Univ, or system 7.74 69 1.915 0.231 1.89 68 0.063
Q9c Service to dept constituency, univ, or system 7.32 69 2.118 0.255
Pair 4 Q8d faculty governance 6.30 69 2.692 0.324 2.20 68 0.031
Q9d Faculty governance 5.51 69 2.368 0.285
Pair 5 Q8e Conferences 7.17 69 2.135 0.257 3.80 68 0.000
Q9e Conferences 6.06 69 2.319 0.279
Pair 6 Q8f Mentor 8.12 69 1.623 0.195 6.41 68 0.000
Q9f Mentor 6.52 69 2.429 0.292
Pair 7 Q8g Public Service 6.71 68 2.292 0.278 4.46 67 0.000
Q9g Public Service 5.54 68 2.275 0.276
Pair 8 Q8h Honors and awards 5.45 69 2.494 0.300 -0.89 68 0.376
Q9h Honors and awards 5.72 69 2.406 0.290

Table 4.3
UCD Anschutz: paired samples statistics and t-test for questions 8 and 9.
Std. Std.
Deviati Error Sig. (2-
UCD AnschutzQ8 and Q9 category Mean N on Mean t df tailed)
Pair 1 Q8a Service to profession 8.09 206 1.770 0.123 9.12 205 0.000
Q9a Service to profession 6.54 206 2.366 0.165
Pair 2 Q8b Acad or prof committee 7.06 206 2.074 0.145 4.32 205 0.000
Q9b Academic or professional committee 6.38 206 2.167 0.151
Pair 3 Q8c Service to dept, constituents, Univ, or system 7.20 206 2.050 0.143 2.95 205 0.004
Q9c Service to dept, constituency, univ, or system 6.67 206 2.280 0.159
Pair 4 Q8d faculty governance 5.34 200 2.280 0.161 1.52 199 0.129
Q9d Faculty governance 5.05 200 2.426 0.172
Pair 5 Q8e Conferences 7.24 205 2.130 0.149 8.48 204 0.000
Q9e Conferences 5.78 205 2.397 0.167
Pair 6 Q8f Mentor 8.35 207 1.697 0.118 10.88 206 0.000
Q9f Mentor 6.56 207 2.443 0.170
Pair 7 Q8g Public Service 6.79 203 2.101 0.147 12.65 202 0.000
Q9g Public Service 4.50 203 2.458 0.173
Pair 8 Q8h Honors and awards 6.14 200 2.281 0.161 0.12 199 0.908
Q9h Honors and awards 6.12 200 2.224 0.157
Table 4.4
UCD Auraria: paired samples statistics and t-test for questions 8 and 9.
Std. Std.
Deviati Error Sig.(2-
UCD Auraria Q8 and Q9 category Mean N on Mean t df tailed)
Pair 1 Q8a Service to profession 7.42 159 2.075 0.165 6.99 158 0.000
Q9a Service to profession 5.89 159 2.332 0.185
Pair 2 Q8b Acad or prof committee 6.81 160 2.019 0.160 4.06 159 0.000
Q9b Academic or professional committee 5.98 160 2.178 0.172
Pair 3 Q8c Service to dept, constituents, Univ, or system 7.57 159 1.777 0.141 3.47 158 0.001
Q9c Service to dept, constituency, univ, or system 6.89 159 2.264 0.180
Pair 4 Q8d faculty governance 5.99 157 2.370 0.189 2.15 156 0.033
Q9d Faculty governance 5.50 157 2.500 0.200
Pair 5 Q8e Conferences 7.01 159 2.243 0.178 5.66 158 0.000
Q9e Conferences 5.77 159 2.634 0.209
Pair 6 Q8f Mentor 8.18 159 1.587 0.126 11.27 158 0.000
Q9f Mentor 5.92 159 2.348 0.186
Pair 7 Q8g Public Service 6.61 158 2.332 0.185 8.22 157 0.000
Q9g Public Service 4.69 158 2.496 0.199
Pair 8 Q8h Honors and awards 6.05 154 2.247 0.181 -0.06 153 0.952
Q9h Honors and awards 6.06 154 2.542 0.205

Table 4.5
UCD 9th Avenue: paired samples statistics and t-testfor questions 8 and 9.
Std. Std.
Deviati Error Sig.(2-
UCD 9th A\enue Q8 and Q9 category Mean N on Mean t df tailed)
Pair 1 Q8a Service to profession 7.59 56 2.007 0.268 2.47 55 0.017
Q9a Service to profession 6.75 56 2.337 0.312
Pair 2 Q8b Acad or prof committee 6.61 56 1.885 0.252 0.57 55 0.570
Q9b Academic or professional committee 6.43 56 2.139 0.286
Pair 3 Q8c Service to dept, constituents, Univ, or system 6.45 56 1.953 0.261 0.57 55 0.572
Q9c Service to dept, constituency, univ, or system 6.29 56 2.492 0.333
Pair 4 Q8d faculty governance 4.74 54 1.803 0.245 -0.24 53 0.810
Q9d Faculty governance 4.81 54 2.190 0.298
Pair 5 Q8e Conferences 7.00 55 2.194 0.296 4.24 54 0.000
Q9e Conferences 5.69 55 2.552 0.344
Pair 6 Q8f Mentor 8.15 55 1.919 0.259 5.32 54 0.000
Q9f Mentor 6.24 55 2.396 0.323
Pair 7 Q8g Public Service 6.46 54 1.959 0.267 5.47 53 0.000
Q9g Public Service 4.67 54 2.265 0.308
Pair 8 Q8h Honors and awards 5.63 54 2.131 0.290 -0.97 53 0.335
Q9h Honors and awards 5.94 54 2.285 0.311
Tables 4.1- 4.5 also provide the paired t values, degrees of freedom, and p
values for each of the UC campuses. The t-test shows that for most campuses, a gap
exists between faculty values and the perceived values that their departments place on
most service categories. For example, in Table 4.1, because the t values are positive for
all but the last category, they indicate that faculty places a higher value on these
categories than the perceived values of their departments, except for the last one,
Honors and Awards; this is the most common exception to this rule at the UC campuses.
It is worth noting that this is the one category that cannot be chosen or volunteered for.
UCB (Boulder campus) showed the greatest consistent service gap with p < .001
in every category. UCD (Denver) Auraria was next to UCB in having gaps for every
category with at p < .05 in all categories and p < .001 in most categories. UCCS (Colorado
Springs) and UCD Anschutz were next in line in gap consistency as service to department,
constituency, university, and/or system was not found to have a statistically significant

