View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Faculty Development for Christian Mission: The State of the Field

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Faculty Development for Christian Mission: The State of the Field
Language: English
Authors: Cockle, Theodore F. (ORCID 0000-0001-5335-8362), Glanzer, Perry L. (ORCID 0000-0002-3649-2516), Whitmore, Madeline
Source: Christian Higher Education. 2022 21(5):377-401.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 25
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Faculty Development, Christianity, College Faculty, Religious Colleges, Religious Education, Self Concept, Teacher Workshops, Institutional Mission, Professional Identity, School Surveys, Periodicals, Group Discussion, Professional Associations, Innovation, Incentives, Protestants, Administrator Attitudes, Teacher Attitudes, Race, Ethnicity, Intellectual Disciplines, Gender Differences, Work Experience
DOI: 10.1080/15363759.2022.2029622
ISSN: 1536-3759
1539-4107
Abstract: Scholars studying Christian higher education frequently suggest that faculty are the campus constituents with the most influence over the future of an institution's Christian mission. Thus, both faculty hiring and development are important elements for maintaining and strengthening the Christian identity of a university over time. Despite this importance, we do not know of a study that has surveyed the missional faculty-development processes of Christian colleges and universities. We utilized a survey research design to determine how Christian institutions educate faculty to integrate their Christian mission into their teaching, scholarship, and institutional service. We found that institutions tended to offer introductory trainings and workshops early in the career of faculty. After these early programs, the most effective faculty development resources identified were the conversations facilitated through discipline-specific academic journals and professional organizations. Moving forward, the institutions from which we heard hoped for increased resources and institutional prioritization for these conversations, especially at the advanced and senior faculty level. In conclusion, we suggest four opportunities for practical innovation to ensure future growth and engagement of faculty development for Christian mission: include a proactive approach to hiring practices, place a renewed emphasis on Christ-animated scholarship, continue to expand the conversation beyond the humanities, and introduce programming and incentives aimed at engaging senior faculty.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1368574
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHPKf-CQ9t6pEvAvjklPn6jAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMO-u7Ln2SFBtG2R5QIBEICBm8bYmzX_AbnXE0GdUUuW-WsOljsHuHhK7N_eTS7koe4AqZjTrI_Tg6PY44G_jWy1tROWaG-m-RZURUmHQplGspulYnrCTV0x8NeYH80sl8h8zXMU5QDkXmqr2nnepCtpCPhbEOVL3qC_tLVJeG_cfpHN9SdAZjJAhTv0u_TA00vB_vhSIFoX0dgNewxSZBA1fP2hzVU1BpRsWfWu
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0159583956;j2401oct.22;2022Oct12.06:50;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0159583956-1">Faculty Development for Christian Mission: The State of the Field </title> <p>Scholars studying Christian higher education frequently suggest that faculty are the campus constituents with the most influence over the future of an institution's Christian mission. Thus, both faculty hiring and development are important elements for maintaining and strengthening the Christian identity of a university over time. Despite this importance, we do not know of a study that has surveyed the missional faculty-development processes of Christian colleges and universities. We utilized a survey research design to determine how Christian institutions educate faculty to integrate their Christian mission into their teaching, scholarship, and institutional service. We found that institutions tended to offer introductory trainings and workshops early in the career of faculty. After these early programs, the most effective faculty development resources identified were the conversations facilitated through discipline-specific academic journals and professional organizations. Moving forward, the institutions from which we heard hoped for increased resources and institutional prioritization for these conversations, especially at the advanced and senior faculty level. In conclusion, we suggest four opportunities for practical innovation to ensure future growth and engagement of faculty development for Christian mission: include a proactive approach to hiring practices, place a renewed emphasis on Christ-animated scholarship, continue to expand the conversation beyond the humanities, and introduce programming and incentives aimed at engaging senior faculty.</p> <p>Scholars studying Christian higher education frequently suggest that faculty are the participants with the most influence over the future of an institution's Christian mission (Adrian, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]; Allen & Badley, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>]; Benne, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]; Glanzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]; Glanzer & Alleman, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref5">11</reflink>]; Hughes & Adrian, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref6">20</reflink>]; Longman, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref7">23</reflink>]; Matthias, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref8">27</reflink>]; Morton, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref9">30</reflink>]; Simon et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref10">36</reflink>]; VanZanten, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref11">38</reflink>]). Although students come and go every four or five years, faculty often persist for decades. Thus, both faculty hiring and development are important elements for maintaining and strengthening the Christian identity of a university over time. Despite this importance, we do not know of a study that has surveyed the faculty development practices of Christian colleges and universities (there is one study of general workplace mentoring; see Cunningham, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref12">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition to our desire to fill the knowledge gap related to faculty development practices, we decided to undertake an empirical survey for additional theological reasons. First, the body of Christians in faith-based higher education can gain insight from the creativity and variety of efforts that other institutions are making in this area. Second, Christian higher-education institutions need accountability in this area because a host of external pressures make it increasingly challenging to maintain a distinctive Christian character. External market conditions, leadership challenges, and pressing administrative priorities can entice administrators away from crucial elements related to their Christian mission. For example, Glanzer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref13">14</reflink>]) recently found that student life staff at one third of the institutions with whom they conducted interviews reported that they did not receive soul care or development for the Christian mission. Similarly, Christian institutions may be espousing a Christian mission, but their faculty development efforts may be indistinguishable from those of any other university.</p> <p>Our third and final theological reason for carrying out this project is that this kind of research may spur new ideas for redemptive faculty development that corrects current problematic habits in this area. For example, a broader theological imagination could help equip young faculty at Christian institutions as they balance scholarship and heavy teaching loads, despite the fact that "few graduate mentors will have provided a model for this kind of professional life" (VanZanten, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref14">38</reflink>], p. 129). Additionally, we believe a broad compilation of current efforts could help bolster faculty development programs in such a way that faculty could go beyond "simplistic theology" or over-spiritualized "Christianese" when applying theology to their teaching (Glanzer & Alleman, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>], p. 58). Often, the redemptive way forward cannot be visualized without a thorough knowledge of what already exists. Thus, for both practical and theological reasons, we were led to ask the following research question: How do Christian institutions educate faculty to integrate the Christian mission into their teaching, scholarship, and institutional service?</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-2">Review of the Literature</hd> <p>Because we found no previous study surveying how Christian institutions nurture faculty development specifically for Christian mission, our literature review focuses on two major areas. First, we will explore the ways scholars have justified the value of Christian faculty development. Second, we will explore the various methods scholars have documented or suggested for Christian faculty development.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-3">The Reasons for Focusing upon Faculty Development for Christian Mission</hd> <p>Beyond the desire to promote faculty longevity, we found that scholars appealed to four particular reasons institutions should focus significant effort upon faculty development for the Christian mission. The four justifications we found in the literature were related to faculty image bearing, faculty as the embodiment of institutional mission, the pursuit of faculty wholeness, and finally, the provision of holistic care for students.</p> <p>The major theological reasoning for faculty development is simply that it honors the image of God in faculty (Longman, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref16">23</reflink>]; VanZanten, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref17">39</reflink>]). VanZanten ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref18">39</reflink>]) maintained that using other starting points for faculty development can result in development veering into self-centeredness. In contrast, viewing all faculty as made in the image of God, created to be in relationship with others, and created to care for creation places faculty development into an outward-looking mentality.</p> <p>Second, faculty embody and incarnate the Christian mission of a Christian university. Adrian ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>]) noted that the "the religious character of a school is ultimately played out through its people." (pp. 453–454). Furthermore, even if one hires committed Christians, they may have little to no experience actively integrating their faith into scholarship because faculty, most often trained at pluralistic research institutions, "have not been exposed to academic cultures where discussions of faith and learning are high-level intellectual concerns" (Marsden, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref20">26</reflink>], p. 106). Similarly, "the dichotomy of research and teaching" (Bain, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref21">5</reflink>], p. 175) at these pluralistic institutions typically means that young faculty are also unlikely to have been trained in pedagogy, let alone how their faith might animate their teaching (Glanzer & Alleman, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref22">11</reflink>]; Smith, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref23">37</reflink>]). This tendency, in turn, has detrimental effects because students require "a teacher as a catalyst and guide, one who has struggled and is struggling with similar questions and knows some of the pertinent materials and procedures" (Holmes, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref24">19</reflink>], p. 46). Without professors who have struggled through similar questions, how will the students experience the Christian mission through their faculty?