25, no. 3 (Spring 1994): 107-118 To the Editor Search

---

Table of Contents

Previous Article Next Article

Works Cited

ONCE upon a time—actually it was in June 1988 at one of the ADFL Summer Seminars (during the lunch break on the second day, to be precise)—one chair was overheard saying to another, “Oh, that's nothing! Last spring my dean asked me to develop an entirely new undergraduate program in Japanese and then had the unmitigated gall to refuse to provide any summer salary for me! He said, ‘You already get an extra stipend for being chair; I'm sure you'll find a little spare time to develop a proposal during the summer.’ Incredible, no? Developing that proposal will take up the better part of my summer. “A look of astonishment passed over the other chair's face, and she responded, “Do you mean to tell me that you get additional salary for being a chair? I don't even get a reduction in my teaching load!” A third chair, sitting at the same table, chimed in: “Really? I get a reduced course load—I thought everyone got that—but I don't get any additional pay, either.” And, as the question of whether special perks are provided to department chairs was taken up at adjoining tables, the seminar participants came to recognize that the rewards and assistance given to foreign language chairs are far more varied than any of them had realized.

The ADFL Executive Committee took up the matter at its spring meeting the following year and concluded that a short survey seeking information on support services and compensation should be distributed to all participants at the 1989 summer seminars. The survey findings, which are summarized in the Spring 1990 issue of the ADFL Bulletin, suggested that variation in the compensation and support services chairs received is related to differences in the administrative complexity of their departments. This notion was intriguing enough to lead MLA staff members to seek data from a larger, more representative group of departments by including a set of questions about the rights and responsibilities of department chairs in the 1989–90 survey of foreign language programs. The following pages report on the findings emerging from that survey.

The 1989–90 survey of foreign language programs, so named because it covers the 1989—90 academic year, was distributed to a stratified random sample of departments at two- and four-year institutions in the fall of 1990. After two rounds of follow-up calls during the following winter and spring, 598 of 714 programs had returned completed questionnaires. ¹ The response rate, which is 84% for the full sample, is slightly lower for two-year than for four-year programs (81% vs. 84%). Forty-seven questionnaires were dropped from consideration during analysis of the questions dealing with the perquisites and responsibilities of chairs: 16 because the questions were not answered and 31 because respondents indicated that their programs did not have chairs. ² As a result, the response rate for these questions is somewhat lower (77%).

Of the programs without chairs, 74% are in public institutions, 65% are in two-year institutions, and 58% are in institutions that enroll no more than 5,000 full- and part-time students. Further, 68% offer foreign language courses but grant no degree, 43% are part of a larger division, and 50% are responsible for all language courses offered at their institutions. In short, 39% of the programs without chairs are non-degree-granting programs in two-year public colleges, exactly the type of setting in which a dean is typically responsible for administering programs in several disciplines. Because the programs without chairs cluster in two-year colleges, the response rate for the questions dealing with the perquisites and responsibilities of chairs is reduced more for two-year than for four-year programs (75% vs. 81%).

Characteristics of Sampled Programs

The first column of figures in table 1 describes key institutional and departmental characteristics of the sampled foreign language programs. ³ (The table is divided into numbered sections, each of which presents percentages for various characteristics.) Throughout the analyses presented here two separate dimensions of institutional type are examined: the broad distinction between two- and four-year institutions; and the finer distinctions among types of four-year institutions (i.e., the Carnegie categories of doctorate-granting, comprehensive, and baccalaureate institutions). ⁴ The second section of table 1 indicates that one-fifth of the sampled foreign language programs are in two-year colleges. Among the four-year programs, which make up the bulk of the sample, close to half are in doctorate-granting institutions. Institutional size is measured by the number of full- and part-time students enrolled in fall 1989. ⁵ On average, the sampled programs are in institutions enrolling 9,000 students, with half in institutions enrolling between 3,000 and 21,000 full- and part-time students.

