THE PROBLEM

National-level research on academia consistently finds significant differences in faculty workloads by gender and race/ethnicity (Guarino and Borden Reference Guarino and Victor2017; Hurtado et al. Reference Hurtado, Eagan, Pryor, Wang and Tran2012; O’Meara, Kuvaeva, and Nyunt Reference O’Meara, Kuvaeva and Nyunt2017; Wood, Hilton, and Nevarez Reference Wood, Hilton and Nevarez2015). Specifically, evidence shows that women faculty typically spend more time than men faculty on teaching and service activities and less time on research (Misra et al. Reference Misra, Lundquist, Holmes and Agiomavritis2011). Similarly, URM faculty spend more time on service, teaching, and mentoring than non-URM faculty. Furthermore, women of color—faculty members at the intersection of these two identity categories—face particularly onerous service demands (Hurtado and Figueroa Reference Hurtado and Figueroa2013).

The academic literature suggests that similar dynamics are active in the political science discipline. For example, in their analysis of the 2009 APSA faculty survey, Mitchell and Hesli (Reference Mitchell and Hesli2013) found that women faculty in political science supervise more advisees and contribute more service to their department and/or college than men faculty. Additionally, the service performed by women often is less prestigious and does not contribute to their career advancement.

A particularly critical form of service in which women and minority faculty engage is the mentoring of fellow faculty members and students. This service is valued by these faculty members, and it has a key role in the career progression of faculty from traditionally underrepresented groups. For example, the APSA Committee on the Status of Blacks (Alex-Assenshoh et al. Reference Alex-Assenshoh, Givens, Golden, Hutchings, Wallace and Whitby2004) found that a key element of career satisfaction and retention was the mentoring relationship between junior and senior faculty members of the same ethnoracial group.

These workload inequities affect climate (e.g., perceptions of fairness and equity, satisfaction with teaching and service workloads, sense of belonging, and stress), which in turn affects performance, advancement, and retention (Eagan and Garvey Reference Eagan and Garvey2015; Hart and Cress Reference Hart and Cress2008; O’Meara et al. Reference O’Meara, Lennartz, Kuvaeva, Jaeger and Misra2019). With service and mentoring work often either not counted or devalued in academic reward systems (e.g., tenure, promotion, and salary), systemic inequities in workloads also directly contribute to lower tenure and promotion rates, longer time to advancement, and greater career dissatisfaction of women and minority faculty (Fox and Colatrella Reference Fox and Colatrella2006; O’Meara et al. Reference O’Meara, Jaeger, Misra, Lennartz and Kuvaeva2018).

In political science, workload inequities contribute to lower levels of collegiality, productivity, research, and retention of diverse faculty, especially women of color, while also undermining the profession’s goal of advancing knowledge through diverse and inclusive research agendas (Mershon and Walsh Reference Mershon and Walsh2016). The upward trend of women of color who are entering the field will require a more inclusive climate to remain in the profession (Michelson and Monforti Reference Michelson and Monforti2021).

THE GOAL: INCREASING FACULTY DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION WITH EQUITY-MINDED WORKLOAD REFORM

With funding from the National Science Foundation Advance (IHE PLAN Award No. 1463898), O’Meara et al. (Reference O’Meara, Jaeger, Misra, Lennartz and Kuvaeva2018) developed the FWRP to implement a program of “equity-minded faculty workload reform” (O’Meara et al. Reference O’Meara, Culpepper, Misra and Jaeger2021).Footnote ¹ Equity-minded workloads such as this project seek to advance transparency, clarity, credit, norms, context, and accountability (O’Meara et al. Reference O’Meara, Culpepper, Misra and Jaeger2021). Aligned with APSA’s goals, the aim is to address practices that contribute to workload inequities involving race and gender. The intervention included a workshop on how implicit bias can shape faculty workloads; the collection and sharing of faculty work-activity data (i.e., a “dashboard”); use of the dashboard to identify equity issues; and department development of an “equity action plan” including the adoption of organizational practices aimed at solving any equity issues revealed by the dashboard. Faculty members also had the option of participating in an individual time-management and planning webinar.

The randomized control trial, conducted over 18 months in approximately 30 departments in four-year universities in Maryland, Massachusetts, and North Carolina, provides strong support for the intervention strategies. Specifically, the FWRP was shown to improve transparency in the work that faculty are doing; enhance clarity in roles and expectations; increase faculty job satisfaction and perceptions of fairness; and reduce intent to leave. For example, faculty in participating departments were significantly more likely than those in control departments to report that the distribution of teaching and service work was fair (O’Meara et al. Reference O’Meara, Culpepper, Misra and Jaeger2021).