</p> <p>Third, VanZanten ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref25">38</reflink>]) and Glanzer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref27">13</reflink>]) have argued that faculty development is a matter of promoting faculty wholeness. The integration of a Christian identity with a professional identity takes time, effort, and practice, and cannot be achieved through the mere addition of Christian content (Glanzer & Alleman, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref28">11</reflink>]). Additionally, Glanzer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref29">12</reflink>]) claimed that faculty development for Christian mission should not be limited to the blending of the Christian identity with the professional identity, but rather with other identities a professor might hold (e.g., spouse, parent, churchgoer). Placing faculty development within the larger Christian narrative reminds faculty that they are made in the image of God, a reality that "brings coherence and vital motivation to the overall understanding of the academic vocation" (p. 249). This line of thinking justifies faculty development on the basis that it leads to faculty flourishing, coherence, and wholeness.</p> <p>Perhaps the largest empirical study that highlighted faculty development for Christian mission was part of a larger project by Braskamp et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref30">7</reflink>]) that explored all the ways colleges develop students purposefully. One of the themes of the book was that "faculty play an integral role in fostering student development" (p. xviii); therefore, faculty must be trained to do so. In their study of 10 church-related institutions, Braskamp et al. concluded that faculty culture played a key role in ensuring students were developed holistically because they served as a "living mission and lived educational philosophy" (Kuh et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref31">22</reflink>], as cited in Braskamp et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref32">7</reflink>], p. 44) for the development of students.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-4">Methods of Faculty Development</hd> <p>How do Christian institutions actually develop faculty for mission? The literature provides some general advice (Matthias, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref33">27</reflink>]), as well as some insight into a limited list of practices related to faculty hiring, orientation, training sessions of various forms, and mentoring.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-5">Faculty Hiring</hd> <p>To start, numerous authors mentioned the importance of hiring for the Christian mission (Benne, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref34">6</reflink>]; Braskamp et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref35">7</reflink>]; Glanzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref36">12</reflink>]; Hughes & Adrian, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref37">20</reflink>]; Meyer, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref38">28</reflink>]; Morey & Piderit, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref39">29</reflink>]). For example, Braskamp et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>]) and his team made a host of recommendations regarding hiring, including naming the president and provost as gatekeepers of the mission and legacy of the institution. Meyer ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref41">28</reflink>]) suggested that faculty hiring is the only <emph>true</emph> way of ensuring that faculty uphold the institutional mission because it is not easy "to make significant changes in the religious orientations and other life commitments of faculty members already in their twenties or thirties amid busy meetings and other requirements for tenure at their institutions" (p. 156). Thus, rather than a robust faculty development program, Meyer proposed significant reforms to traditional faculty recruitment, including a shift from a "selection paradigm" to a "search paradigm" (p. 155), the latter of which includes an administrator dedicated to cultivating relationships with promising prospective faculty sometimes well in advance of an opening.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-6">Orientation</hd> <p>A second key method of faculty development that scholars have identified is a faculty orientation program that extends beyond what one might find at any pluralistic institution. For instance, once hired, the institutions in the Braskamp et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref42">7</reflink>]) study outlined a specific plan for onboarding their new faculty with regard to the Christian mission. The authors noted that many faculty were not equipped as graduate students to consider the holistic development of students—including how a particular institution's Christian mission might inform such development. In response, the institutions that Braskamp and colleagues studied employed a variety of interventions for new faculty, including presentations on institutional mission, identity, and students; interaction with the local community (including churches); and social events with existing faculty.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-7">Specific Classes, Lunches, and Reading Groups</hd> <p>Beyond orientation, other scholars have suggested that intentional faculty development is also required to ensure theological reflection that draws upon the Christian mission of the institutions. Alleman ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref43">2</reflink>]) documented how formal and informal faculty "rituals," such as chapel and lunches, led to a common sense of purpose. Wells ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref44">40</reflink>]) suggested that institutions host faculty reading groups and workshops. Other scholars have maintained that faculty development could involve holding a weekly class each semester, sponsoring reading groups, or holding occasional lunches, faith and learning workshops, conferences, and collegiums (Braskamp et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref45">7</reflink>]; VanZanten, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref46">39</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-8">Mentoring</hd> <p>A variety of scholars have suggested that the alignment of faculty culture with the institutional mission is best sustained through one-on-one mentoring programs (Braskamp et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref47">7</reflink>]; Cunningham, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref48">9</reflink>]; Hughes & Adrian, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref49">20</reflink>]; Lund, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref50">24</reflink>]; Simon et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref51">36</reflink>]). One scholar (Cunningham, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref52">9</reflink>]) surveyed 409 faculty members at Christian colleges and universities, finding that although "faculty acknowledge the benefits, and advocate the development, of mentoring relationships with colleagues ... [they] do not actively participate in such relationships themselves" (p. 460). Although nearly 77% of those surveyed indicated that someone had helped them along in their academic career, nearly 60% "reported spending less than 5 hours per month" (Cunningham, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref53">9</reflink>], pp. 451–52) with their mentor during a regular academic year. In another revealing juxtaposition, nearly all faculty surveyed (93%) indicated senior faculty had a responsibility to mentor junior faculty, but "less than one-third reported ever having served as a mentor to another faculty member" (Cunningham, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref54">9</reflink>], p. 456). Mentoring, it would seem, is a good idea in principle but hard to implement amidst the many responsibilities of faculty at Christian institutions. Interestingly, two of the reasons listed for not engaging in mentoring included "no intentional development or formal training programs for new faculty" (p. 457) and "no institutional value placed on mentoring" (p. 457).</p> <p>Another small study by Lund ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref55">24</reflink>]) noted that although the mentoring relationships he studied at a Christian college were defined as "predominantly unidirectional and directive" (p. 376), the mentors who responded said the benefits of the relationship were bidirectional, even though benefits to the mentee were "believed to be greater than those of the mentor" (p. 379). For some mentees, direction from mentors was strictly related to professional and career enhancement. For others, the relationship addressed personal, psychological, and spiritual elements as well. Interestingly, all the participants preferred same-gender mentoring relationships. Overall, both mentors and mentees found a deeper meaning in this relationship. In addition, the relationships tended to be spontaneous. Consequently, Lund ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref56">24</reflink>]) concluded:</p> <p>External orchestration and reward structures can be very difficult to implement effectively. Additionally, trust, a crucial element in intimate relationships of all sorts, cannot be demanded or forced. Therefore, support for spontaneous pairings in institutional programs may need to take the form of providing opportunities and rewards rather than instituting a formal program that mandates such relationships and then withholding rewards from those who do not create and prosper from such alliances. (p. 384)</p> <p>However, Lund did not specifically address mentoring for the Christian mission.</p> <p>Simon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref57">36</reflink>]) suggested that Christian mentoring must be unique to the local setting and used a description of three different programs to illustrate their point. Whereas Abilene Christian University, an institution that requires all its faculty members be active, faithful members of a congregation of the Churches of Christ, would not need to provide as much denominational information, they do need to provide an opportunity for conversations about how some tensions within the tradition's history influence the university. In contrast, the University of the Incarnate Word incorporates the subject of how to participate in mass for non-Catholic faculty. They also shared with new faculty how each Catholic order's particular gifts (<emph>charism</emph>) are often found in the institution. Thus, "Storytelling sessions about seeming mundane movements in the classroom in which faculty feel a glimpse of the transcendent help new faculty recognize how UIW's mission is lived daily in the classroom" (p. 39).</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-9">Discipline-Specific Conversations</hd> <p>Recognizing not only the uniqueness of each institution, but also the uniqueness of each discipline, some scholars have shifted the conversation from a more general, campus-wide integration of faith and learning to more specialized disciplinary approaches. Whereas a general campus-wide approach to faith and learning can help shape an institution's faculty culture, there is additional value in continuing the conversations at a disciplinary level. The value of such an approach is the opportunity to combine theological and specialized disciplinary language to explore—and at times challenge—the assumptions behind a particular field's view of reality.