In the analyses presented here, two kinds of language programs are considered. Inclusive programs are those offering courses in a number of unrelated languages; usually, in institutions with such programs, a single administrative unit is responsible for offering all instruction in foreign languages. Inclusive programs are of two types: larger divisions in which foreign languages are offered in conjunction with courses in fields other than language and literature, and collective programs that are responsible for language and literature courses only. ⁶ Institutions that have several administrative units, rather than just one, responsible for language and literature instruction are said to have specialized programs. Two types of specialized programs are distinguished: those that focus on a group of related languages (i.e., a language group); and single-dual language programs that deal with no more than two languages (e.g., French, German, or Spanish and Portuguese). The sixth section of table 1 indicates that institutions with inclusive programs are in a majority, while those with specialized programs are in a minority. In large part this is because collective programs are the most numerous of the four types delineated; they account for 43% of the sampled foreign language programs.

The seventh section of table 1 indicates that half of the two-year programs in the sample offer courses, but no AA degree, in foreign languages. Of the remainder, three-quarters offer a degree in foreign languages, while one-quarter have degree programs with foreign language requirements. ⁷ Among four-year programs, close to half offer a BA as their highest degree, while a similar percentage offer a graduate degree.

On average, the sampled programs offer courses in 4 different languages, with half offering courses in 2 to 6. Approximately one-third offer courses in 1 or 2 languages, while one-quarter offer courses in 6 or more (see eighth section of table 1). The measure of faculty size dealt with here, the number of full-time professorial-rank faculty members (i.e., full, associate, and assistant professors), has been shown to be an important indicator of program strength in previous surveys (Huber, “1987–89 Survey”). On average, programs in the sample have 5 such faculty members, with half having between 2 and 10.

The second column of figures in table 1 summarizes the major institutional and departmental characteristics of all foreign language programs in the United States. Comparing the figures for the response sample to the figures for all foreign language programs allows one to assess the representativeness of the sample. Doing so indicates that the response sample used here is unrepresentative in two respects: programs in doctorate-granting institutions are overrepresented, while those in baccalaureate institutions are underrepresented; and programs in very large institutions are overrepresented, while those in small institutions are underrepresented. Lack of representativeness along these dimensions is to be expected, since these are the dimensions along which the MLA's sample of foreign language programs diverges from all foreign language programs in the United States. When the larger sample from which respondents are drawn was originally compiled, programs in large institutions, many of which are doctorate-granting, were purposely oversampled so that the institutions educating the largest number of students would be represented in sufficient numbers to allow meaningful comparisons. ⁸ As a result of this oversampling, the programs disproportionately clustered in such institutions are overrepresented in the response sample. Thus, specialized programs are somewhat overrepresented, as are those programs granting the PhD. In contrast, inclusive programs and those without majors are somewhat underrepresented. ⁹

Although several types of departments are underrepresented among the sampled programs, most are adequately represented. This is evident from the last column of table 1, which shows the percentage of all programs included in each of the sample subgroups. The first row of table 1 indicates that the sample as a whole includes 23% of all foreign language programs in the United States. If the percentage of all programs included in any given sample segment falls far below this figure, it can be said to be inadequately represented. Two sample subgroups may qualify for this designation: programs in small and baccalaureate institutions. ¹⁰ Thus, some care must be taken in assessing the findings relating to these groups. The over- and underrepresentation of other sample subgroups is not a problem, since subgroup variation in responses was assessed through multivariate regression analyses and is summarized in the following pages.

A key consideration in any discussion of the perquisites and responsibilities of department chairs is whether the faculty members on their campuses are represented by a union. Responses to the 1989–90 survey indicate that 30% of the sampled programs are on campuses that have faculty unions, while 70% are not. Among the programs on campuses with faculty unions, 53% are governed by contracts in which department chairs are considered members of the bargaining unit and 47% are governed by contracts in which department chairs are viewed as part of management. Programs in public institutions are more likely than programs in private institutions to be on campuses with faculty unions (44% vs. 8%). Further, among programs in public institutions, those in institutions with fewer than 2,000 full- and part-time students are less likely than those in larger institutions to be on campuses that have faculty unions (7% vs. 46%).