service gap at UCCS and UCD Anschutz was not found to have a statistically significant
service gap in faculty governance. UCD 9th Avenue had the least amount of service
category gaps as can be observed in Table 4.5. By these findings, the first hypothesis
could not be rejected.
Multiple Regression to Predict Faculty Personal Values
The original findings which indicated that an inverse relationship might be found
between time in unit and faculty personal value for at least some of the service
categories can best be shown by the bar chart in Figure 4.1.
UCB: Personal value by years in unit of public service
from 1 (not valued) to 10 (highly valued)
i 8% 7% 10%
13% 8% 9%
|% 11% 9%
11% 6% 8%
10% 10% 7%
* 7
Figure 4.1: Personal value by years in unit of Public Service at UC Boulder.
In Figure 4.1, the colors indicate the level of personal value that the faculty
assigned to the category of public service. The percentages indicate the portion of the
entire sample of faculty who chose a particular level. A level of 1 indicates the lowest
level of value, whereas a level of 10 represents the highest value level. What I observed
on the above chart prior to beginning this study was a progression of most colors from
the bottom of the chart (junior faculty) to the top of the chart (senior faculty) that

advances to the right. This gave me the impression that (at Boulder and Auraria
campuses, for example) as faculty were more senior, they had less interest in public
service. In fact, at a low level, this turned out to be the case, but at the time, the chart
seemed to indicate a stronger correlation, and so the second hypothesis came into
being. This pattern was almost identical at the Denver Auraria campus, and was not
present or not nearly so pronounced at the other campuses. For instance, contrasting
Figure 4.1 with Figure 4.2 from the Colorado Springs (UCCS) campus, we can see that
this same color progression does not exist on Figure 4.2, giving us the indication that a
different dynamic with regard to faculty public service was in play at the UCCS campus.
UCCS: Personal value by years in unit of public service
from 1 (not valued) to 10 (highly valued)

19% 6% 19% 16% 11%
9% 5%1
10% 10% 24% 10% 14%
14% 18% 9% 14% 18% 9%
40% 60%
80% 100%
IK 5* 14% 29% 19% 19% 10%
i ! : !
Figure 4.2: Personal value by years in unit of Public Service at UCCS
So to test the second hypothesis, multiple regressions were calculated in SPSS
(SPSS, 2006) to determine the best linear combination of faculty personal values for the
various service categories with time in unit and faculty status at the various campuses.

However, after a number of regressions were run, I determined that the effects were
insufficient to warrant publishing the results of all these regressions. Instead, to
represent these regressions, I decided to present just on one of them. Even this one had
only a small effect size (Cohen, 1988), but it had the largest effect among the
regressions that were run. An effect size is the strength of the relationship between the
independent variable and the dependent variable (Cohen). An R2 value is the
"proportion of variance in the dependent variable that is explained by the combined
influence of the independent variables" (Leech et al., 2008, p. 89).
That is, a multiple regression was run with the UC Boulder campus data to
determine the best linear combination of faculty personal values for the public service
category with time in unit and faculty tenure status. Assumptions of linearity, normally
distributed errors, and uncorrelated errors were checked and met by means of
examining correlation plots of all variables in the model and examining scatterplots of
regression residuals vs. predicted value. The means, standard deviations, and the
intercorrelations can be found in in Table 4.6. This combination of variables significantly
predicted faculty personal values for public service, F(2, 282) = 12.81, p < .001, with both
variables significantly contributing to the prediction. The F-ratio is the sum of the
observed squared deviations from the mean divided by the degrees of freedom (sample
size number of independent variables) and then divided by the sum of the squared
residual (or error) deviations (George & Mallery, 2003). The beta values, presented in
Table 4.7, suggest that faculty non tenure contributes the most to predicting faculty
personal values for public service, and that time in unit, with an inverse relationship,
also contributes to this prediction. Table 4.7 also shows the R2 value to be only .083,
however, which indicated that only about 8% of the variance in faculty personal values
for public service was explained by the model. According to Cohen (1988), this is a small
effect and not a medium or large effect as I might have expected from observing the
data in Figure 4.1.

Table 4.6
Means, std deviations, and correlations for Public Service and predictor values (N = 285).
Variable M SD 1 2
Q9g Public Service 4.22 2.337 .259** -0.182*

1. faculty non tenure 0.26 0.437 - -0.226
2. time in unit 12.12 9.582 -- -

*p < .05; **p<.01
Table 4.7
Simultaneous multiple regression analysis summary for faculty non tenure and time in
unit predicting Public Service (N = 285).
Variable B Std Error B 3
faculty non tenure 1.227 0.312 0.230**
time in unit -0.032 0.014 -0.130*
constant 4.286 0.245 -
Note. R2 = .083; F(2, 282) = 12.806, p = .001 *p < .05; **p < .01
Correlations Between Service Values and Other Variables
A Pearson correlation (George & Mallery, 2003), which is a simple correlation
between two variables that ranges from -1.0 to 1.0, was run to determine whether
significant correlations exist between demographic faculty variables and expressed
personal service values and department perceived values. Table 4.8 shows low
correlations for a number of variable/value pairs. They generally fall into the range of a
medium effect according to Cohen (1988), with about 5 to 10% of the variance
explained by any given relationship. The cutoff for consideration in this table is a
positive or negative correlation of .200 or more. This level was chosen because it is the
lower limit of the medium range of the effect sizes for correlations (Cohen, 1988;
Morgan, Leech, Gloeckner, 8i Barrett, 2004). The first row in Table 4.8 shows that time in
unit was found to have a negative correlation of -.233 with the faculty personal value for
the Conferences category. The double asterisks indicate that the correlation was

significant at a 99% confidence level, just as the single asterisk in the next row indicates
significance at a 95% confidence level. Another interesting correlation (at .297) is that
women value mentoring more than men at the UCCS campus. A similar result is shown
in figure 4.5 later in this section for all campuses. Also, the higher the salary the more
that faculty perceive that their department values faculty governance, with a correlation
of .286.
Table 4.8
Correlations of faculty demographics with personal and perceived values
variable related to correlation campus indication
Q30timeinunit Q8eConferences -.233(**) UCB The more time in unit, the lowerthey value conferences
Q29salarycat Q8c Service to dept, constituents. -,260(*) UCCS The higher the salary, the more they value service to dept, constituents
Q3facultyoradm Q8c Service to UCCS Admin values service to dept, constituents,
in dept, constituents. .278(*) higher than faculty
gender Q8dfacultygoverna nee -.2470 UCCS women value faculty governance more than men
gender Q8f Mentor -.297(*) UCCS women value mentoring more than men (9% variance explained)
gender Q8dfacultygoverna nee -.209(0 UCDD women value faculty governance more than men
nontenure track Q9gPublicService 0.259(0 UCB The non tenure track value public service more than tenure track (7% var explained)
Q32time in Q9c Service to UCCS The more time in higher ed, the higher faculty perceive depts value service to
higher ed dept, constituents. -.2470 dept, constituents
Q29salarycat Q9dFacultygoverna nee .2860 UCD9 The higher the salary, the more faculty perceive that dept thinks fac gov important (8% var explained)
Qlfacultyrank Q9d Facul tygove rna nee .263(0 UCDA The lower the rank, the more faculty perceive that dept thinks fac gov important
** correlation is significant at the .01 level; correlation is significant at the .05 level