IMPLEMENTING AN EQUITY-MINDED WORKLOAD REFORM PROGRAM IN A POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT

This section describes a hypothetical political science department faculty workload intervention program based on the FWRP and drawn from the one being piloted at UCSB. Our program launched in Summer 2020 and was ongoing at the time of writing through Summer 2022, so we cannot yet report specific outcomes. Nevertheless, we hope it serves as a useful model for political science departments interested in addressing faculty workload inequities.

Our hypothetical program focused on what we considered key components of the FWRP intervention (O’Meara et al. Reference O’Meara, Jaeger, Misra, Lennartz and Kuvaeva2018): the departmental “choice architecture” (O’Meara et al. Reference O’Meara, Jaeger, Misra, Lennartz and Kuvaeva2018; O’Meara et al. Reference O’Meara, Lennartz, Kuvaeva, Jaeger and Misra2019) and transparent workload data to guide decision making. Moreover, this program encompasses service, teaching, and mentoring work activities. We suggest elevating mentoring work activities, which were not a focus of the FWRP, to a level on par with service and teaching because of their importance to women and URM faculty in political science. Mentoring workloads are the most invisible but can be made visible via the program.

As part of the program, a department develops the following four products:

1. 1. A dashboard for collecting and disseminating faculty workload activity data.

2. 2. A workload credit schema for assigning credit to work activities of different time intensities.

3. 3. Expected workloads (standards) by rank.

4. 4. Organizational practices for addressing equity issues, such as a system for assigning service roles.

Because studies that reported on the FWRP describe the products (O’Meara et al. 2020; Reference O’Meara, Culpepper, Misra and Jaeger2021), our focus in this article is on providing examples and highlighting key issues in the political science context. The online appendix provides a sample dashboard template with a credit schema and expected workloads (i.e., Products #1–3), which uses a point system. Examples drawn from this template inform the following discussion. An undergraduate-only department will need to modify these outcomes—for example, by removing graduate student mentoring from the dashboard.

Faculty Work Activity Dashboards

A work activity dashboard is “an easy-to-read display of faculty work areas across different work activities,” usually in the form of a simple table or chart (O’Meara et al. 2020, 35) that is shared with faculty members. This enables them to more clearly understand their colleagues’ workloads by promoting transparency and making inequities apparent.

Tables 1–3 provide basic examples in the form of excerpts drawn from the template: a service dashboard (see table 1); a teaching dashboard (see table 2); and a mentoring dashboard (see table 3). Data are shown for three hypothetical faculty members: Bob, Hilaria, and Jamal. Two of these faculty members are URMs (Hilaria and Jamal) and one is a woman (Hilaria).

Table 1

Example of a Service Dashboard (Excerpts)

Table 2

Example of a Teaching Dashboard (Excerpts)

Table 3

Example of a Mentoring Dashboard (Excerpts)

The first major operational decision that departments must make is which work activities to include in the dashboards. Examples are in tables 1–3, with additional examples in the template (see the online appendix). The scope of each set of activities, especially mentoring, is likely to require deliberation by the faculty.

A second major operational decision is about transparency. For example, in tables 1–3, information about work activities is reported at the individual faculty level with names attached. An alternative is to provide anonymity by replacing names with an identifier (e.g., F-2) or to report only at the aggregate level (e.g., averages by rank, gender, and race).

UNDOING THE “CAN OF WORMS”

When the FWRP began, a common warning was to be careful not to “open that can of worms,” meaning that either reform was not needed or attempts would only create more tension (O’Meara Reference O’Meara2018; O’Meara et al. Reference O’Meara, Culpepper, Misra and Jaeger2021). Although many FWRP pilot departments reported positive experiences, negative experiences and frustration were reported by some. However, as O’Meara (Reference O’Meara2018) argued, the can of worms is already open; inequities exist that are known to have negative consequences for individual faculty members, minoritized groups, and the discipline at large. Doing nothing has real costs for political science. A workload intervention program such as the one described in this article can make a positive difference.

However, more research is needed about how to best ensure that change is sustained in the long term. For example, how important is the leadership role played by the chair, and to what extent does a department’s efforts need support from the dean or broader university administration? Based on our experiences, we are of two minds. We can point to departments that have implemented a program like this one and sustained it over a number of years, solely through the commitment of individual faculty members and departmental leadership. We also see support from the administration as facilitating large-scale and long-lasting change, especially in departments in which the faculty initially is less receptive. Certainly, higher-education administrators can and should have a role in promoting social justice and equity (Kezar and Posselt Reference Kezar and Posselt2020). We look forward to more research on these matters, which will be facilitated by more departments experimenting with interventions to “undo the can of worms.”