Conditions of Service

Most programs recruit chairs from within their departments; 72% of the sampled programs do so consistently. Only 2% of the sampled programs consistently recruit chairs from outside the institution, while 26% of the programs sometimes recruit chairs from outside. Programs in public institutions are somewhat more likely than those in private institutions to recruit their chairs from outside at least sometimes (33% vs. 20%). Similarly, inclusive programs are somewhat more likely than specialized programs to sometimes recruit their chairs from outside the institution (35% vs. 19%). Among inclusive programs, those on campuses without faculty unions are more likely than those on campuses with faculty unions to recruit their chairs from outside the institution, at least sometimes (39% vs. 26%).

How Are Chairs Appointed?

The responses summarized in table 2 suggest that determining who the next chair will be is generally the prerogative of the faculty members in a foreign language department, though in most instances their decision must be ratified by the administration. In 21% of the sampled programs the faculty members appear to be fully empowered to choose department chairs, while in 51% the nominal authority for choosing a chair resides with a member of the campus administration. This administrator is normally the dean, but in a few cases the appointment is made directly by the chancellor or president. Faculty preferences are communicated to the dean in one of two ways: through a formal election or through an informal poll. In 26% of the sampled programs the campus administration exercises more than nominal control over the choice of chair, although faculty members may have some input.

More detailed analysis contrasted the minority of programs in which the administration appoints the chairs of foreign language programs with those where the decision is the faculty's, even if nominal administration approval is required. Chairs of two-year programs are more likely to be appointed by the administration than chairs of four-year programs (46% vs. 23%). Moreover, among two-year programs, chairs are more likely to be appointed by the administration if the programs are on campuses without faculty unions than if they are on unionized campuses (60% vs. 32%). On both two- and four-year campuses, chairs of inclusive programs are more likely to be appointed by the administration than chairs of specialized programs (34% vs. 17%). The difference is largely due to the fact that division chairs are twice as likely to be appointed by the administration as chairs of collective programs are (57% vs. 27%).

Term of Office

Foreign language chairs generally serve for set terms. Only 29% of the sampled programs have no term of office for their chairs; 14% have informal understandings about how long chairs will serve and 58% have formally defined terms. Regardless of whether the term is formal or informal, it is 3 years in length in two-thirds of the sampled programs. The term is 4 years in another 12% of the programs and 5 years in 11%. Terms almost never exceed 5 years and are as short as 1 or 2 years in 10% of the sampled programs. Chairs' terms can almost always be renewed, once in 23% of the programs with formal or informal terms and more than once in 76%. In short, chairs can serve multiple three-year terms in 52% of the foreign language programs in the sample.

Whether foreign language programs have terms for their chairs, be they informal or formal, varies by a number of characteristics. First, chairs in four-year institutions are more likely to have terms than chairs in two-year institutions (78% vs. 36%). Second, chairs of specialized programs are more likely to have terms than chairs of inclusive programs (86% vs. 60%). Further, among inclusive programs, division chairs are considerably less likely to have terms than chairs of collective programs (36% vs. 66%). And finally, programs with at least 6 full-time professorial-rank faculty members are more likely than those with smaller faculties to have terms for their chairs. The following figures make this clear.

Chairs' Perquisites

Respondents to the 1989–90 survey were asked whether the chairs of their foreign language programs “generally received the same perquisites throughout the past 10 years.” Their responses are as follows:

It is noteworthy that almost one-fifth of the respondents were unable to say whether the perquisites accorded chairs of their departments had remained more or less unchanged during the past 10 years. Of the respondents who did know, 72% said the perquisites had remained the same and 16% said they were the same in most cases. Only 13% said they had changed.

A question about whether chairs of other departments received the same perquisites as foreign language chairs brought similar responses.

Once again, close to a fifth could not say whether the perquisites accorded all chairs were similar. Of those able to answer, approximately three-quarters said that perquisites were similar in all or most cases (44% and 30% respectively); the remaining 25% said that perquisites differed from department to department. This last percentage is twice as high as the comparable one for uniformity over time in the perquisites of foreign language chairs, suggesting that there is more similarity in the perquisites received by successive foreign language chairs than in the perquisites received by all chairs at an institution.