Correlations Between Service Value Ratios (Dissatisfaction Ratios) and Other Variables
A Pearson correlation was also run to determine whether significant correlations
exist between demographic faculty variables and the dissatisfaction ratio, or the ratio
between personal service values and department perceived values. Table 4.9 shows low
correlations for a number of variable/value pairs. Similar to the previous correlation set,
they generally fall into the range of a small effect according to Cohen (1988), with only
about 5 to 10% of the variance explained by any given relationship. The same cutoff
value of .200 was used. An example of these findings is the first row, which indicates
that lower-paid faculty on the average value the conference service category higher
than do higher-paid faculty. One interesting contrast between campuses is that at UCCS,
the higher the salary, the more dissatisfied the faculty are with the department honor
and awards; while at UCD9, the opposite is true. The highest correlation (-3.42) from
Tables 4.11 and 4.12 is found in the third row. That is, the lower the salary at UCD9, the
more dissatisfied they are with the perceived honors and awards department value.
Table 4.9
Correlations of faculty demographics with dissatisfaction ratios
variable related to correlation campus indication
Rat9h Honors and UCCS the higher thesalary, the more dissatisfied
salarycat awards .299(*) UCCS with honors and awards dept value the higher thesalary, the more dissatisfied
salary cat Rat9f Mentor Rat9h Honors and -243(*) with mentoring dept value

awards UCD9 The lower the salary, the more dissatisfied
salary cat Rat9b Academic or professional committee -,342(*) UCD9 with honors and awards dept value The lower the salary, the more dissatisfied with Academic or professional committee
sal arycat -.314(*) UCDA dept value The higher the faculty rank, the more dissatisfied with faculty governance dept

Rat9d Faculty
Qlfacultyrank governance Rat9a Service to -,230(**) value
profession UCDD the higher thesalary, the more dissatisfied
sal ary cat ,212(**) with Service to profession dept value
** correlation is significant at the .01 level; correlation is significant at the .05 level

Dissatisfaction Ratio by Ethnic Group and Years in Unit
An important question for our study is: Do ethnic groups differ significantly in
their dissatisfaction ratios when compared by years in unit? Figure 4.3 shows the
dissatisfaction ratio of participants by ethnicity. Unfortunately, because of the minimal
numbers of ethnic groups both at the university and in this sample, we cannot make any
claims that stand the test of statistical significance. However, the sample data that we
have gives an indication that a greater amount of data points might yield a statistically
significant difference in ethnic groups. For example, the contrast between Asians and
Latinos is worth noting. Whereas those in the Asian senior faculty range (10+ years)
seem to be much more dissatisfied with department service ratings, the Latino senior
faculty seems to report relative satisfaction, compared not only to the Asian senior
faculty, but also compared to the midrange Latino faculty, who apparently have the
highest level of dissatisfaction on this chart.
Average Dissatification with vaiue/dept value ratio
for Public Service by ethnic group and years in unit
4-9 Years
10- years
African Amer
Figure 4.3: Average Dissatisfaction ratios by ethnic group and years in unit.

Dissatisfaction Ratio by Campus and by Gender
The dissatisfaction ratios by campus shown in Figure 4.4 highlight the categories
of faculty service where the most dissatisfaction is present. For all campuses except CU
at Colorado Springs, public service has the highest dissatisfaction ratios. Mentoring,
service to profession, and conferences were other categories that stood out with high
dissatisfaction ratios. It is interesting to note here that the mentoring category
represents a significant difference between male and female faculty, with women
apparently valuing mentoring somewhat more than men, and at a statistically significant
level of p > .001.
Serviceto Acador Serviceto Faculty Conferences Mentoring Public Honorsand
profession professional dept, const, governance service awards
committee univ, or
UC Den
UC Den
UC Den
9th & CO
Figure 4.4: Dissatisfaction ratios for all categories by campus

Because female faculty tend to rate all categories across the board higher than
male faculty do, it might be easy to fall into the trap of thinking that women value a
certain category higher than men do at a given campus. For this reason, using the
dissatisfaction ratio rather than an absolute value rating provides a much more accurate
comparison of values between male and female faculty. In fact, Figure 4.5 indicates that
there is no significant difference between male and female faculty dissatisfaction for any
of the service categories except for mentoring.
Serviceto Acad or Service to Faculty Conferences Mentoring Publicservice Honors and
profession professional dept, const, governance awards
committee univ, or system
Figure 4.5: Dissatisfaction ratios for all categories by gender
Qualitative Findings
Question 12 from the 2008 Faculty Survey asks, If you could make any change in
how service is evaluated in your unit or your university, what would you change? Table
4.10 shows the breakout of faculty that gave answers within certain categories. Out of
832 faculty who took the survey, 616 (74%) answered this question. Only 8% indicated
that no changes were needed. The vast majority, about 89%, felt that some change in
the evaluation of faculty service was appropriate. One of the highest populated

categories was the number (45, 7.3%) who specifically asked that their department
would measure service more accurately, perhaps using a point or merit system; and that
service policies should be more equitable. Here are a few answers from this category:
a) Give merit points based on level of serviceexpected, exceeds
expectations, outstanding.
b) Appoint an internal committee to evaluate the relative merits of faculty
service contributions, and especially to evaluate how much is applied work.
c) Have in writing the exact numeric or relative values of service, and/or
teaching, to the organization; neither has ever been emphasized or pointed
out to me; hence despite my interest, I put my efforts elsewhere.
d) Service should be evaluated my measurable outcomes, not simply presence
and participation. Recognition should be related to the degree of
responsibility taken on and the explicit accomplishments achieved. We
need measures of effectiveness, like those used to evaluate administrative
A similar group (28,4.5%) felt that their departments should clarify service
expectations. They were asking that the categories of service be clarified as to what is
acceptable service or what value each service has.
Another high category was that specific categories of service should be given
more value. The highest categories in this group were public service (85,13.8%), service
to profession, including service at the national level and professional development (48,
7.8%), and mentoring (47, 7.6%). A few answers from this category follow can be found
below. The first one may also be seen as support for Boyer's model:
a) Eliminate the value-laden distinction between Research, Teaching, and
Service; treat the record, instead, as a single integrated profile that a scholar
is building in coordination with specific intellectual and civic goals. Recognize
intellectually-minded public service as a scholarly pursuit, of equal value to
this university as teaching and research.
b) Public service as a professional would take center stage.
c) Greater priority placed on mentoring of student or other faculty. Right now I
feel like thats being squeezed out by demands to serve on committees for
consolidation, strategic planning, policy writing, etc.

d) Greater emphasis/value placed on public service and faculty professional
A number of faculty felt that the weight or value of service whether concerning
promotion and tenure, rewards, recognition, funding, or service types was unbalanced
in one direction or another. The largest group (112,18.2%) specifically stated that
service should be given more weight in promotion and tenure, rewards, and recognition.
A similar group specifically asked for a greater value to be given to service (47, 7.6%).
Some reviewers might want to combine these groups because of their similar nature
(159, 25.8%). A small group (16, 2.6%) felt that their departments should stop evaluating
service or make it worth less; or make teaching or research more important. A few
answers from these two categories follow:
a) Service should be compensated better. It is values in merit but the % is
low and the numeric difference in merit rating between someone who
does lots of service and someone who does very little is not great. Good
service can also affect the time you can spend on other activities. Usually
research suffers and that is valued more in the merit process.
b) I would like to see service more closely related to merit considerations. I
believe there are some members of my faculty who provide very little
service because there is no compensation for it, or at least quite minimal
c) Make sure we get credit it for it in evaluation processes. Service is now
the least important factor by a long way. Also in promotions after
Muth, Krebs, and Snead (2008) did a qualitative analysis of question 12 and other
qualitative questions. Question 12 is broken down in more detail in Table 4.10 as specific
support for hypothesis one, which concerns the value gap. However, the analysis of the other
qualitative questions that they performed also support the need for service reform at CU.
Specifically, analyses of questions 16 and 17 also shed light on problems with faculty service
evaluations. For example, they found that about 61% of the comments in question 17
identified problems with the current evaluation system (Muth et al., 2008).

