Identifying Effects of Institutional Resources and Support on Computing Faculty Research Productivity, Tenure, and Promotion

Introduction Over the last few decades, there has been a growing body of literature on the research productivity of faculty in higher education (Athey & Plotnicki, 2000; Blackburn, Bieber, Lawrence, & Trautvetter, 1991; Brocato & Mavis, 2005; Caffarella & Zinn, 1999; Dennis, Valachich, Fuller, & Schneider, 2006; Dundar & Lewis, 1998; Fairweather, 2002; Freedenthal, Potter, & Greinstein-Weiss, 2008; Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997; Meho & Spurgin, 2005). The literature explores a number of areas, including a longitudinal study of tenure and promotion requirements (Bunton & Mallon, 2007; Youn & Price, 2009), methods to measure research productivity (Athey & Plotnicki, 2000; Fairweather, 2002; Glassick et al., 1997; Meho & Spurgin, 2005), and identification of factors that influence productivity (Blackburn et al., 1991; Brocato & Mavis, 2005; Cafferella & Zinn, 1999; Freedenthal et al., 2008). The interest in this area is understandable since increasing research productivity and scholarly excellence provides direct benefits to institutions and departments as well as individual faculty (Amo, Ada, & Sharman, 2012; Dundar & Lewis, 1998; Research Assessment Exercise, 2008; Youn & Price, 2009). An understanding of the factors that contribute to faculty research productivity is especially important for doctoral students in computing, since over 41% of graduating computing doctoral students in the United States and Canada took positions in academia in the 2008-09 academic year (Zweben, 2010). Doctoral students transitioning to faculty positions need to both evaluate potential employment situations and to negotiate for resources that will enable their eventual success as faculty researchers. Means of support for producing quality research can be key and broad ranging for faculty. Research support can be defined as any resource that is provided to enhance a faculty member's ability to engage in scholarship. Previous work has defined research support to include three main areas: time to pursue scholarship, funding to pursue scholarship, and technical expertise, assistance, and training (Freedenthal et al., 2008). Other research examines institutional resources and support in relation to several specific fields, such as education, geography, library and information science, nursing, medicine, and social work, and contains an overview of different types of support including data for faculty salaries, physical space for offices, labs, and meetings rooms, research funds, mentorship initiatives, and academic staff development programs (Brocato & Mavis, 2005; Bunton & Mallon, 2007; Conrad, 1998; Dunham-Taylor, Lynn, Moore, McDaniel, & Walker, 2008; Fletcher & Patrick, 1998; Greene, O'Connor, Good, Ledford, Peel, & Zhang, 2008; Gruppen, Frohna, Anderson, & Lowe, 2003; Meho & Spurgin, 2005; Piercy, Giddings, Allen, Dixon, Meszaros, & Joest, 2005; Solem & Foote, 2004). In the United States and Canada, the Computing Research Association (CRA) administers the Taulbee Survey, an annual report of the profiles of computing faculty (Zweben, 2010). The Taulbee Survey includes information about salaries and some basic information about space and resources. In addition, there are studies that examine the disconnect between publication requirements for promotion and tenure and information systems/technology faculty publication rates (Athey & Plotnicki, 2000; Dennis et al., 2006). But there are few studies and very little data that examine broad institutional resources and support necessary for computer science faculty to be successful in meeting their tenure and promotion guidelines. Specifically, there are no studies or published research for computing faculty that include a wide spectrum of factors that can impact research productivity, such as funding for travel and professional meetings, funding for equipment, summer stipends, mentoring programs, and training. …