Whether all chairs at an institution receive similar perquisites differs in relation to two characteristics. ¹¹ In the eyes of respondents to the 1989–90 survey, chairs are more likely to be treated uniformly on campuses with faculty unions than on campuses without such unions (60% vs. 38%). In addition, foreign language chairs on campuses with inclusive language programs are more likely than those on campuses with specialized programs to say that all chairs receive similar perquisites (52% vs. 34%). Among inclusive programs, chairs of divisions are considerably more likely than chairs of collective programs to say that chairs at their institutions are accorded the same perquisites (68% vs. 48%).

Teaching Loads

Among the perquisites that most chairs receive are reduced teaching loads. In order to ascertain the degree to which this is true for foreign language chairs, the 1989–90 survey included questions about both the typical teaching loads of the department's faculty members and the chair's teaching load. The responses reveal that the average annual teaching load of foreign language faculty members is 5.5 courses; in half of the responding programs faculty members are typically expected to teach between 4 and 7 courses per year (these figures assume a semester system). ¹² Chairs are expected to teach an average of 4 courses per year, with half teaching between 2 and 5 courses.

Faculty teaching loads vary with a number of characteristics. The first column of table 3 indicates that programs in very large institutions have lighter teaching loads, on average, than those in smaller institutions (4.9 vs. 6.0 courses per year). In addition, teaching loads are somewhat heavier, on average, in programs that are on campuses with faculty unions than they are on campuses without such unions. Average teaching loads are also heavier in inclusive programs than in specialized programs. And finally, teaching loads are lighter, on average, in programs in doctorate-granting institutions than in those in comprehensive or baccalaureate institutions. The second column of table 3 shows the average annual teaching loads of chairs of various types of departments. Like the faculty loads, these are lightest in specialized programs, in very large institutions, and in doctorate-granting institutions. The presence of a faculty union has no effect on the teaching loads of foreign language chairs.

The figures in table 3 indicate that in similar types of institutions the average annual teaching loads of chairs are consistently lighter than those of faculty members. To arrive at a more exact measure of the degree to which chairs' teaching loads are reduced, the chair's teaching load was subtracted from the typical faculty teaching load in each department. On average, the chair's teaching load is reduced by 2 courses per year, with half of the sampled programs providing a release of 1 to 3 courses per year. The following figures indicate that one-fifth of the sampled programs provide no reduction in course load to their chairs and that less than a third provide more than a two-course reduction. ¹³

The factors giving rise to variation in typical teaching loads do not lead to variation in the degree to which chairs' teaching loads are reduced. Rather, as table 4 indicates, the number of full-time professorial-rank faculty members in a program is a key consideration, perhaps because it helps define the administrative complexity of a program. As this number increases, the reduction in the chair's teaching load tends to become larger. Thus, in programs with 2 or fewer full-time professorial-rank faculty members, only 37% of chairs receive reductions of more than 1 course, while in programs with 11 or more full-time faculty members 84% receive such releases. Programs in four-year public institutions provide a greater reduction in teaching loads than those in four-year private institutions. Table 5 indicates that 44% of the four-year programs in public institutions provide a release of more than 2 courses per year, compared to 18% of those in private institutions (the means are 2.2 and 1.4).

Supplementary Compensation

In addition to receiving a reduced teaching load, some chairs receive monetary compensation for the extra administrative responsibilities their positions entail. According to the results of the 1989–90 survey, 66% of the sampled programs provide such compensation for their chairs; 34% do not. Among the programs providing compensation, half provide between $1,400 and $4,000 per year. The average is $2,000. ¹⁴ The extra compensation is provided in several different forms, as the following figures indicate.

Most frequently the extra compensation is provided in the form of a cash stipend or an increase in salary that remains in effect for the duration of the chair's term of office.