Table 4.10
Categories of responses to question
category count %of 616 who answered Q12
Evaluation OK or no specific changes recommended
Service evaluations are going well; no changes needed 49 8.0%
Evaluation is OK, but some service modifications needed 1 0.2%
Do Not Know or Not Applicable 18 2.9%
Evaluation process needs to be refined, e.g. point system or contract
Clarify expectations; clarify what is acceptable service or what value the categories of service have 28 4.5%
Evaluations should be done by those who understand service 5 0.8%
Service agreement should be done by contract; system is currently not clear 8 1.3%
Measure service more accurately, like point or merit system; service policies should be more fair 45 7.3%
Service is valued adequately on the departmental level AS LONG AS the faculty member does a good job of explaining that service on the FRPA 1 0.2%
A specific category of service should be given more value
conference 9 1.5%
committees 13 2.1%
paid public service 4 0.6%
administrative support 1 0.2%
to community; public service 85 13.8%
faculty governance 6 1.0%
service to profession; service to the national level; including professional development 48 7.8%
mentoring 47 7.6%
department, constituency, university, or system, including grant acquisition 24 3.9%
honors and rewards 3 0.5%
A specific category of service should be given less value
Reduce the size and number of committees or committee requirements 9 1.5%
less faculty governance 1 0.2%
Junior/senior faculty role needs revision
Junior faculty role not clear 2 0.3%
Junior Faculty (wrongly) asked to not be involved in service 2 0.3%
Junior Faculty should not be involved in service; or involved less 4 0.6%
Awards and rewards should not all be aimed at tenure track faculty 1 0.2%
Change amount of service or who does service
Too much service is bureaucratic; or offload to staff 6 1.0%
Make service part of the adjunct contract 1 0.2%
Too many forms/regulations/documents to process 1 0.2%
Make service % flexible or increase % 20 3.2%
decrease service requirement to less than 20% 1 0.2%

[Table 4.10 Continued]
category count % of 616 who answered Q12
Service general weight or value (promotion & tenure, rewards, recognition, funding, service types) is unbalanced
Help pay for service 1 0.2%
service should be given more weight in promotion & tenure & rewards & recognition 112 18.2%
Department needs a general service revamp 4 0.6%
More value and/or more time should be given to service include counting in workload 47 7.6%
Too many service responsibilities; or keep %20; or increase faculty; don't pile service on top of research and teaching that 22 3.6%
Recognize a broader range of service activities; or limit to select services 27 4.4%
department is great; university does not value service or needs revamp 3 0.5%
Service workload should be shared better among faculty 17 2.8%
Count chair as service 2 0.3%
Get rid of the facade that service has any real value, particularly with respect to promotions 2 0.3%
service for tenured vs. service for non-tenured 1 0.2%
Better recognition of non-Physician contributions 1 0.2%
promote professional activities in their disciplines 1 0.2%
Definition of what service is needs to be reconsidered
Calling for Boyer's scholarship: e.g. Consider sponsored research and fund-raising to be service 14 2.3%
Narrow the definition of service; i.e. not research 1 0.2%
Service held to the same standards as research and teaching 1 0.2%
recognition of teaching as a valuable service 1 0.2%
Dean capability towards service is mentioned
Dean leadership needs to be changed or attitudes changed or Dean should learn more about service 4 0.6%
Dean should stay out of the process. 1 0.2%
Dean values service, but faculty members do not 1 0.2%
Stop evaluating service or make it worth less; or make teaching or research more important 16 2.6%
Off load teaching credit for academic studies 1 0.2%
Equity would count for more. 1 0.2%

Conclusions, Recommendations, Limitations, and Future Study
In this chapter, I draw conclusions from the findings in Chapter 4 that are
related to the research questions, especially as the findings are supported by the
literature review of Chapter 2. Second, I give recommendations for rebuilding the public
trust according to ideas that have been developed in some American universities. Next, I
discuss the limitations that need to be considered when interpreting the findings of
Chapter 4. Finally, I make suggestions for future studies that go beyond the research
that was done for this dissertation.
This section examines lessons that have been learned from the analysis of the
four research questions. It then lists the ideas from the Literature Review that were
most meaningful to me in my research.
Lessons from Research Question Analyses
The research questions investigated by this study included the following:
1. Do significant differences exist between how they value service and how
their departments and deans value service?
2. Do faculty change their values of faculty service over time ?
3. Do correlations exist between the demographic variables and the values
placed on categories in questions eight and nine in the survey?
4. Do ethnic groups differ in their dissatisfaction ratios when compared by
years in unit?
Research question one. In the Methodological Design section, I stated that a
"dissatisfaction ratio" was created by dividing the personal value of a service category

by the perceived department value of the same service category. But how do we know
that there is any dissatisfaction represented by this ratio? First of all, it stands to reason
that when there is a difference of opinion concerning the value of something that is
important, something that is valued by a faculty member, a certain amount of unrest or
dissatisfaction exists in the system. But more decidedly, by triangulating the
dissatisfaction ratio data with the qualitative data from question 12,1 found that the
faculty comments concerning how service is evaluated as shown in table 4.12 provides a
certainty that faculty are asking for changes in the system. This is especially true when
faculty feel that their service goes unrecognized and unrewarded. About 89% of those
who answered question 12, "If you could make any change in how service is evaluated in
your unit or your university, what would you change?" indicated that there are
significant changes needed in order to create a fair system of service evaluation.
So the results of analyzing data to answer the first research question did show
that a large gap exists between faculty service values for most categories of service on
most campuses. For example, a faculty member might have valued public service to the
profession highly, with a value of eight out often, but believed at the time that the
department only valued it at a four out of ten. It is important to note how such
discrepancies might reduce the time spent by faculty in professional service. I have listed
in Chapter 2 some of the cognitive functions that may lead them to change their
behavior or their attitudes toward a particular category of service.
As I have previously stated in this report, the service gap blunts the university's
mission, creates internal dissension, and ultimately produces a bland conformity which
diminishes the university's mission (Muth et al., 2009). It is my recommendation that a
University task force be appointed to study how this gap can be resolved. Included in
this effort should be an emphasis on how service can be fairly evaluated. O'Meara
formulated a set of criteria to assess service and service as scholarship including a) a
reflective essay by the faculty who is performing the service showing how they used
their professional and academic expertise and how this resulted in changes to the better
in the service environment; b) peer reviewers, assessing the quality of the service work;