</p> <p>For example, Crisp et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref58">8</reflink>]) compiled a series of essays acknowledging and engaging the challenges of integrating faith within a wide range of disciplines in the natural and life sciences, human and social sciences, and the humanities. The authors explored "what shifts might occur in [their] subject and the study of [their] subject if Christianity were taken as true" (p. 3). The result was a collection of essays exploring the ways in which theological truth might animate a discipline in language that faculty from that discipline would understand. Beyond Crisp et al., field-specific conversations have also taken place in disciplinary journals dedicated to faith integration (e.g., <emph>Fides Et Historia</emph>, <emph>Christianity and Pharmacy,</emph> or <emph>Journal of Biblical Integration in Business</emph>), in journals dedicated to faith-integration more broadly (e.g., <emph>The International Journal of Christianity & Education</emph> or <emph>Christian Scholars' Review),</emph> or additional edited collections (e.g., Dockery, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref59">10</reflink>]) dedicated to these efforts.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-10">Effectiveness</hd> <p>Faculty development programs seem to be at least somewhat effective at achieving their stated goals. On the one hand, a survey of thousands of Christian faculty suggested that faculty integrate their specific theological tradition and their broad Christian identity in their classes (Glanzer & Alleman, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref60">11</reflink>]; Rine et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref61">34</reflink>]). Yet, another study using the same data indicated that faith integration may not have reached every area of the university equally (Kaul et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref62">21</reflink>]). Perhaps unsurprisingly, those who taught in philosophy and religion tended to integrate faith into their teaching, while other departments on campus were less likely to do so—or did so in less significant ways (Kaul et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref63">21</reflink>]). Certainly, more study could be undertaken in this area.</p> <p>In general, scholars have regularly pointed to faculty development programs as a means of achieving one of four aims: upholding the <emph>imago Dei</emph> in faculty, furthering the Christian mission of the institution, achieving faculty wholeness, and purposefully developing students. That said, for all the references to faculty development in this literature, it was often merely to say that more faculty development was needed, or more faculty development using a particular method was needed. Indeed, little empirical attention has been given to explore the actual range and type of faculty development efforts on Christian college campuses. This study seeks to advance the purposes of Christian higher education by filling this gap in the literature.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-11">Method</hd> <p>We utilized a survey research design to determine how Christian institutions educate faculty to integrate the Christian mission into their teaching, scholarship, and institutional service. Using the literature mentioned above, we created a survey instrument with both fixed and open-ended questions that we disseminated across multiple institutions.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-12">Participants</hd> <p>Because there is no consensus on what constitutes a "Christian" university (Benne, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref64">6</reflink>]), we relied on a database of 220 Protestant institutions (see Glanzer & Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref65">16</reflink>]) that was cultivated using the criteria that Benne ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref66">6</reflink>]) outlined for "orthodox" and "critical mass" institutions. Benne evaluated church-related colleges on a host of criteria, such as membership requirements, governance, chapel, and required religion courses, and the "major divide" (p. 49) he found related to what he called the "organizing paradigm" (p. 49). Orthodox and critical-mass institutions clearly acknowledged their Christian identity and used it as a way to guide the school's functioning, whereas the other two types of church-related institutions (intentionally pluralist and accidentally pluralist) did not. Although the list of orthodox and critical-mass colleges upon which we relied was largely populated with institutions within the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (CCCU), it was not limited to it.</p> <p>We then identified the faculty member or administrator responsible for faculty development generally or for Christian integration specifically at each of the 220 institutions. At some of the larger institutions, this person oversaw an institute for faith and learning or a center for Christian pedagogy. At the smaller institutions, however, the point person was often the chief academic officer or a faculty member serving as the chair of the faculty development committee. A few institutions did not share faculty or staff emails and, after waiting for a response from their general email, they were removed from the survey distribution list.</p> <p>Given the relatively small size of the list, we decided to utilize a census-style approach rather than a representative sample. Accordingly, we sent the survey by email to 199 potential participants in July 2020 and sent reminder emails to those who had not completed the survey in the three subsequent weeks. Recognizing the additional demands faculty and administration faced as they prepared for the fall 2020 semester during the COVID-19 pandemic, we sent a follow-up email to those who had not yet completed the survey in October 2020. We sent follow-up reminders about the survey in the subsequent two weeks, and the survey remained open through the end of the year. Ten of the emails bounced, resulting in a total sample of 189 faculty developers at 189 distinct institutions. Of the 189 to whom we sent the survey, we received completed surveys from 35 institutions. See Table 1 for more information on the faculty and staff who completed the survey and shared demographic details and Table 2 for more information on the institutions at which they serve. Although institutions were all "Christian" institutions, they spanned a variety of types and regions, as defined by Carnegie classification and Henderson and Powers ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref67">17</reflink>]), respectively.</p> <p>Table 1. Participant details (<emph>N</emph> = 35).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><italic>Gender (N = 35)</italic></td><td>Count</td><td>%</td></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">74%</td></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">26%</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Race/Ethnicity (N = 35)</italic></td><td>Count</td><td>%</td></tr><tr><td> American Indian or Alaska Native</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3%</td></tr><tr><td> Black or African American</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">9%</td></tr><tr><td> White</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">80%</td></tr><tr><td> Undisclosed</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">9%</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Participant Field (N = 35)</italic></td><td>Count</td><td>%</td></tr><tr><td> Humanities</td><td char=".">18</td><td char=".">51%</td></tr><tr><td> Professional</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">14%</td></tr><tr><td> Social Science</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">14%</td></tr><tr><td> STEM</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">17%</td></tr><tr><td> Undisclosed</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3%</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Years at Institution (N = 35)</italic></td><td>Count</td><td>%</td></tr><tr><td> 0–5 Years</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">23%</td></tr><tr><td> 6–10 Years</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">29%</td></tr><tr><td> 11–15 Years</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">17%</td></tr><tr><td> 16–20 Years</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">14%</td></tr><tr><td> 21–30 Years</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">14%</td></tr><tr><td> 30+</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3%</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Faculty Development Role (N = 35)</italic></td><td>Count</td><td>%</td></tr><tr><td> Chief Academic Officer/Provost</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">34%</td></tr><tr><td> Associate Provost, Dean, or Associate Dean</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">17%</td></tr><tr><td> Chair of Faculty Development Committee</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">9%</td></tr><tr><td> Director of Faculty Development</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">11%</td></tr><tr><td> Director/Assistant Director of an Institute or Center related to faith integration</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">23%</td></tr><tr><td> Senior Faculty Member (with no other faculty development role)</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3%</td></tr><tr><td> Junior Faculty Member (with no other faculty development role)</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2. Participating institutions.