Redefining faculty workload metrics: A data-driven approach.

Area of Science:

• Nursing Education
• Academic Administration
• Faculty Development

Background:

• Benchmarking faculty workload is crucial for ensuring equity in academic institutions.
• The Carnegie Unit, traditionally used for student workload, is often inadequate for accurately assessing faculty effort.
• Existing models may not align with the diverse demands of faculty roles, particularly in specialized graduate programs.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate the accuracy of the Carnegie Unit in reflecting actual faculty effort within a graduate nursing program.
• To determine if a standardized "per credit hour" metric is suitable for all courses.
• To develop a more equitable and accurate system for faculty workload assessment.

Main Methods:

• A novel Faculty Effort Data Collection Tool was implemented to gather faculty self-reported hours.
• Workload was meticulously evaluated on a course-by-course basis.
• Data from 62 Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) courses were analyzed.

Main Results:

• Faculty effort per student credit hour was nearly double the Carnegie Unit projection (84 hours vs. 45 hours).
• Significant variability in faculty effort was observed, with some courses requiring up to sevenfold more hours than anticipated.
• A universal "per credit hour" formula proved unfeasible; a new workload credit plan was developed based on reported hours, increasing credits from a mean of 3.7 to 4.92.

Conclusions:

• The Carnegie Unit is an inaccurate measure of faculty effort in this graduate nursing program.
• A tailored, program-specific approach to faculty workload assessment is necessary for fairness.
• Implementing a system based on self-reported faculty hours promotes a more equitable distribution of academic labor.