c) the impact or effectiveness of this service activity as reflected by changes in policies
or processes; d) dissemination of the findings of this work to all shareholders in the
service effort; e) originality of the work; and f) the benefit by way of connection to
teaching and research (2002). These criteria could be a starting point for designing a
faculty service evaluation system that would go a long way toward bridging the faculty
service gap.
While service certainly needs to be examined with its own focus as O'Meara
suggests, Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff had a unified assessment standard that could be
used in combination with a service-specific assessment. They suggested that all
professional engagement activities could use the same criteria for assessing the work
performed, whether it be published articles, mentoring, teaching, or public service.
These criteria are: "clear goals, adequate preparation, appropriate methods, significant
results, effective presentation, and reflective critique" (1997, p. 25).
I mentioned earlier that for all campuses except CU at Colorado Springs, public
service is apparently the most underappreciated service. This becomes especially
interesting when we see it against the backdrop of the "ivory tower" perception that
was discussed earlier. By this data, we could infer that faculty are strongly questioning
the university's commitment to the community around the Denver Metro area. And
there is apparently a high level of frustration because the activities that faculty are doing
or would like to be doing are apparently not being honored by their departments. An
evaluation approach that clearly includes the value of the scholarship of service, and
successfully integrates teaching, research, and service enhances faculty morale, and
engenders an atmosphere of faculty confidence in a university. As, such, this can
minimize confusion, and maximize a spirit of trust associated with the evaluation of
faculty teaching, research and service activities (Brazeau, 2003).
Research question two. The results of analyzing data to answer the second
research question did not show a great deal of correlation between time in unit and
faculty dissatisfaction with the service gap. Although there was some statistical

significance for some campuses, not enough variance was explained by this correlation
to merit a strong statement on how either cognitive dissonance or faculty retention is
affected by this gap, when entire campuses were taken as a whole. We have seen some
evidence in the literature, however, that general differences exist in the contributions
that are made by senior and junior faculty members. For example, with the passage of
time faculty are more likely to serve on college and university-wide elected committees
and are more likely to contribute to their chosen professional societies (Cutcliffe, 2006).
With that said about the general CU faculty, some interesting results were found
when ethnicity data were compared with the dissatisfaction ratio and time in service.
Because of the small relative number of Latinos and African Americans in the study
sample and the university population, it could not be determined at a statistically
significant level whether this correlation was significant. However, the data and the
graphs suggest that there may be a significant difference in how Latino professors
process the service value gap compared to other ethnicities. With that assumption, and
against the backdrop of our cognitive dissonance framework, one might speculate that
Latinos are more likely to change their personal service values to match the perceived
department values, thereby eliminating the cognitive dissonance that might otherwise
be present. Or perhaps, those who stay at the university ten or more years are more
likely to be those who agree with the service values of their departments.
Research question three. Although this question was not one of the primary
research questions, the correlations that were uncovered by the question three analyses
could be useful for future studies. For example, the data indicates that women are more
dissatisfied with mentoring department values than men are, especially at the UCCS
campus, but also to a significant degree at all campuses. If CU truly values diversity by
gender, perhaps the administration needs to explore this issue and develop a sensitivity
to this difference. Another finding indicates that a marked difference occurs between
the UCCS campus and the UCD9 campus concerning salary and honors and awards.
When such a striking contrast exists, would it not be expedient for the CU administration

to explore this issue to find out why an opposite correlation exists at these two
Research question four. The discussion of how ethnic groups differ may differ in
their dissatisfaction ratios when compared by years in unit is not discussed in this
section, but rather in the Limitations and Future Study section.
Lessons from the Literature Review
Here I am listing the ideas that were most meaningful to me in my research. The
following discoveries were made by searching the literature concerning the frameworks
for this study, the history of faculty service in the American university, and recent trends
in faculty service:
1. The power of reification as a focusing agent for faculty service policies can
be a danger as well as a positive force. Although a university or a
department may have a written policy for how service categories are valued
and how they are considered in tenure reviews, faculty committees may or
may not follow the spirit of those policies (Wenger, 1998).
2. Boyer's model provides an excellent way for both faculty and administration
to view the service gap. If they would each have the perspective that the
components of research, teaching, and service can work together as
scholarship, they might find that the whole is greater than the sum of the
component parts (Boyer, 1990; Boyer, 1996).
3. In agreement with self-affirmation theory, faculty may be substituting
research, teaching, and internal service for external (public) service to
resolve cognitive dissonance (Aronson et al., 1995; Higgins, 1989; Steele &
Liu, 1983; Stone & Cooper, 2001).
4. From the outside, the Wisconsin Idea looks like a unified effort that
everyone in Madison agrees with. In reality, there has been a political
struggle throughout the history of the University of Wisconsina wrestling

match between centralized and decentralized factions, much like America's
national politics has been since the Revolutionary War (Bower, 2002).
5. The emphasis on research has led to an ivory tower perception in the minds
of many, which may be one of the main causes for lack of support for
universities among the surrounding communities. The irony is that the
presence of dollars from the few supporting industries or from certain
federal research grants may be indirectly causing a lack of funding from
other sources (Boyer, 1990; Ward, 2003).
6. Tenured professors may have the best vantage point to be "society's scouts,
but some like Derek Bok (1990) say that they do not normally discover
society's emerging issues and look for ways to solve them.
7. Although I started this study with the idea to focus on CU faculty service
issues alone, the literature revealed that many universities in the U.S. have
been wrestling with this issue at least from the time of World War II. Also, a
strong "inertia" exists which perpetuates the service gap over the years so
that many faculty feel powerless to change the way service is often treated
as an unappreciated activity (Boyer, 1990; Fairweather, 1996; Ward, 2003).
Rebuilding the Public Trust
In Chapter 2,1 discussed how universities have gradually lost favor with many in the
community, because they appear aloof from the community's daily concerns. In this section, I
discuss some of the ways that universities are throwing off the shadow of the ivory tower and
rebuilding their university model to one that includes significant contributions to society. I
examine the college president's role, especially as it relates to partnering with the local
community and responding to their needs. Finally, I suggest changes for CU that can follow
this vital trend of rebuilding the public trust.