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Institution Name</td><td>Institutional Type</td><td>Undergraduate Enrollment</td><td>Institution Region</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Abilene Christian University</td><td>MA/Large</td><td char=".">3,666</td><td>Southwest</td></tr><tr><td>Andrews University</td><td>Doctoral/Moderate Research</td><td char=".">1,704</td><td>Great Lakes</td></tr><tr><td>Azusa Pacific University</td><td>Doctoral/Research</td><td char=".">5,671</td><td>Far West</td></tr><tr><td>Barclay College</td><td>Spec/Faith</td><td char=".">229</td><td>Plains</td></tr><tr><td>Bethel University</td><td>MA/Large</td><td char=".">2,901</td><td>Great Lakes</td></tr><tr><td>Bushnell University<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td>MA/Small</td><td char=".">605</td><td>Far West</td></tr><tr><td>Calvin University</td><td>Bac/Diverse</td><td char=".">3,746</td><td>Great Lakes</td></tr><tr><td>Carson-Newman University</td><td>MA/Med</td><td char=".">1,690</td><td>Southeast</td></tr><tr><td>College of the Ozarks</td><td>Bac/Diverse</td><td char=".">1,508</td><td>Plains</td></tr><tr><td>Covenant College</td><td>Bac/A&S</td><td char=".">1,030</td><td>Southeast</td></tr><tr><td>Faulkner University</td><td>MA/Small</td><td char=".">2,672</td><td>Southeast</td></tr><tr><td>Grove City College</td><td>Bac/A&S</td><td char=".">2,373</td><td>Mid East</td></tr><tr><td>Hope College</td><td>Bac/A&S</td><td char=".">3,150</td><td>Great Lakes</td></tr><tr><td>Houghton College</td><td>Bac/A&S</td><td char=".">1,030</td><td>Mid East</td></tr><tr><td>Houston Baptist University</td><td>MA/Med</td><td char=".">2,316</td><td>Southwest</td></tr><tr><td>Indiana Wesleyan University</td><td>MA/Large</td><td char=".">2,799</td><td>Great Lakes</td></tr><tr><td>Judson College</td><td>Bac/A&S</td><td char=".">315</td><td>Southeast</td></tr><tr><td>LeTourneau University</td><td>MA/Med</td><td char=".">2,611</td><td>Southwest</td></tr><tr><td>Manhattan Christian College</td><td>Spec/Faith</td><td char=".">282</td><td>Plains</td></tr><tr><td>Messiah University</td><td>Bac/Diverse</td><td char=".">2,759</td><td>Mid East</td></tr><tr><td>Mid-America Christian University</td><td>MA/Med</td><td char=".">1,626</td><td>Plains</td></tr><tr><td>North Greenville University</td><td>MA/Small</td><td char=".">2,358</td><td>Southeast</td></tr><tr><td>Northwestern College</td><td>Bac/Diverse</td><td char=".">1,041</td><td>Plains</td></tr><tr><td>Point Loma Nazarene University</td><td>MA/Large</td><td char=".">3,100</td><td>Far West</td></tr><tr><td>Randall University</td><td>Spec/Faith</td><td char=".">304</td><td>Southwest</td></tr><tr><td>Sterling College</td><td>Bac/Diverse</td><td char=".">697</td><td>Plains</td></tr><tr><td>Toccoa Falls College</td><td>Bac/Diverse</td><td char=".">1,411</td><td>Southeast</td></tr><tr><td>Union University</td><td>Doctoral/Research</td><td char=".">2,181</td><td>Southeast</td></tr><tr><td>University of Dubuque</td><td>MA/Small</td><td char=".">1,958</td><td>Plains</td></tr><tr><td>University of Mary Hardin-Baylor</td><td>MA/Med</td><td char=".">3,333</td><td>Southwest</td></tr><tr><td>Warner Pacific University</td><td>Bac/Diverse</td><td char=".">400</td><td>Far West</td></tr><tr><td>Warner University</td><td>Bac/Diverse</td><td char=".">1,002</td><td>Southeast</td></tr><tr><td>Westmont College</td><td>Bac/A&S</td><td char=".">1,300</td><td>Far West</td></tr><tr><td>Wheaton College (Illinois)</td><td>Bac/A&S</td><td char=".">2,391</td><td>Great Lakes</td></tr><tr><td>Whitworth University</td><td>MA/Small</td><td char=".">2,251</td><td>Far West</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Institution type and student numbers from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2016–2017.</p> <p>2 Formerly Northwest Christian University.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-13">The Survey Instrument</hd> <p>We used the literature mentioned above to create a survey instrument that consisted of fixed-response and open-ended questions related to faculty development efforts on each participants' campus (see Appendix). Our goal was to ascertain the state of the field; therefore, we asked participants to identify both the content included in current faculty development programs, the means of inculcating such content, and their evaluation of such efforts. The survey included questions related to incentives, the role of faith integration in tenure evaluations, the timing of various interventions (e.g., early career only or ongoing), the structure and quantity of offerings, and opportunities for growth. Finally, we asked a variety of demographic questions to gather more information about our participants.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-14">Results</hd> <p>The fixed-response and survey items were analyzed descriptively, thereby only exploring patterns within our sample of 35 institutions rather than inferring those findings on the population as a whole. The open-ended response items were coded inductively using a two-cycle coding method (Saldaña, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref68">35</reflink>]). In the first cycle analysis, we used open-coding methods to form initial categories. In the second cycle, we used axial coding to determine the contexts in which particular categories were utilized and the outcomes they yielded. The goal of our qualitative analysis was to display the range of categories in the data to reflect the various frameworks of thought amongst our participating institutions. Thus, although we share the relative weight of particular responses within our sample, these numbers are not to be taken as representative of the larger population.</p> <p>We have separated our findings into three sections. In the first section, we describe the current state of faculty development on Christian campuses. In the second, we describe what participants indicated as areas of particular strength within their current programs. Finally, we describe how those working to develop faculty suggest the future ought to look in the third section.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-15">Faculty Development Structure and Content</hd> <p>We asked participating institutions to share about both the procedural structures and the substantive content in use for faculty development on their campuses. Our questions regarding structural elements asked about the scope and sequence of professional development, and content questions asked about the topics that were discussed.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-16">Structures of Faculty Development Programming</hd> <p>Over three-fourths of the responding institutions (27 of the 35) indicated that their faculty development for Christian mission takes place generally or exclusively within the first three years of a faculty member's career (see Table 3). It is unsurprising, then, that nearly 70% of the institutions in our sample indicated that they require orientation sessions on faith-learning integration (see Table 4).</p> <p>Table 3. At what point in the faculty career would you say most faculty development for Christian mission takes place?</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Response</td><td>Count</td><td>% of Sample</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Exclusively in the first 3 years</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">6%</td></tr><tr><td>Generally earlier in a career, but also ongoing</td><td char=".">25</td><td char=".">71%</td></tr><tr><td>Evenly distributed throughout a faculty member's career</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">20%</td></tr><tr><td>Generally later in a faculty member's career (post-tenure)</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3%</td></tr><tr><td>Exclusively post-tenure</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4. Which of the following are required elements of faculty development for the Christian mission at your institution? (Select all that apply).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Required Element</td><td>Count</td><td>% of Sample</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Orientation sessions on faith-learning integration</td><td char=".">24</td><td char=".">69%</td></tr><tr><td>Attendance at occasional professional development activities that discuss faith-learning integration</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">54%</td></tr><tr><td>Faith and learning paper for tenure and/or promotion</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">49%</td></tr><tr><td>Mentorship from senior faculty that specifically addresses faith-learning integration</td><td char=".">12</td><td char=".">34%</td></tr><tr><td>Reading groups that discuss faith integration</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">29%</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">23%</td></tr><tr><td>Faith and learning course</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">14%</td></tr><tr><td>Involvement with faith-learning professional development society</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Beyond orientation sessions, the next most common faculty development requirement was "attendance at occasional professional development activities that discuss faith-learning integration" (54% of the sample), followed by a required faith and learning paper for tenure and/or promotion (49% of the sample). Other less-common requirements included mentorship, reading groups, and a faith and learning course. The institutions that selected "other" indicated that they require regular affirmation of a mission or faith statement and/or a more regular or intensive program for new faculty "in the years before initial tenure and promotion to full professor."</p> <p>Despite the agreement about when faculty development took place, the formality of the offerings varied considerably. Sixty percent of our participants described their programming as at least "somewhat organic," contrasted with 40% who suggested their programming was at least "somewhat formal" (see Table 5). Additionally, in our sample we found no patterns of difference in formality based on region, institutional type, or number of undergraduates.</p> <p>Table 5. How would you rate faculty development for Christian mission at your institution with regard to structure?</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Formality</td><td>Count</td><td>% of Sample</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Very organic</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">20%</td></tr><tr><td>Moderately organic</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">31%</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat organic</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">9%</td></tr><tr><td>Somewhat formal</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">23%</td></tr><tr><td>Moderately formal</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">14%</td></tr><tr><td>Very formal</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">3%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We also asked how participating institutions incentivized their faculty to participate in various development initiatives. Over 80% of our sample (29 of the 35 institutions) indicated they incentivized faculty by purchasing books for a reading group that discussed faith integration, and over 60% said their institution paid for meals around which faculty discussed faith integration (see Table 6). Despite the ubiquity of these two approaches, the rest of the incentives about which we asked (e.g., journal subscriptions, paid travel, and course releases) were only present on approximately a quarter of campuses. The participants who listed "other" indicated that their institution funded attendance at an annual conference addressing faith and learning, provided grant opportunities to develop faith-based teaching, or supported faculty with annual professional development funds "that a faculty member could use for faith-learning related activities."</p> <p>Table 6. Which of the following incentives are provided by your institution for faculty development related to your Christian mission? (Select all that apply).