Whether programs provide extra compensation for their chairs varies with several factors. The top section of table 6 indicates that the percentage providing compensation increases as the size of the institution in which the programs are located increases. Thus, foreign language chairs in small institutions are relatively unlikely to receive additional compensation, while four in five chairs in very large institutions receive it. Although chairs of inclusive and specialized programs are equally likely to receive additional compensation, chairs of some types of programs are more likely to receive it than others. The second section of table 6 indicates that chairs of divisions and single-dual language departments are less likely to receive monetary compensation than chairs of collective programs or programs organized as language groups. And finally, among four-year programs, those in doctorate-granting institutions are most likely to provide extra compensation to their chairs, while those in baccalaureate institutions are least likely to provide it. These differences suggest that the likelihood that foreign language chairs will receive extra compensation depends on the administrative complexity of running their departments. Judging by the findings, such complexity has at least three dimensions: the number of students taking courses, the number of languages offered, ¹⁵ and the levels of instruction offered (i.e., undergraduate, graduate).

Support Services Provided

Chairs frequently have access to special support services. The 1989–90 survey inquired into the availability of four: clerical support for administrative work, special office or telephone facilities, support for scholarly research, and administrative sabbaticals. Since only 3% of the sampled programs provided special telephone facilities but no special office facilities, while 18% provided office facilities but no special telephone services, the question of telephone facilities was dropped from consideration. Table 7 indicates that the vast majority of programs provide clerical support for their chairs and approximately three-quarters provide special office facilities. Support for scholarly research, in contrast, is much less frequently provided, and administrative sabbaticals are rare.

There are some links in the support services provided to chairs. Programs that provide special office facilities for their chairs are more likely than those that do not to provide clerical support (92% vs. 70%), support for scholarly research (56% vs. 34%), and administrative sabbaticals (31% vs. 11%). Further, the programs that provide administrative sabbaticals to their chairs, at least sometimes, are more likely than those that do not to provide special office facilities (89% vs. 69%) and support for scholarly research (79% vs. 40%). And finally, the few programs that do not always provide clerical support for their chairs are less likely than those that do to provide special office facilities (43% vs. 79%).

Whether programs provide certain support services varies with a number of factors. The percentage of programs providing clerical support for their chairs increases as the size of the institutions in which they are located increases.

The biggest difference in percentage offering clerical support is between programs in small institutions and those in larger institutions (70% vs. 89%). The percentage of programs providing special office facilities for their chairs also varies with institutional size, as the following figures indicate.

Foreign language programs in larger institutions are more likely to provide special office facilities for their chairs than those in smaller institutions. In addition, single-dual language departments are somewhat less likely to have special office facilities for their chairs than those in other types of language programs (61% vs. 77%). These findings suggest that clerical support and special office facilities for chairs are most likely to be available in administratively complex foreign language programs (i.e., those serving large numbers of students and those offering courses in multiple languages).

The availability of the other support services considered is more dependent on institutional mission than on administrative complexity. Thus, in four-year institutions, inclusive programs are less likely to provide chairs support for scholarly research than are specialized programs (39% vs. 55%), and programs in doctorate-granting institutions are more likely to provide administrative sabbaticals for their chairs than are programs in other types of four-year institutions (36% vs. 17%). It appears that foreign language programs in institutions with a research emphasis are more likely than those in institutions without such an emphasis to provide mechanisms for enabling chairs to pursue their scholarly activities despite their added administrative duties. ¹⁶

In addition to asking about the availability of support services, the 1989–90 survey investigated whether available services were adequate to respondents' “responsibilities as department chair.” Seventy-one percent of the respondents said the clerical support they received was adequate and 83% said the special office facilities were adequate, but only 38% said the support they received for their scholarly research was adequate. The degree to which respondents believe research support is adequate is affected by the presence of faculty unions. Respondents on campuses with faculty unions are less likely than those on campuses without unions to believe they receive adequate support for scholarly research (27% vs. 43%). Table 8 indicates that respondents who enjoy any one of the three support services listed are more likely to consider it adequate than those who do not have access to the service. The differences are more marked for clerical and research support than for office facilities, with which the majority appear satisfied regardless of whether they have special accommodations.