Identifying Changes in Faculty Service
Despite the shadow of the "ivory tower" perception that I discussed in Chapter 2
and the service problems at CU that are uncovered by this study, recent changes have
impacted the American university for the better (Harkavy, 1999; Ward, 2003). Now, a
greater trend exists toward being reflective about what it means to be a citizen, a
contributing member of society, and a good neighbor. Some show evidence that higher
education is in the midst of reacting to and hopefully recovering from public criticism of
waste and isolation (Ward, 2003; O'Meara, 2002). I examine below some ways in which
colleges have been reaching toward more and better public service and how others see
that process improving.
Brazeau (2003) reported that the forces and progress barriers reported in the
O'Meara study mentioned earlier were not unique to these colleges but are rather
widespread across universities. In many cases, though, the universities have overcome
their hindrances to effective scholarly engagement. For example, Lunsford, Church, and
Zimmerman (2006, as cited by Sandmann, 2007) reported that Michigan State University
has developed a framework that identifies and supports scholarly engagement. They
said that a healthy perspective on faculty service was beginning to be shared by both
faculty and administration. And this came just a year after it was reported that faculty
service activities at Michigan State were given a low priority, and university level service
was given a lower priority than college and departmental service obligations
(McDonough, 2005). Another study reports that "Universities can systematically address
the demands for more social engagement only by exploring new reward and
administrative structures" (Bartel, Krasny, & Harrison, 2003, p. 89).
President's Position: Local Needs?
So how does a university bring about a healthy service perspective that is shared
by faculty and the administration? Boyer (1990) talks about the importance of the
president setting the tone of the university. He says one should ask whether the
president is leading the campus primarily toward national recognition or toward serving

local needs. Derek Bok (1990) echoes this idea when he says that professors are not
discovering the emerging issues and that presidents and deans are in the best position
to understand the needs of the community and then to garner the resources necessary
to carry out plans to meet them.
The Responsive University
As college presidents reach out to the community at large, they recognize that
partnerships work in two directions (Maurrasse, 2001), and the lines drawn between us
and them are less clearly defined if colleges and universities operate in a "framework of
engagement." The engaged campus is one where the campus as a whole takes seriously
its role as a citizen to its community and one where reciprocal relationships and
partnerships with communities are honored (Harris, 2008; Ayers, 1996, as cited in Ward,
2003). The responsive university can be a different kind of university from what is
common today. In this context, faculty relationships support planning and assessment,
and the institutions are closely connected to the public, listening and responding to
community needs. Faculty members have relationships with people in their
communities and regions which force them to grapple with new kinds of problems and
new solutions. Administrators see beyond their own campuses and have relationships
with government agencies as well as schools, libraries, corporations, and other colleges
and universities (Hanover, 2009; Harris, 2008; Keith, 1988).
Partnering With Federal Programs
Some colleges and universities have partnered with federal programs to
increase service to their communities. One available federally charted organization is
the AmeriCorps program (Kenny, 2002), long instrumental in supporting community
service. It provides funds to those involved in community service with educational
awards to support higher education, and places AmeriCorps members on campus to
develop campus involvement with communities and in communities to support their
involvement in higher education. Another important national organization, Campus

Compact (Kenny, 2002), is an organization that has assisted over a thousand universities
and involved over two million youth in worthwhile service activities. One could
speculate that these actions help to reduce the ivory-tower perception in the minds of
the public.
From Ivory Tower to a Community Bridge
Even as early as 1998, Tierney saw a shift from the heavy-on-the-research
expectations to a call to serve society through faculty service. He says that "we faculty
are told we need to do a better job of assessing our students; for example, increasingly
faculty are expected to do less of what they have come to think of as central to their
role-research-and more of what they often do not know how to do-serve the larger
society" (Tierney, 1988, p. 2). According to Ward (2003), many campuses grapple with
attempts to expand their service roles effectively while involving faculty fully in this
effort. And the success of creating a service culture for faculty is tied to institutional
support and the ability of institutions to define and reward service space (Burack, 2000,
as cited in Ward, 2003).
But for the University of Illinois at Chicago, the shift began before Tierney's 1998
exposition. The Senate Committee on Public Service surveyed the UIC faculty in 1994
and determined that faculty felt that "(a) currently only limited public service [was]
provided by members of the faculty, (b) support existed among the faculty for rewarding
public service, and (c) "academic units have an obligation to provide public service"
(Strobel, 2001, p. 7). However, faculty members could decide for themselves whether to
undertake a public service activity. The committee made several recommendations,
many of which are incorporated into a March 9, 2000 resolution proposed by the UIC
Senate Committee on Public Service and passed in an amended version. The resolution
concluded that the Senate concurred with the principle that "public service by the
faculty should be better defined, evaluated, recognized, and rewarded at UIC" (p. 7).
Today, a major part of the mission of UIC is to train professionals in public service

disciplines, serve the Illinois community as an educator of health science professionals,
and provide healthcare to underserved communities (UIC, 2007).
Beyond Delays at CU to a New Hope
In Chapter 1,1 mentioned a comment by the CU Advisory Committee that
attention needed to be paid to faculty service if CU as a university wanted to affect true
tenure reform. Since that day in 2006, there has been little action toward such reform
and toward discovery of the service issues, except for the 2008 Faculty Survey that this
study is based on. Some of the delays may well be to changes in leadership at the top.
President Brown is gone, Vice President Poliakoff is gone, and new leadership with a
new set of agendas is now in place. So as of March of 2010, CU has not reached a
consensus concerning an agreed upon path to a fair service policy, especially as regards
recognition, evaluations, and tenure. CU as a university needs to face head on the
factors that may be delaying progress, but what is delaying that confrontation? Is the
current economy requiring a clinging to the status quo (with an overemphasis on
research) so that research dollars will save the university from having to face even more
difficult economic times? Is the current administration concerned about opening a
"Pandora's box" so that the murmuring about service inequity becomes a deafening roar
to their ears?
It is my hope that the Faculty Council and the new administration can relight the
flame of hope for new understandings in all CU departments with regard to the value of
faculty service and that progress can begin again. In practical terms, CU administration
needs to create an administrative policy statement (APS) that delineates service for
faculty. Muth said (Glasscock, 2007) "we want an APS that describes service: what roles
it is used in, how it is counted for faculty in various areas such as promotion and tenure,
what incentives or recognition and rewards the faculty do or should receive for their
service, and the expectations for faculty service at this institution" (p.l).
To sum up the need for diligence with regard to the value of faculty service, I
would like to end this section with a quote by Brazeau:

Service activities must be conducted using the same scholarly approach
being promoted to enhance teaching and research. Scholarship of service
must be based upon current knowledge in the field, critical thinking,
problem solving and data analysis and presentation of these findings or
results to the appropriate constituents. The assessment of outreach
activities requires rigor and accountability. Citizenship involves time,
responsibility and accountability to the organization and its mission and
goals. The tasks that come under this umbrella are vital and instrumental
to our schools and colleges if we are to be successful in our teaching,
research and service activities. Citizenship also requires an assessment
process that is rigorous and accountable (2003).
Limitations and Future Study
Because no direct testing of the affect of cognitive dissonance or reward
reinforcement on the faculty occurred with this study, primarily because to do it well
would require pre- and post-measures over a long period of time, which I did not have, I
have not shown a direct cause and effect relationship between cognitive dissonance or
reinforcement and the change in attitudes and values that may occur. One can only
apply a system of logic to the data to show how such changes might be affected by
cognitive dissonance or reinforcement over time. The following sections are both
limitations and areas for future study because they were not covered or only partially
covered by this paper.
Ethnicity study
It was stated that not enough faculty from non-white ethnicities were available
in this study to provide sufficient data to show whether there is a statistically significant
difference between how the various ethnicities process the service value gap as they
proceed through their careers (increase their time in unit for the purpose of this study).
Nonetheless, Figure 4.3 dramatizes the differences between Latinos and other
ethnicities, so that with a larger population, perhaps drawn from a number of
universities, such a difference might be shown to be statistically significant. Future study
is warranted if we want to study how the service value dissatisfaction ratio may affect
the different faculty ethnic groups with regard to their university perspectives, their

