Can someone do service to their profession or to the community?

·       Service expectations for P&T are “amorphous” and “ill-defined.”

·       Current system rewards busyness/box-checking over intellectual curiosity and exploration.

·       Service crowds out teaching and other work. Scholarship and creative activity is relegated to summers.

·       The number of events has increased over time and has become a burden.

·       The definition of service in the faculty handbook is too limited and doesn’t actually reflect “contributions to the life of the university.”

·       Faculty governance isn’t working – As the university has grown, faculty feel as though they have less power but more administrative responsibilities.​

·       Mentoring/advising students is service that requires a lot of hand-holding (is time-intensive), but isn’t recognized as service.

Some slides show how committees (a major part of service) are key to faculty involvement in university affairs

The data reveals significant insights about how service expectations are communicated, perceived, and experienced across faculty ranks and career stages.

Faculty generally believe their service contributions are valued by the institution (77% within departments), yet substantial numbers report feeling overwhelmed by service obligations (50%) and perceive service expectations as unreasonable (39%). Communication of expectations appears problematic, with many faculty indicating department chairs (33%) and deans (45%) have not adequately communicated service expectations.

The data highlights specific populations experiencing disproportionate service challenges: mid-career faculty (particularly those with 6-15 years of service), lecturers and senior lecturers, and faculty in the School of Education. These groups report higher service loads, greater barriers to advancement, and stronger perceptions of inequitable distribution.

I am reaching out department chairs in ECAS for something like this. Waiting to hear back!

How can we gather similar list from other schools and departments on campus? Do we need to reveal names associated the service area?

Would it be useful to create a template for use by all departments/schools.

No formal document outlining service expectations. Typically, guidance comes from new faculty orientation, department discussions, P&T sessions, the chair, and conversations with colleagues.

I don’t know of any specific methods for recognizing or evaluating service contributions.

Performing Arts Department:

1. Formal Documentation:
   Our department does not currently have a formal document outlining service expectations for faculty.

2. Structure and Scope (if applicable):
   While we don’t have a written document, there have been verbal discussions about “mandatory service” that include Faculty In-House roles and various production-related responsibilities outside of teaching, professional activity, and university service/leadership. However, without anything in writing, these expectations can feel unclear or inconsistently applied. Additionally, university service roles are often filled on a “first come, first served” basis, which has resulted in the same few individuals repeatedly serving on university committees.

3. Communication of Expectations:
   Service expectations are typically shared verbally or via email.

4. Unique Approaches to Defining or Evaluating Service:
   At this time, we do not have a formalized or unique approach to defining, recognizing, or evaluating service contributions. I believe this is an area in need of attention and improvement within our department.

Computer Science:

1. Whether your department has a formal document outlining service expectations for faculty

   1. Our department does not have a formal, written document outlining service expectations. Instead, we follow a flexible and collaborative approach. Faculty members are encouraged to choose service roles that align with their interests and expertise. Some participate in university-level committees such as the College Fellows and Curriculum Committee. These choices are typically discussed during department meetings, where faculty members select their preferred service contributions for the academic year. Additionally, we track departmental service assignments annually, noting any changes - such as committee activity status or transitions in faculty roles.

2. If such a document exists, how it is structured and what areas of service it addresses

   1. We do not have a formal document, but we maintain two internal planning resources:

   1. Overall Service Planning Sheet – This document focuses on department-level service roles.

   2. Reassigned Time Sheet – This tracks major service responsibilities at the university level and tracks reassigned time.

3. 
   

4. If no formal document exists, how service expectations are typically communicated to faculty

   1. Service allocations are primarily communicated during department meetings. We use these discussions to coordinate transitions—for example, reassigning roles if a faculty member is on sabbatical or requesting a shift to a different service area. These conversations allow for handovers and ensure continuity in our department’s service efforts.