Chairs' Responsibilities

In addition to exploring the perquisites of foreign language chairs, the 1989–90 survey asked whether respondents were responsible for a range of activities. A number of the activities examined involved duties associated with decisions on merit raises and other salary increases, and decisions on faculty appointment, tenure, and promotion. More specifically, respondents were asked whether they were responsible for conveying departmental recommendations on these matters, making recommendations to the administration on these matters, and making decisions about these matters. The responses are given below.

The above figures indicate that relatively few respondents are solely responsible for making either salary or promotion decisions; rather, the majority make recommendations to the administration regarding these matters.

Of the respondents who say they either convey departmental recommendations to the administration regarding salary increases or make their own recommendations (71% of the total), 39% say they do both, 16% say they merely convey the departmental recommendation, and 45% say they make their own recommendations only. These findings suggest that chairs rarely serve simply as a conduit for departmental recommendations on salary matters. The situation is somewhat different when it comes to promotion and tenure decisions. Of the respondents who either convey a departmental recommendation on promotions to the administration or make their own recommendations (92% of the total), 47% say they do both, 28% say they simply convey departmental recommendations, and 24% say they only make their own recommendations. Thus, foreign language chairs appear to play a less influential role in promotion and tenure matters than in salary matters; this is evident from the fact that 54% of the chairs who make recommendations in salary matters bring their own, but not a departmental, recommendation to the administration, while only 34% of chairs who recommend on tenure and promotion do likewise. In the latter, chairs tend to act as conduits between their departments and the administration, though a good many make their own recommendations on tenure and promotion matters in addition to forwarding departmental recommendations. ¹⁷

In addition to asking about respondents' role in salary and promotion decisions, the 1989–90 survey asked about 20 other activities. They are listed in table 9 in order of the frequency with which respondents said they were responsible for them. Respondents said they were responsible for an average of 13 of the activities listed, with 50% saying they were responsible for 10 to 14. On average, respondents in two-year colleges had fewer responsibilities than those in four-year institutions (10.8 vs. 12.5) and among the latter group respondents heading departments in baccalaureate institutions had fewer responsibilities, on average, than those heading departments in comprehensive or doctorate-granting institutions (11.1 vs. 12.8).

Of the responsibilities listed in table 9, the first 7 are claimed by at least four-fifths of the respondents. These duties include the core matters for which almost all foreign language department chairs are responsible: administering the departmental budget and curriculum, chairing faculty meetings, coordinating recruitment of faculty members, supervising departmental staff, and handling student complaints. The next 4 listings are responsibilities for 68% to 74% of the respondents. These common, but not universal, tasks involve guiding student and faculty development and maintaining the department's committee structure. The remaining activities are performed by approximately half or fewer of the respondents. Disbursing travel funds, chairing committees, and evaluating transfer credits are responsibilities for about half the responding chairs, while responsibility for extracurricular activities and community outreach is assumed by almost 40% of the respondents.

The figures presented in tables 10, 11, and 12 indicate that chairs of more administratively complex foreign language departments have more responsibilities than those of less complex departments. Thus, respondents heading four-year programs are significantly more likely than those heading two-year programs to be responsible for the 6 activities listed in table 10. The first 3 activities listed are core responsibilities that four-fifths or more of the four-year chairs take on; insofar as they are not also handled by chairs of two-year programs, they are likely to be handled by the administration. The last 3 responsibilities listed are less frequently exercised by chairs at two-year institutions because there is less need for them there than at four-year institutions. Along with institutional type, faculty size is an indicator of administrative complexity; table 11 indicates that the frequency with which chairs handle a good many responsibilities varies with the number of full-time professorial-rank faculty members in their departments. On the whole, the percentage of chairs exercising a responsibility increases as the number of full-time professorial-rank faculty members increases. There is one exception to the general pattern: chairs of departments with more than 10 full-time professorial-rank faculty members are less likely to advise students than chairs of smaller departments (54% vs. 80%), presumably because the largest departments more consistently assign advising duties to someone other than the chair (e.g., the director of undergraduate studies).