academic performance, their job satisfaction, and ultimately retention rates. While
designing such a study, however, one would do well to be aware of and include
questions that allow for differences in cultures as they exist within the same ethnicity
but in different decades of our nation's history. For example, perhaps African Americans
in the Sixties were exposed to a different level of community service expectation in their
formative years than they were in the Nineties. For example, the Civil Rights Movement
may have been a strong motivator for public service concerns (American Bar
Association, 2009).
Personality types study
I mentioned in Chapter 2 that Cooper's exhaustive research on cognitive
dissonance in the past 50 years (2007) did not seem to examine any differences in types
of individuals to see how much cognitive dissonance they would experience in a given
situation. So in addition to ethnic groups, I suggest that future studies might examine
differing personality types to see if they are truly affected at different levels of cognitive
dissonance as Festinger hypothesized (1957).
Service learning study
A type of university-to-community service exists which is widespread across the
country and is impacting students, teachers, and communities in a huge way, but was
not mentioned either in the 2008 faculty survey or in this report. That type of service is
service-learning. What exactly is service learning? According to Bringle & Hatcher,
Service learning is a "credit bearing, educational experience in which students
participate in an organized service activity that meets identified community needs and
reflects on the service activity in such a way as to gain further understanding of course
content, a broader appreciation of the discipline and an enhanced sense of civic
responsibility" (1995, pp. 112-120). I recommend that future faculty service research
include questions about service-learning. See Appendix F for a definition of service
learning from the Office of Community Engagement at Ripon University (2010).

Department study
One variable of data that was not collected was department. We did not collect
by department because in some cases, this would identify the individual who took the
survey. However, the literature shows that department can be a major factor that
influences value decisions. I recommend collecting department data in any future study
of this nature, but only if care is taken not to report the particular data results that
identify an individual. In doing so, one could compare the faculty perceived service
values of deans and departments with the actual reported values by deans and
department heads. In this way, one could determine to what extent and in what service
categories the service gap is real or just represents a miscommunication that could be
cleared up by better communication within departments and colleges.
Administrators in survey
Administrators who hold no faculty rank was a group for which no data were
available from the survey. I recommend that future surveys of this type be created in
such a way that this group would be included. In this way, a comparison could be made
between faculty and administration priorities and perceptions. It would be beneficial to
see how each group answered questions concerning CU policies affecting faculty service,
Leadership change
One final topic for future study could be the affect that leadership change has
on the implementation of university strategic plans. With significant changes in CU
leadership in the past few years, progress in the area of faculty service reform has not
been made as quickly as originally hoped by President Hank Brown's administration.
Such a study would examine ways in which inertia for important programs such as
faculty service reform could be maintained during an upper administration transition.
The impact of maintaining existing programs, especially those that further service to the
community, might not only give confidence and stability to the faculty, but in some

cases just might help the community to realize that a university is evolving from an ivory
tower to a community bridge builder.

Appendix A
Recommendations for Action from the 2008 CU Faculty Survey
The survey suggests that from a faculty perspective three primary issues need to
be addressed to improve service at CU: (1) clarifying what services are valued and
approved by each institution, college or school, and department such that the faculty
who provide service and those who evaluate it are in accord; (2) ensuring that such
valued and approved faculty service is appreciated, supported, and rewarded
appropriately; and (3) developing, maintaining, and regularly assessing processes that
accomplish the first two points. As part of this process, everyone involved must explicitly
determine whether and how public and community service are valued and rewarded by
1. Clarifying valued and approved services, including public and community
service. Within the guidelines developed in an Administrative Policy Statement (APS),
each primary unit should clarify and document what constitutes effective service in that
unit and specify service priorities, paying explicit attention to all of the categories of
service examined in this study. For example, such deliberations should stipulate the
types of service that constitute normal faculty service; the minimum amount and type of
service expected of all faculty; the manner of evaluating service for annual reviews,
promotion, and tenure; the criteria to be used in such evaluations; the explicit
expectations for time and quality of activities involved in service; the nature of service
activities that exceed normal expectations; the possible substitution of teaching or
research for service and vice versa; and the consequences for not meeting normal
service obligations.
2. Ensuring appropriate appreciation, support, and rewards for service. Unit
determinations also should include distinct connections among types of service
performed, the quality of the performance, and the associated rewards. Such
determinations should indicate how service that exceeds normal expectations would be

rewarded as well as sanctions for service activities that do not meet normal
expectations. Such expectations should clarify as well the levels of service that may vary
with tenure status, rank, and other workload expectations. Moreover, clear
accountability standards should be developed to ensure fair and consistent evaluation
processes, dispute procedures, and sanctions for failures to perform.
3. Developing processes that clarify the value of services and detail appropriate
rewards. Faculty from governance bodies and administrators from each institution and
the system should convene to develop a comprehensive APS that articulates general
guidelines for all primary units to follow in responding to issues 1 and 2. Determinations
of primary units related to 1 and 2 should be filed with institutional authorities no later
than one year following publication of the governing APS and be revisited explicitly at
least every 5 years or as part of scheduled program reviews.
The above recommendations are based in faculty responses to and comments
on the service survey. However, the report to this point generally has not been
interpretative, so this last section provides a few observations about the data that led to
and support the recommendations.
First off, much of the data suggest that improvements in the evaluation of
service at CU definitely are needed. Further, such improvements should guard against
possible increases in faculty workload that might go along with the increased
accountability suggested in the recommendations. Such excesses can happen all too
easily given that, as service becomes more integrated into position expectations,
perhaps through the careful architecture of explicit annual professional-development
plans, it is likely that normative and work-allocation expectations will change, especially
if responsibilities are added to faculty workloads without simultaneous downward
adjustments of expectations in other areas of service. Asking faculty simply to do more
when many if not most already are overextended is not wise.