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Incentives</td><td>Count</td><td>% of Sample</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Purchase of books for a reading group that discusses faith integration</td><td char=".">29</td><td char=".">83%</td></tr><tr><td>Paid lunches or dinners for talks that discuss faith integration</td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">63%</td></tr><tr><td>Paid subscriptions to faith-learning journal or journals</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">31%</td></tr><tr><td>Paid travel specifically for faith-integration conferences</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">26%</td></tr><tr><td>Specific internal grant funding for faith-based scholarship</td><td char=".">9</td><td char=".">26%</td></tr><tr><td>Paid memberships in faith-learning professional societies</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">23%</td></tr><tr><td>Paid summer professional workshops devoted to faith and learning</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">23%</td></tr><tr><td>Funding for faith-integration related service (e.g., mission trips)</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">20%</td></tr><tr><td>Awards for scholarship, teaching, or service related to faith-integration</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">20%</td></tr><tr><td>Semester course release for faith and learning course</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">17%</td></tr><tr><td>Paid orientation or professional development retreats that focus specifically upon faith and learning</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">11%</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">9%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Accountability structures were referenced very little in the literature, but those that we found seemed to be quite common among our participating institutions (see Table 7). Three-fourths of our sample indicated that "tenure and/or other promotion reviews give clear and specific attention to how the faculty integrates faith into their teaching, scholarship, and service." Over half of our participating institutions have their students evaluate faculty on how faith was integrated into the faculty member's teaching. Nearly half of our sample suggested that faith-integration metrics played a role in annual reviews. The three institutions that listed "other" on this question indicated that faith integration was part of either tenure review or annual reviews, but made some qualification as to the extent. Thus, only six percent of our sample indicated that faculty faith integration was not an overt part of faculty evaluation.</p> <p>Table 7. In what way is the Christian mission overtly a part of faculty evaluation? (Select all that apply).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Evaluation Method</td><td>Count</td><td>% of Sample</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Tenure and/or other promotion reviews give clear and specific attention to how the faculty integrates faith into their teaching, scholarship and service</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">74%</td></tr><tr><td>Students evaluate faculty on how faith was integrated into the faculty member's teaching</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">54%</td></tr><tr><td>Annual reviews have a special section reporting on faith-learning integration</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">49%</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">9%</td></tr><tr><td>It is not an overt part of faculty evaluation</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">6%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0159583956-17">Current Content of Faculty Development Programming</hd> <p>In addition to the structural elements, we also asked participants open-ended questions about the content of their faculty development programming. The most common topic, mentioned by eight institutions, involved simply "a conversation about how we define FLI [faith and learning integration], and examples of what this might look like across various disciplines." The other institutions we included in this category of basic faith and learning conversations referenced "different modes of faith-learning integration," "issues of faith and learning in the humanities, the performing arts, the social sciences, and the natural sciences," or an "overview of faith-learning integration."</p> <p>The second most common topic focused on "Christian practice in the classroom." Other comments included "models of faith-integration teaching," "Christian teaching practice reading group," or "development of syllabi that incorporates university's Christian-specific mission into assessment of student learning." One person noted the specific book used: "We have read David I. Smith's book <emph>On Christian Teaching</emph>, and he was featured as a guest speaker during our spring faculty and staff institute."</p> <p>A third content area focused specifically on theological education or "theological literacy." This education took a variety of forms among the five institutions that reported it, ranging from a broad "Fall faculty workshop on theology and the Bible for discipline integration," a more focused discussion of theological themes such as "Imago Dei, Common Grace & Antithesis ... General & Special Revelation," a denominational emphasis (e.g., "History, Tradition and Practice of the Reformed Christian Perspective"), or a specific Christian thinker ("Kuyper's influence on Christian education," "Niebuhr's five-fold taxonomy"). Four institutions reported a major focus on "Christ-like character formation," "faculty spiritual formation," or "pastoral care."</p> <p>Less commonly mentioned topics covered included a focus on particular subjects, such as "faith and politics," "social justice," or "racial reconciliation" (three institutions), a focus on faith and scholarship (two institutions), and a discussion of Christian vocation (two institutions). One of the more creative ideas we saw listed was advanced faith-learning seminars that focused on a specific discipline and more advanced conversations. One of these seminars was titled, "Neuroscience and Christian Thought." Additionally, there was a seminar devoted to character formation in online settings, particularly relevant during COVID-19.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-18">Content: Most Important Topics</hd> <p>The previous section reported the topics currently included in faculty development efforts, but we also invited faculty development leaders to express what they believed to be the most significant topics in the subject of faith and learning. Interestingly, these topics were not always congruent with what was currently being presented. Only one person thought defining and describing the integration of faith and learning was the most important topic. Instead, the following topics were deemed the most important.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-19">Teaching Christian Pedagogy</hd> <p>Mentioned by nine of the faculty development leaders, this topic included some of the important questions that respondents indicated they wanted professors to learn how to answer:</p> <p>"How can faith be practiced in the classroom?"</p> <p>"How can one's teaching be improved through a focus on faith?"</p> <p>"How can the faith of our students be enhanced through intentional classroom pedagogy focused on faith and learning?"</p> <p>"How does the teaching of a given discipline differ at my institution from the way it would be taught at a secular university?"</p> <p>"How do you integrate faith in everyday teaching?"</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-20">Spiritual Formation</hd> <p>Seven respondents were concerned with various aspects of the spiritual formation of faculty themselves. Some of the questions they thought important to address included:</p> <p>"How do we live out our faith?"</p> <p>"What is the vocation of a Christian scholar and how is this manifest in one's life and work?"</p> <p>"How do we integrate pastoral care into our roles as faculty?"</p> <p>"How do we incorporate meaningful, Christ-centered breaks (Sabbath)?"</p> <p>"How do we balance the employee's self-care and the institution's care for mission?"</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-21">Discipline-Specific Faith-Integration</hd> <p>Five respondents mentioned a third area of emphasis that pertained to "helping faculty comprehend the variety of options for connecting faith with their discipline." Some of the questions they wanted faculty to be able to answer included:</p> <p>"How do you do faith integration in Nursing, Chemistry, Business, etc.?"</p> <p>"What overall, or in specific, is needed for the redemption of my discipline?"</p> <p>"How do you integrate faith into discipline-specific conversations/content?"</p> <p>"What do students need to be Christian agents of change in the discipline or profession in which they are being prepared?"</p> <p>Other topics that respondents mentioned as important included "theological learning opportunities for faculty" (four institutions) and "balancing integration of faith with diversity of beliefs from our students" (four institutions).</p> <p>What we found striking about both the content currently discussed and the content faculty developers hoped to discuss was the lack of emphasis upon helping faculty engage in Christian scholarship. The topic was mentioned only occasionally. In one instance, the difficulty involved the lack of practicing scholarship: "As people approach full professor and construct their [full professor faith-learning] essays, what does scholarly work look like in the field of faith-learning integration when colleagues writing these essays are not regularly publishing in these areas?" Although most of the participating institutions have roots in the liberal arts, many are now changing their name to "university"—a designation which signals the cultivation of new learning in addition to developing learners (Ream & Glanzer, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref69">33</reflink>]). For institutions claiming to be universities, this lack of attention to questions of Christian scholarship is noteworthy.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-22">Effective Resources and Strategies</hd> <p>After asking about the structure and content of their programs more generally, we asked the participants to evaluate and share what they perceived to be the most effective means for developing faculty for Christian mission. According to the participants in our sample, the four most effective ways of developing faculty are training workshops (nine institutions), academic journals on faith integration (eight institutions), conferences related to faith integration (seven institutions), and involvement with organizations (e.g., the CCCU) or institutes (e.g., Kuypers Institute) with a national reach that share faith-integration resources (seven institutions). Less-often mentioned resources included references to particular books (e.g., <emph>On Christian Teaching</emph>), discipline-specific journals or professional conferences (e.g., "I am an historian and thus for us it is the Conference on Faith and History and its journal, <emph>Fides et Historia</emph>"), mentoring or reading groups, requiring chapel for faculty, or other internal resources. We also asked participants to share what they deemed to be a particularly strong facet of faculty development for Christian mission at their institution. We received responses that fit into two larger categories: administrative approaches and faculty culture.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-23">Administrative Approaches</hd> <p>Many respondents listed strengths related to structural offerings that had been previously referenced, such as hiring for the Christian mission ("clear expectations that are communicated in the hiring process"), new faculty orientation programs, course releases, mentoring, funding for conferences or resources, modeling effective practices, reading groups, required faith and learning papers for promotion, and yearly affirmation of faith statements. Others emphasized the unique way their administration sought to build a culture of Christian faculty development. One participant suggested his institution utilized an "invitational approach which has been well received." Other culture-building responses referenced ways the institution made faith integration a cultural priority through "considerable and consistent resources." Participants also referenced examples such as the provision of "a clearly-articulated framework," space for "faculty fellowship," the cultivation of "a common language," or a "consistency in conveying [faith integration's] importance, [while allowing] flexibility in how it can be expressed."