Is released time an effective component of faculty development programs?

A review of the literature on released-time programs shows a trend away from uncritical acceptance. Emerging skepticism about released time from teaching or service stems from a lack of evidence supporting its usefulness and from the mixed messages it gives about the value of teaching. Four demonstrational experiments confirm that skepticism by showing that (1) verified assessments of normal work loads contradict faculty claims of being too busy for additional scholarship; (2) faculty given released time usually persist in old habits; (3) new faculty showed no obvious benefits of a typical released-time program; and (4) faculty in released-time programs verbalized real doubts about how to use extra time for meaningful scholarship. A fifth experiment suggests an alternative to traditional released-time programs: faculty who claimed too little time for regular scholarship learned to produce significant amounts of writing by finding time for brief, daily writing sessions.

[1]  K. Cross.  Not can, but will college teaching be improved? , 1977 .

[2]  R. Kozma.  Faculty Development and the Adoption and Diffusion of Classroom Innovations , 1978 .

[3]  J. Centra.  Faculty Development in Higher Education , 1978, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[4]  John C. Smart,et al.  Reward structures of academic disciplines , 1978 .

[5]  L. Braskamp.  The role of evaluation in faculty development , 1980 .

[6]  L. Dorfman.  Emeritus professors: Correlates of professional activity in retirement II , 1980 .

[7]  William E. Becker,et al.  Academic Rewards in Higher Education. , 1980 .

[8]  W. McKeachie.  Faculty as a renewable resource , 1983 .

[9]  M. Brookes,et al.  Meeting the Challenges: Developing Faculty Careers. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 3. , 1983 .

[10]  W. Nelsen.  Faculty who stay: Renewing our most important resource , 1983 .

[11]  A. Dailey,et al.  Burnout Prevention and Intervention: Rationale and Institutional Strategies. , 1983 .

[12]  Robert E. Seiler,et al.  Environmental satisfiers in academe , 1983 .

[13]  Robert Boice,et al.  Perception and practice of writing for publication by faculty at a doctoral-granting university , 1984 .

[14]  R. Blackburn,et al.  The dimensions of academic scholarship: Faculty and administrator views , 1984 .

[15]  R. Rice.  Being Professional Academically , 1984 .

[16]  Chester E. Finn.  Trying Higher Education: An Eight Count, Indictment , 1984 .

[17]  An Examination of Deviant/Adaptive Behaviors in the Organizational Careers of Professionals , 1984 .

[18]  R. Boice.  Reexamination of traditional emphases in faculty development , 1984 .

[19]  J. Creswell.  Faculty research performance, lessons from the sciences and social sciences , 1985 .

[20]  M. D. Sorcinelli.  Faculty Careers: Personal, Institutional and Societal Dimensions. , 1985 .

[21]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Faculty Research Performance: Lessons from the Sciences and the Social Sciences. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, 1985. , 1985 .

[22]  Marsha V. Krotseng,et al.  Incentives in the academy: Issues and options , 1985 .

[23]  Z. Bowen.  Faculty incentives: Some practical keys and practical examples , 1985 .

[24]  Lee H. Bowker,et al.  Improving undergraduate education through faculty development , 1985 .

[25]  J. Fuller,et al.  Recharging Intellectual Batteries: The Challenge of Faculty Development. , 1985 .

[26]  P. Gordon.  What do professors do , 1986 .

[27]  R. Boice,et al.  Writing Viewed by Two Traditionally Disenfranchised Groups of Academicians, Women and Women's College Faculty. , 1986 .

[28]  R. Boice.  Faculty development via field programs for middle-aged, disillusioned faculty , 1986 .

[29]  E. Lawler,et al.  Behavior in Organizations , 1986 .

[30]  R. Boice,et al.  Which setting is healthier and happier, academe or private practice? , 1987 .