5. Any unique approaches your department has developed to define, recognize, or evaluate service contributions

   1. Our department prefers a "choose-your-path" model, allowing faculty members to engage in service that resonates with their professional goals. For example, one faculty member introduced “Fun Fridays” to foster student engagement by setting up a chess board and bringing snacks to encourage informal interaction. Each year, we review all service roles during department meetings to determine whether they should continue. For committees that require consistent departmental representation—such as Voice of Discovery at the college level- we ensure that at least one faculty member is appointed. 

School of Communications: Faculty Service & Leadership Requirements

Overview

• Faculty must contribute meaningful, high-quality service and leadership to the School

• Service expectations vary throughout career stages (considering sabbaticals, reassigned time, etc.)

• Service progression typically starts at department level and advances to School level

• Leadership roles expected as faculty advance in rank

• No distinction made between compensated and non-compensated contributions

Expected Faculty Involvement

• Commitment to School mission

• Presence and engagement

• Accessibility to students

• Responsibility for School life

Activities Not Considered Service

• Department meetings

• Academic meetings for majors/programs

• Advisory board meetings

• Faculty governance participation

• Teaching responsibilities

• Scholarship/professional activities

Meaningful Service Contributions

• Department/program/School committees, task forces, and advisory groups

• Mentoring student organizations, student media, faculty, and staff

• Supporting admissions, alumni events, internships, and career development

• Connecting School to University community (panels, forums, hosting speakers)

• Connecting School to wider community (conferences, workshops)

• Enhancing School's intellectual profile through community partnerships and disciplinary associations

Documentation Requirements

• Evidence-based narrative in Unit I Review and Tenure/Promotion materials

• Alignment with department/School goals and mission

• Reflection on past contributions and future plans

• Demonstration of purposeful service trajectory and leadership growth

Quality Indicators

• Substance: Depth and complexity of work

• Significance: Importance of work relative to committee charge or project purpose

• Intentionality: Purposeful selection of service contributions

• Connectedness: Integration of service with teaching and/or research activities

• A majority of Lecturer Track faculty feel their daily workload does not align with the Faculty Handbook.

• Over 60% report their teaching load is too heavy to support meaningful professional activity.

• 38% cite service overload, 24% lack time to meet service expectations, and 19% find the Handbook too vague.

• Faculty feel pressured to over-serve without guidance.

• Widespread confusion about expectations for teaching, service, and professional activity, especially regarding promotion to Senior Lecturer.

The 2018 Service Expectations Report found that:

• 33–37% of all faculty don’t find service expectations clearly communicated.

• ~40% see expectations as unreasonable and 50% find them overwhelming.

• 64% believe service is not distributed equitably, Lecturers and Senior Lecturers feel this most acutely.

• Over 40% reported failed attempts to engage in service—access is a concern, particularly for Lecturers and Librarians.

Many eligible Lecturers delay promotion due to lack of time and unclear expectations around service and professional activity.

Inconsistent messages from administrators and promotion committees.

Expectations - what are the expectations and do they vary from your role on each rank

Computer Science: Computer Science does not have a Unit 1 statement or a specific format when discussing service, and has not had one during my time here.

As dept chair, I have consistently encouraged faculty members to tie their Unit 1 statements on service to the Faculty Handbook language, both broadly (what is service?) and with respect to specific rank (what should asst profs be doing vs. other ranks?).  In my Unit 3s, I clarify any mismatches with the language (usually, placing student advising in service rather than in teaching), and I often add activities that were overlooked to try to ensure that the service picture is complete.  For early-career or new-to-Elon faculty members, I encourage them to request Unit 1 examples from more seasoned colleagues (we use a "group mentorship" approach rather than assigning a single mentor), and I make any of my own Unit 1s available as well.  Post-promotion faculty also routinely share their asst->assoc p&t packets with probationary faculty, which allows new faculty to see the "progression" year-over-year in Unit 1s.

Public Health Studies: In our department, faculty describe service based on how they individually want to describe it. The service section typically includes committee work and special tasks/assignments/responsibilities at the departmental, College, and School levels. Undergraduate research is typically included in service and also in Professional Activity if they have publications or presentations with students.

Psychology: We don’t have a service statement or anything like that in Psychology. It seems like it could be helpful though. I’ll be interested to see what your committee comes up with