</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-24">Faculty Responsiveness</hd> <p>Other participants suggested that the strength of their faculty development was the result of faculty responsiveness. For example, one respondent wrote that "This is part of who we are and what we do." Others shared similar sentiments that demonstrated how strength arose from broad faculty ownership. Participants referenced "like-minded faculty" or a general sense of "faculty willingness and receptiveness to integration development." Some referred to such faculty ownership by citing the regularity of conversations: "We have open discussion on the topic [of faith integration] at all faculty meetings and retreats." Finally, one participant recognized that although it has not been a strength of theirs in the past, faculty ownership seemed to be growing, even amidst the limitations of the COVID-19 pandemic. She shared that "the idea of Christian Practice seems to be growing among faculty, who have willingly and openly shared their Christian Practice as we have 'Zoomed' together for workshops and such since March 2020."</p> <p>Whereas some cited broad faculty ownership, other participants in the faculty responsiveness subcategory suggested that what made their faculty development strong was the participation of senior faculty members. One suggested that their faculty development efforts were strong because they were "led by our [senior] faculty," which meant the training was "relevant to [their] context." Others in this category cited the leadership and participation from "key faculty." One even cited 40% senior faculty participation as the basis for their program's strength.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-25">Vision for the Future</hd> <p>Having described the current state of affairs, we asked participants to describe their vision for the future of faculty development. Most of the institutions in our survey (31 of the 35) indicated a desire for an increase in their programming. Although such a finding is unsurprising given that we surveyed the program leaders, it is still significant that those leaders indicated their campuses could do more. Their responses to our question, "If you had the resources and time, what would you add, change, or remove to improve your faculty development for Christian mission?" inform this next section. Although most began with suggestions immediately, the tenor of the responses was in line with what we heard from one director of a center for faith and learning: "Oh boy. How much time do you have? How big is this box?" We categorized the responses into two categories: structural changes and cultural changes.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-26">Structural Changes</hd> <p>Most (<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref70">24</reflink>) of the responses we received to this question included a reference to structural changes. Specifically, participants indicated they would like to offer new or modified faith-integration gatherings, requirements, or resources.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-27">New or Modified Types of Gatherings</hd> <p>Eleven participants indicated they would like to expand their faith-integration offerings with new types of gatherings. Specifically, they suggested events such as a "summer institute on connecting faith and learning," an "annual week-long retreat," "events for [faculty] personal spiritual formation," and a "faith and learning course" for the faculty. Although these types of gatherings already exist on some Christian campuses, these responses came from institutions that would like to add such gatherings into their existing repertoire of faculty development efforts.</p> <p>Other participants indicated their desire to modify existing faith-integration gatherings. One participant wished for "better structured mentor groups, led by senior faculty members, to prepare newer faculty for [the] tenure process and [the] faith integration tenure paper." Another mentioned that she would like to see their gatherings restructured in order to be "more ongoing" rather than merely at the beginning of a faculty member's career. Along these lines, one participant shared an idea we had not previously encountered: "a follow-up series for faculty in their 5th year to revisit the first-year orientation and help them begin [and perhaps continue] integrating faith into their courses." A consistent theme was the continual need to develop and utilize senior faculty—a finding we also noted in our literature review.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-28">Institutionalized Faith and Learning Requirements</hd> <p>In addition to gatherings, four of the participants indicated they would like to provide supplementary faith and learning requirements. These requirements included "more explicit faculty development in this area," as well as required courses in a faculty member's second or third year, requiring all faculty to write faith integration papers, and a requirement for "all academic departments to develop a comprehensive strategy/plan so [faith integration] works itself out across their entire curriculum." Another participant wanted faith and learning engagement to become a requirement by including it in the tenure and promotion conversation on her campus. She stated, "I would like attendance at professional development opportunities to be taken into consideration for promotion." Again, respondents consistently wanted to expand requirements beyond first-year programing.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-29">Additional Resources</hd> <p>Unsurprisingly, we received a significant number of comments related to a desire for additional resources for faculty development initiatives (13 out of the 35). The types of resources they wanted, however, were unexpected. Many mentioned their desire for additional course releases to encourage faculty to meet faculty development for Christian mission requirements or to "re-tool classes." A participant from a small school in the Southeast mentioned she would like to invite "more guests" and host "additional workshops." Although most of the comments reflected smaller-scale increases such as these, one participant described his vision to "develop a Center for Teaching that focuses our development efforts to onboard new faculty." Once again, it is noteworthy that many of these desires related specifically to the teaching mission of the institution and not to opportunities for scholarship.</p> <p>Three participants shared a desire for a unique kind of additional resource. Out of a desire to "learn more directly what other campuses are doing," the participants hoped for "a forum in which experts from universities around the country integrate faith." They specifically suggested that this forum should draw on diverse perspectives to help foster additional conversation about faith integration. Another participant suggested his campus could also benefit from "adding mechanisms that expanded the lively on-campus discussion of faith–scholarship integration with Christian scholars working elsewhere."</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-30">Cultural Changes</hd> <p>In addition to structural changes, six participants hoped to change various facets of their institutional culture. In particular, they desired to see an increased priority (rather than new or different structures) given to faith integration at either the institutional or subgroup levels. One participant acknowledged that the shift in culture related to faith integration needed to be "comprehensive," and also noted that such a change was "now in the works." The other cultural changes participants mentioned were far more specific. For example, one participant stated, "I wish we had more time to engage in these conversations. They are critical to the work we do, but they often happen in smaller, department-level or peer-level conversations." This participant was not alone in her desire for an institution-wide prioritization; another shared the need for a "significant investment in transdisciplinary and campus-wide work" that would indicate they were priorities on campus. According to a participant at an institution known for its commitment to faith integration, such a prioritization would require a shift in department-level priorities and subsequent structures. He shared:</p> <p>I honestly think I do have the resources, so that is not my problem. I think the biggest problems I hit are the realities of different departments—for instance, some just need every person to teach their full load every year—often a specialized course only they teach—so the fact that I can offer them a course reduction does not really get them involved as there is not an adjunct to take up that course—that kind of thing. Other departments have half a dozen people all teaching the exact same course that a lot of adjuncts can do as well and therefore they tend to populate my voluntary offerings.</p> <p>The implication here was that, in some cases, prioritization was not merely a matter of desire. At this institution, the functional reality of course offerings seemed to make it easier for some departments to prioritize faith integration conversations. Thus, a shift in institutional priorities was required, such that faculty development could be prioritized over the logistics of course offerings.</p> <p>At the more individual level, five of the participants mentioned or implied their desire for additional faculty ownership. For example, a participant shared her desire to "have full-time faculty attend workshops that teach them how to improve the integration of our shared Christian values into the classroom environment." Given her previous indication that such programs already existed on her campus and that some of them were required, it would seem that the shift she desired was a re-prioritization of the conversation among <emph>full-time</emph> faculty. Others shared similar hopes for increased involvement from senior faculty. Comments from participants at several institutions regarding increased "mentorship from senior faculty," discussion groups "led by senior faculty members," and the desire to "give faculty more incentive in annual evaluations to pursue this integration" suggest that faculty, especially senior faculty, were not always able to prioritize faith integration conversations to the degree that our participants would like.</p> <p>In summary, we found a significant amount of overlap in institutional faculty development efforts currently in use. Institutions tended to offer introductory trainings and workshops early in the career of faculty. After these early programs, the most effective resources tended to be the ongoing conversations that occurred through discipline-specific academic journals and professional organizations. Moving forward, the institutions from which we heard hoped for increased resources and institutional prioritization for these conversations, especially at the advanced and senior faculty levels.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-31">Discussion</hd> <p>In addition to the value of describing a previously understudied area, there are additional insights to glean from our findings. In particular, we would like to highlight the overlap between methods in use and the faculty development literature, the importance of building a culture of faith integration, and some areas ready for innovation.