Table 12 shows that among four-year programs, chairs' responsibilities vary with the level of the highest degrees their departments grant. ¹⁸ The first 2 tasks listed in the table are more frequently performed by chairs of PhD-granting departments than by chairs of departments granting less advanced degrees, while the next 5 listed are less frequently exercised by chairs of PhD-granting departments. The responsibilities listed in the last set are less frequently exercised by chairs of departments granting only a bachelor's degree than by chairs ofdepartments granting graduate degrees. Most of these responsibilities are less common among chairs of BA-granting departments because their departments tend to be relatively small (the exception is graduate-student recruiting, which BA-granting departments do not need to do at all). Thus, there may be no staff to supervise, no need for formal faculty meetings, and few departmental committees to appoint. PhD-granting departments, in contrast, tend to be more complex; they usually have relatively large numbers of students and faculty members. Thus, activities such as advising students, setting up class schedules, and administering assessment and placement tests are less likely to be the direct responsibility of the chair and more likely to be the responsibility of committees or individual faculty members. Responsibilities such as completing reviews for other institutions are more frequently exercised by chairs of PhD-granting departments than by chairs of departments granting less-advanced degrees because there is a greater demand for them to do so. Further, tenure and promotion reviews are too numerous in doctorate-granting institutions to be handled entirely by the administration, and therefore, chairs of PhD-granting departments have more responsibility for them than chairs of BA-granting departments do.

Summary and Conclusions

The preceding discussion has revealed that the presence of a faculty union affects the perquisites received by chairs of foreign language departments in a number of ways. Respondents on campuses with unions were more likely than respondents on campuses without faculty unions to report that all chairs at their institutions received similar perquisites, suggesting that unions serve to foster the equitable treatment of all departments, chairs, and, presumably, faculty members. On two-year campuses with faculty unions, foreign language faculty members benefit in another way: chairs are less likely to be appointed by the administration at these institutions than on two-year campuses without faculty unions. In some instances, the uniformity fostered by union contracts may limit flexibility, however. The survey findings indicate that inclusive programs on campuses with faculty unions are somewhat mote likely than those on campuses without unions to consistently recruit their chairs from within, suggesting that the occasional search for a chair from outside the institution may be less feasible when union contracts regulate campus life. Finally, the survey findings reveal that foreign language programs on campuses with faculty unions have somewhat heavier teaching loads than programs on campuses without unions.

The presence of faculty unions is not the only factor affecting the perquisites and responsibilities of foreign language department chairs. The survey findings reveal that a cluster of four factors linked to the administrative complexity of foreign language programs is far more influential. These factors are: the levels of instruction offered (i.e., lower division, upper division, graduate), the number of students taking courses, the number of languages offered, which varies by program type, and faculty size. Foreign language programs are administratively most complex when large numbers of students must be served, several levels of instruction are offered, courses are offered in a range of languages, and the work of large numbers of faculty members must be coordinated. Under such circumstances, the task of being department chair is more demanding than in a small department that provides instruction in one or two languages for a limited number of students. This difference is evident from responses to the question about chairs' responsibilities, which reveal that chairs of four-year programs are responsible for a larger array of activities than those heading two-year programs, while chairs of departments in graduate institutions are responsible for more activities than those in baccalaureate institutions. Responsibilities for specific activities fall most frequently to chairs heading four-year programs, programs offering the PhD, and programs with large numbers of full-time professorial-rank faculty members. Where this is not so, the duties in question are more demanding in larger, more complex departments, and thus are more often delegated (e.g., student advising).

Given the greater responsibilities that chairing a complex program entails, it is not surprising that the survey findings reveal that such programs provide a greater array of perquisites for their chairs. Chairs are more likely to receive monetary compensation for administrative duties in doctorate-granting institutions, in institutions with large numbers of students, and in programs offering a range of languages (i.e., collective programs and those organized by language group). ¹⁹ Further, chairs are more likely to have special office facilities and receive clerical support if they are in institutions with large numbers of students or in programs offering more than two languages. And finally, chairs receive greater reductions in their teaching loads in departments with large numbers of full-time professorial-rank faculty members. In short, foreign language chairs with greater responsibilities and greater perquisites are found in the same types of departments and institutions.