Regardless, important internal service functions should neither be ignored nor
sacrificed, and a distributive approach might be useful. Such an approach could
recognize what must be done to carry on normal departmental and college/school
business, ensure that professional and community outreach are accomplished well, and
allocate tasks according to faculty expertise and preferences as well as unit needs.
Otherwise, many service activities may be neglected, as appears to have been the case
for service to external constituencies.
Further, insights about the types of service that appear not to be valued,
recognized, or rewarded should give rise to focused reexamination of how service is
valued, evaluated, and compensated at CU. Currently, CU rewards for service appear to
support internal service needs, an orientation that perhaps may not serve CU well in the
future. In this regard, faculty almost universally said that departmental, constituency,
university, or system service were most highly valued in their departments, while
community or public service were not.
Further, faculty said that they thought that departmental evaluators and deans
undervalued faculty governance, conferences, consultation, or mentoring of faculty and
students. If these areas are of value to the health of the CU community, then units need
to attend to these areas to make sure that such engagements are encouraged,
supported, and rewarded. Moreover, the role of service in promotion and tenure needs
to be clarified unit by unit, and system-level guidelines are likely to be helpful and likely
to improve the outcomes of these processes as well as those from annual merit reviews.
Finally, the importance of unit-level, consensually developed guidelines for
service expectations cannot be overly stressed. Whether through the development of
annual plans, clarification of the incentives or rewards that attend various types of
service, or the role that service plays in merit, promotion, or tenure, expectations for
faculty should be clear, consistent, and equitable. What one faculty member is able to
negotiate annually, another may not, and discrepancies in duties and rewards should
exist because of effective planning, not happenstance. (Muth et al., 2009, pp. 15-17)

Appendix B
Definition of Boyer's Four Types of Scholarship
The scholarship of discovery (An activity of investigation):
Boyer states that: 'research is at the very heart of academic life, and we
celebrate what we call the scholarship of discovery. Research will always be central to
the work of higher learning, and in the century ahead, universities must support and
provide a home for this essential function.'
He says that research "reflects our pressing, irrepressible need as human beings
to confront the unknown and to seek understanding for its own sake. It is tied
inextricably to the freedom to think freshly, to see propositions of every kind in ever
changing light. And it celebrates the special exhilaration that comes with a new idea."
The scholarship of integration (An activity of synthesis):
Boyer presents a new powerful idea, which is scarcely adopted in most
universities: 'in the coming century, there will be an urgent need for scholars who go
beyond the isolated facts; who make connections across the disciplines; and who begin
to discover a more coherent view of knowledge and a more integrated, more authentic,
view of life.'
"Through the scholarship of integration, we give meaning to isolated facts by
fitting them into larger patterns, making connections across disciplines, and interpreting
what has been discovered in ways that provide a larger, more comprehensive
The scholarship of application (An activity of engagement)
Boyer suggests that application: "defines the campus not as an isolated island,
but as a staging ground for action." Here he argues for a reciprocity both between

higher education and societal development, and "from theory to practice, and from
practice back to theory."
To make our studies relevant he urges this message: "The scholarship of
application engages us to solve consequential problems with our gained knowledge for
the good of individuals and society. Here is where theory and practice interact vitally,
each renewing the other."
The scholarship of teaching (An activity of transmission):
Boyer suggests that for the next century, universities need to "deepen their
commitment to the scholarship of teaching" as it is "through the influence of great
teachers that the flame of scholarship is kept alive from one generation to the next." In
order to do so, he suggests that we need to reinterpret our conception of teaching and
reaffirm it as the "heart of the scholarly endeavor... if the lifelong interests of the
students of the coming century are to be met."
Through the scholarship of teaching, we ensure the continuity of knowledge and
stimulate students to be critical, creative thinkers. Through teaching, knowledge is not
only transmitted, but transformed and extended as students and teachers are impelled
in creative new directions. Inspired teaching "keeps the flame of scholarship alive."
(Boyer 1994, pp. 116-121 as cited by Zamorski, 2003).

Eight key questions which drove the creation of the 2008 Faculty Survey
1. What activities qualify as [normal] faculty service?
2. What relation does faculty service [have to] evaluation, promotion, and tenure?
3. How is faculty service evaluated?
4. How many hours a week, a month, or a year [are] required to satisfy the faculty
service requirement?
5. What service in the university is over and above the expected compensated service
requirement and thus currently merits additional compensation?
6. Should additional teaching or research be recognized as compensating for or making
up for the failure to meet the service requirement?
7. What should the consequences be of failing to satisfy the service requirement?
8. Under what circumstances would service over and above the required amount be
allowed to compensate for the teaching or research requirements for faculty? (Muth et
al., 2009, p. 2)

2008 Faculty Survey
Following is a list of typical service activities that you may refer to when answering the
questions in this survey:
A. Service to the profession
1. Editor of a professional journal
2. Adjudicator of exhibit, performance, design, or program (i.e., serving as a
member of a program, agency, or school evaluation team for an accrediting
3. Reviewer of books or journal manuscripts
4. Reviewer of grant proposals for funding agency
5. Reviewer of promotion or personnel files as a member of an ad hoc credential
review committee
6. Reviewer of research in progress outside of normal duties
7. Discipline-related consultant
8. Provider of non-credit continuing education
B. Academic or professional committee member
1. Member of a department, constituency, university, or system committee
2. Officer of a department, constituency, or university committee
3. Member of a state, regional, national, or international committee associated
with one's discipline
4. Officer in a state, regional, national, or international organization associated
with one's discipline.
5. Officer of or service to a professional association
C. Service to department, constituency, university, and/or system

1. Contributor to department, constituency, or university reports (e.g., audit,
accreditation, self-study)
2. Participant in a campus activity requiring frequent, regular or extended
investment of time and effort (e.g., serving as Faculty Athletic Representative
for the NCAA)
3. Advisor, consultant, or judge for a student organized activity or event on
campus (e.g., judging homecoming floats or candidates
D. Faculty governance
1. Participant in departmental, college/school, or university committees
2. Participant in university Assembly, including Assembly committees
3. Participant in system-level committees
4. Participant in Faculty Council, including Council committees
5. Leader of faculty governance at the college/school, university, or system
E. Conferences
1. Organizer for a campus sponsored conference
2. Support staff member for a campus sponsored conference
3. Reviewer of conference proposals
4. Attendance at professional meeting or conference
F. Consultant or mentor role to students and faculty
1. Cooperative sharing of expertise with campus colleagues
2. Presenter of in service programs for faculty and staff
3. Mentor to special-needs students
4. Assigned mentor or advisor to a probationary faculty member
5. Advisor to a student group
G. Public service
1. Presenter of discipline-related material to a local, regional, or national agency
or group
2. Provider of service to a local, regional, or national agency or group

3. Provider of discipline-related service to community organizations
H. Honors and awards
1. Recipient of department, constituency, or university service awards
2. Recipient of service award from a discipline-related professional organization
The 2008 Faculty Survey Questions
Ql. What is your current faculty rank?
1. Professor or equivalent
2. Associate Professor or equivalent
3. Assistant Professor or equivalent
Q2. What is your current faculty status?
1. Tenured
2. Tenure-Track
3. Not Tenure-Track
Q3. Do you currently serve primarily as a member of the faculty or as an administrator?
1. Primarily faculty
2. Primarily an administrator
Q4. If you have administrative responsibilities, at what level do you perform them?
1. Departmental or program (e.g., chair, coordinator)
2. College, school, or library (e.g., associate or assistant dean)
3. Dean
4. University-level administrator (e.g., center director, assistant/associate chancellor,
5. University Officer (e.g., Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor)
6. System-level (e.g., President, Vice-President, etc.)