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-32">Bound to the Literature</hd> <p>Most of the faculty development structures and content reported to be in use on Christian college campuses in this survey are described in the literature (e.g., Braskamp et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref71">7</reflink>]; Lund, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref72">24</reflink>]; VanZanten, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref73">38</reflink>]; Wells, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref74">40</reflink>]). Workshops, orientation sessions, reading groups, and mentoring relationships that cover topics on faith integration, pedagogy, theology, or spiritual formation were all well-established practices on the campuses we surveyed. In fact, our participants did not mention any structure or content category that we had not already noted in the literature. Although this finding demonstrates a trajectory of growth in the literature on the topic, when considered alongside all the desired changes, it could indicate a certain amount of complacency with the current state of affairs.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-33">The Biggest Hurdle to Faculty Development Efforts</hd> <p>We agree with the theological and practical justifications for faculty development (e.g., Glanzer & Alleman, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref75">11</reflink>]; Longman, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref76">23</reflink>]; VanZanten, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref77">38</reflink>]), but we fear that valid justifications are not always enough. When faculty had a sense of ownership about faculty development, our participants saw it as an area of unique strength, but the changes hoped for by others implied barriers to faculty participation. Indeed, as Cunningham ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref78">9</reflink>]) and Lund ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref79">24</reflink>]) found with mentoring relationships, there are a number of reasons why a faculty member might choose <emph>not</emph> to participate or an institution might not support faculty development efforts. In fact, those in charge of faculty development across the country often felt they had more to say on the topic than avenues in which to say it or audiences to hear it. Despite the variance in the content currently offered through faculty development programs across the country, only two participants highlighted content shifts as an area of desired growth. Generating content, it would seem, was not the issue. This finding, paired with the desired changes participants did mention, seems to indicate that those in charge of faculty development across the country thought that the lack of institutional financial and cultural support for their programs was the biggest hurdle to overcome. Although we know that faculty are generally integrating their faith into their practice (e.g., Glanzer & Alleman, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref80">11</reflink>]), additional studies such as Alleman's ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref81">2</reflink>]) exploration of faculty culture seem necessary to investigate the <emph>culture</emph> surrounding faith integration at various institutions.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-34">Areas for Practical Innovation</hd> <p>We believe our findings reveal four areas within faculty development for Christian mission that are particularly ripe for innovation. First, it would seem that hiring practices warrant additional attention. Only a handful of participants mentioned hiring as part of their faith-integration efforts, and when they did it was only to indicate that faculty were required to affirm the institution's faith statement. Although hiring practices may seem tangential to faculty development efforts for some, we agree with Meyer's ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref82">28</reflink>]) assessment of its importance. Rather than merely developing the faculty our institutions receive, those in charge of faculty development should think about how to reimagine their hiring practices. Additionally, because it would likely be easier to instill the priority of faith integration during the formative graduate-school years, Christian institutions might consider how they can cultivate, support, or draw upon faith integration groups for graduate students (e.g., InterVarsity's Emerging Scholars Network).</p> <p>Second, the near ubiquity of orientation and early faculty programs suggests these programs have become a staple for the faculty development conversation nationally. This finding makes sense, given that many of these new faculty are coming from doctoral programs on pluralistic campuses (Marsden, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref83">26</reflink>]). Yet we are concerned with the lack of focus on how Christ can animate one's scholarship within these programs. Given the increased expectation for scholarship from faculty at Christian teaching institutions (Hippenhammer & Trott, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref84">18</reflink>]; Mallard & Atkins, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref85">25</reflink>]), we believe the field could benefit from the recommendations for creating a culture of scholarship derived from the empirical work by Zuidema et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref86">41</reflink>]) and from thoughtful engagement with books on the topic of cultivating Christian scholarship (e.g., Marsden, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref87">26</reflink>]; Mouw, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref88">31</reflink>]; Noll, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref89">32</reflink>]). We believe there is an opportunity for Christian colleges to contribute to the "creation and redemption of learners <emph>and learning</emph> [emphasis added]" (Ream & Glanzer, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref90">33</reflink>], p. 54)—the latter of which is accomplished through Christ-animated scholarship.</p> <p>Third, we are intrigued by the fact that over half of those in charge of professional development come from the humanities. What is it about existing efforts that continue to appeal to scholars in the humanities? We agree with one of our anonymous reviewers who suggested that there could be benefits from approaching faith integration with more interdisciplinarity. Without denying the important role of the humanities in faith and learning conversations, we believe there is an opportunity to leverage the teaching and learning methods from a wider range of fields.</p> <p>Finally, there is also room for innovation beyond early faculty programs. Perhaps the lack of interest from senior faculty that some of our participants mentioned stems from a lack of programming directed toward them. In the same way scholars advance in their areas of expertise, perhaps faith-integration efforts need to become more advanced as well. We agree with scholars that the integration of faith and learning takes time, effort, and practice; thus, it is unlikely to be fully achieved through even the most robust three-year orientation program (Glanzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref91">12</reflink>]; Glanzer & Alleman, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref92">11</reflink>]; VanZanten, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref93">38</reflink>]). Although our participants indicated that some of this continued work is taking place in discipline-specific spaces (e.g., journals and conferences), we would hope that those disciplinary conversations would be brought back to the various departments on campus for the benefit of faculty colleagues. Imagine how robust the field of faith integration conversations could be if each campus selected senior faculty to compile a volume like Crisp et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref94">8</reflink>]) or Dockery ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref95">10</reflink>]). Furthermore, imagine how robust senior mentorship might be if institutions actually provided incentives for senior faculty to engage in these kinds of mentoring relationships. In light of our findings, we believe significant institutional incentives will yield more creativity and depth.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-35">Limitations</hd> <p>Our study has two main limitations, both a result of our census-style approach. First, because we were dependent upon institutional responses for participation, our findings may reflect a certain amount of selection bias. That is, we may have received responses from institutions for which faculty development for Christian mission is particularly important, while receiving fewer or no responses from institutions for which it is unimportant. Second, our study is limited in the number of participating institutions. We achieved a response rate of just under 19% of the total institutions we contacted. As a result, rather than considering our findings as a census, it would be better to consider them a sample of the larger subset, which can still provide insight into the state of the field.</p> <p>Despite the possibility of a selection bias and the smaller sample size, the inclusion of several of the leading Christian institutions, combined with a diversity of institutional types, regions, and sizes—which generally reflect the larger population—suggests our responses are substantial enough to establish an empirical baseline for the field, which currently does not exist. Our single delimitation is related to the effectiveness of faculty development for Christian mission. Evaluating whether the various methods and topics participants shared were well suited given the stated learning objectives was beyond the scope of this project.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-36">Opportunities for Future Research</hd> <p>Recognizing the dearth of research on the nature and effect of faculty professional development for Christian mission, we acknowledge ours is but a small step forward. Accordingly, we see several opportunities for future research. Future studies could build on our qualitative findings to offer a shorter survey aimed at gathering responses from a larger number of institutions. Additionally, our study focused on the structure and content of faculty development, whereas future studies could (and should) explore the effectiveness of various methods and topics. Finally, future studies could extend the work of scholars who explored the denominational differences between Christian colleges (e.g., Alleman et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref96">3</reflink>]; Glanzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref97">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref98">13</reflink>]) by investigating the role of denominational identities and theological traditions in relation to faculty development efforts.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-37">Conclusion</hd> <p>In their book <emph>Putting Students First,</emph> Braskamp et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref99">7</reflink>]) argued for the importance of a culture of faculty development for the holistic development of students. They suggested that faculty were the key institutional participants to embody the mission to students. We would like to expand their argument to suggest the importance of cultivating a culture of faculty development for the sake of fellow faculty as well. Although numerous excellent programs exist on Christian colleges across the country, the daily demands of faculty seem to limit their involvement to what is required (e.g., orientation sessions, annual reviews). The state of faculty development for Christian mission is strong, but in need of innovation to ensure future growth and engagement.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-38">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>Special thanks to our colleague Scott Alexander for his helpful edits during the final stages of revision.