Notes

¹ Special thanks are due to David Goldberg and Jack Cooper for their indefatigable efforts in encouraging reluctant and overburdened chairs to return their questionnaires. Thanks are also due to Ann Bugliani, John Cross, and Dorothy James for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

² It is likely that most of the 16 questionnaires on which the questions dealing with the perquisites and responsibilities of chairs were unanswered also came from programs without chairs.

³ The percentages presented in table 1 and elsewhere may not sum to 100% because of rounding. Also, the number of responses varies from table to table because respondents not answering a specific question or subquestion were eliminated from consideration.

⁴ Doctorate-granting institutions are research universities with multiple graduate programs; comprehensive institutions are primarily undergraduate in character, but offer master's and first professional degrees in some fields; and baccalaureate institutions are those that have only four-year liberal arts programs leading to a bachelor's degree.

⁵ One-third of the respondents did not provide enrollment figures for their institutions. In these instances fall 1988 figures, drawn from the MLA's database of collegiate foreign language programs, were used.

⁶ Approximately one-third of the collective programs are responsible for courses in both English and foreign languages. Most divisions administer their institutions' offerings in English as well.

⁷ The relatively high percentage of two-year institutions that have AA-granting programs in foreign languages may be a sign that such programs are overrepresented in the sample. There is no way of being certain, however, since no comparison figures for all foreign language programs are available.

⁸ For a discussion of the considerations underlying selection of the original sample see Huber, “1987–89 Survey” 34–36.

⁹ Programs in the northeastern states are also somewhat overrepresented in the sample, though this is not a function of the oversampling of large institutions.

¹⁰ Because the number of programs from baccalaureate institutions included in the original sample was unexpectedly small, special steps were taken to maximize the response rate of this group. And, in fact, the response rate for programs in baccalaureate institutions is slightly higher than that for programs in other types of four-year institutions (86% vs. 84%).

¹¹ For the comparisons presented in this paragraph, respondents who said all chairs on their campuses received similar perquisites were contrasted with those who said chairs did not receive similar perquisites or did so only in most cases.

¹² The annual course loads for programs operating on the quarter system (15% of the total) were made comparable to the semester system loads before averages and other figures were calculated (i.e., the quarter system loads were divided by 3 and then multiplied by 2).

¹³ For simplicity of presentation, fractional course reductions (e.g., 0.5, 1.67) have been rounded up to the next whole number. Within the categories for reductions of 1, 2, and 3 courses, fractional reductions were consistently in the minority.

¹⁴ Some care must be taken in evaluating the dollar amounts because respondents from more than 100 of the 353 programs providing compensation did not provide a figure for the amount of additional salary their chairs receive.

¹⁵ Divisions generally offer courses in fewer different languages than collective programs and single-dual language departments generally offer courses in fewer languages than programs organized as language groups.

¹⁶ Specialized programs are more likely than inclusive programs to be in doctorate-granting institutions (69% vs. 21%).

¹⁷ Responsibilities relating to promotion and salary matters are not dealt with further, and are dealt with separately from the other responsibilities examined, because it appears that the questions concerning them may have been misunderstood by some respondents.

¹⁸ Because the number of respondents chairing four-year departments that offer courses, but no degree, is quite small, this subgroup was not included in table 12.

¹⁹ Monetary compensation may also be a more essential perquisite for chairs in doctorate-granting institutions because the position has relatively little power and prestige there and the added administrative responsibilities inhibit research activities.

Works Cited

Huber, Bettina J. “Compensation and Support for Foreign Language Department Chairs: A Survey of 1989 ADFL Seminar Participants.” ADFL Bulletin 21.3 (1990): 10–17. [Show Article]

———. “The MLA's 1987–89 Survey of Foreign Language Programs: Institutional Contexts, Faculty Characteristics, and Enrollments:” ADFL Bulletin 24.2 (1993): 5–38. [Show Article]

© 1994 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.

ADFL Bulletin 25, no. 3 (Spring 1994): 107-118

---

Table of Contents

Previous Article Next Article

Works Cited