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-39">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>We have no financial interest or benefit that arises from the direct applications of this research.</p> <hd id="AN0159583956-40">Appendix</hd> <hd1 id="AN0159583956-41"> <emph>Faculty Development for Mission Survey</emph> </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What is the name of your institution?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Which of the following are _B_required</bold> elements of faculty development for the Christian mission at your institution? (Select all that apply)</item> <p></p> <item> Orientation sessions on faith-learning integration</item> <p></p> <item> Mentorship from senior faculty that specifically addresses faith-learning integration</item> <p></p> <item> Faith and learning course</item> <p></p> <item> Reading groups that discuss faith-integration</item> <p></p> <item> Attendance at occasional professional development activities that discuss faith-learning integration</item> <p></p> <item> Faith and learning paper for tenure and/or promotion</item> <p></p> <item> Involvement with faith-learning professional development society (e.g., Association of Christian Economists)</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Which of the following _B_incentives</bold> are provided by your institution for faculty development related to your Christian mission? (Select all that apply)</item> <p></p> <item> Paid orientation or professional development retreats that focus specifically upon faith and learning</item> <p></p> <item> Semester course release for faith and learning course</item> <p></p> <item> Paid memberships in faith-learning professional societies</item> <p></p> <item> Paid subscriptions to faith-learning journal or journals</item> <p></p> <item> Purchase of books for a reading group that discusses faith integration</item> <p></p> <item> Paid lunches or dinners for talks that discuss faith integration</item> <p></p> <item> Paid travel specifically for faith-integration conferences</item> <p></p> <item> Specific internal grant funding for faith-based scholarship</item> <p></p> <item> Paid summer professional workshops devoted to faith and learning</item> <p></p> <item> Funding for faith-integration related service (e.g., mission trips)</item> <p></p> <item> Awards for scholarship, teaching, or service related to faith-integration</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Which of the following are organized _B_options</bold> for faculty development for the Christian mission provided by your institution? (Select all that apply)</item> <p></p> <item> Orientation sessions on faith-learning integration</item> <p></p> <item> Mentorship from senior faculty that specifically addresses faith-learning integration</item> <p></p> <item> Faith and learning course during the semester or summer</item> <p></p> <item> Reading groups that discuss faith-integration</item> <p></p> <item> In what way is the Christian mission overtly a part of faculty evaluation? (Select all that apply)</item> <p></p> <item> Students evaluate faculty on how faith was integrated into the faculty member's teaching</item> <p></p> <item> Annual reviews have a special section reporting on faith-learning integration</item> <p></p> <item> Tenure and/or other promotion reviews give clear and specific attention to how the faculty integrates faith into their teaching, scholarship, and service</item> <p></p> <item> It is not an overt part of faculty evaluation</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• Other</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What topics have been covered in your Christian faculty development in the last year?</item> <p></p> <item> What questions or topics related to faith and learning do you consider most important?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the most effective resources (journals, organizations, workshops, and conferences) for integrating the Christian mission?</item> <p></p> <item> What do you think are the strengths of Christian faculty development at your institution?</item> <p></p> <item> If you had the resources and time, what would you add, change, or remove to improve your faculty development for Christian mission?</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0159583956-42"> • Evaluation of Faculty Development Efforts </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> At what point in the faculty career would you say most faculty development for Christian mission takes place?</item> <p></p> <item> Exclusively in the first 3 years</item> <p></p> <item> Generally earlier in a career, but also ongoing</item> <p></p> <item> Evenly distributed throughout a faculty member's career</item> <p></p> <item> Generally later in a faculty member's career (post-tenure)</item> <p></p> <item> Exclusively post-tenure</item> <p></p> <item> How would you rate faculty development for Christian mission at your institution with regard to structure?</item> <p></p> <item> Very organic</item> <p></p> <item> Moderately organic</item> <p></p> <item> Somewhat organic</item> <p></p> <item> Somewhat formal</item> <p></p> <item> Moderately formal</item> <p></p> <item> Very formal</item> <p></p> <item> Regarding the amount of faculty development programming at your institution, what would you like to see?</item> <p></p> <item> A significant increase</item> <p></p> <item> A moderate increase</item> <p></p> <item> A slight increase</item> <p></p> <item> Amount of programming is just right</item> <p></p> <item> A slight decrease</item> <p></p> <item> A moderate decrease</item> <p></p> <item> A significant decrease</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0159583956-43"> • Participant Demographics </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Please select your role (select all that apply)</item> <p></p> <item> Chief academic officer/provost</item> <p></p> <item> Director of an institute or center related to faith integration/Christian education</item> <p></p> <item> Senior faculty member (post-tenure)</item> <p></p> <item> Junior faculty member (pre-tenure)</item> <p></p> <item> Chair of faculty development committee</item> <p></p> <item> Member of faculty development committee</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• Other</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How many years have you worked at your current institution? (Please only enter a number/Answer 1 if less than a year)</item> <p></p> <item> What is your Gender?</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• Male</p> <p></p> <p>• Female</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> With which race/ethnicity do you identify?</item> <p></p> <item> White (Caucasian)</item> <p></p> <item> Latino/a</item> <p></p> <item> Black or African American</item> <p></p> <item> American Indian or Alaska Native</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• Asian</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander</item> <p></p> <item> Biracial</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• Other</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> In what field do you teach?</item> <p></p> <item> STEM <emph>(e.g. science, technology, engineering, math)</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Humanities <emph>(e.g. philosophy, English, foreign language, history, theology, art)</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Social sciences <emph>(e.g. sociology, political science, economics, psychology)</emph></item> <p></p> <item> Professional <emph>(e.g. business, education, clinical psychology, social work)</emph></item> <p></p> <item> What is your home academic department (e.g., Theology, Sociology, Philosophy, etc.)</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0159583956-44"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adrian, W. B. Jr. (1997). The Christian university: Maintaining distinctions in a pluralistic culture. In R. T. Hughes & W. B. Adrian (Eds.), Models for Christian higher education: Strategies for survival and success in the twenty-first century (pp. 445 – 455). William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref43" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alleman, N. F. (2014). Reaffirming the importance of faculty rituals at religious colleges and universities. Religion & Education, 41 (2), 151 – 170. https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2013.866863</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref96" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alleman, N. F., Glanzer, P. L., & Guthrie, D. S. (2016). The integration of Christian theological traditions into the classroom: A survey of CCCU faculty. Christian Scholar's Review, 45 (2), 103 – 124.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref2" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Allen, P., & Badley, K. R. (2014). Faith and learning: A guide for faculty. Abilene Christian University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref21" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Benne, R. (2001). Quality with soul: How six premier colleges and universities keep faith with their religious traditions. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref30" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Braskamp, L. A., Trautvetter, L. C., & Ward, K. (2006). Putting students first: How colleges develop students purposefully. Anker.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref58" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Crisp, O. D., D'Costa, G., Davies, M., & Hampson, P. (Eds.). (2014). Christianity and the disciplines. T. & T. Clark.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref12" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cunningham, S. (1999). The nature of workplace mentoring relationships among faculty members in Christian higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 70 (4), 441 – 463. https://doi.org/10.2307/2649310</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dockery, D. S. (Ed.). (2012). Faith and learning: A handbook for Christian higher education. B & H Academic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glanzer, P. L., & Alleman, N. F. (2019). The outrageous idea of Christian teaching. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glanzer, P. L., Alleman, N. F., & Ream, T. C. (2017). Restoring the soul of the university: Unifying Christian higher education in a fragmented age. InterVarsity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glanzer, P. L., Cockle, T. F., Graber, B., Jeong, E., & Robinson, J. A. (2019). Are nondenominational colleges more liberal than denominational colleges? A comparison of faculty religious identity, beliefs, attitudes, and actions. Christian Higher Education, 18 (3), 207 – 223. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2018.1517620</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glanzer, P. L., Cockle, T. F., Jeong, E. G., & Graber, B. N. (2020). Christ-enlivened student affairs: A guide to Christian thinking and practice in the field. ACU Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glanzer, P. L., Rine, P. J., & Davignon, P. (2013). Assessing the denominational identity of American Evangelical colleges and universities, part I: Denominational patronage and institutional policy. Christian Higher Education, 12 (3), 181 – 202. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2013.785871</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glanzer, P. L., & Robinson, J. A. (2020). Revising Benne's Typology. (Unpublished manuscript).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henderson, A. E., & Powers, K. (2017). Understanding the range of postsecondary institutions and programs. In K. Powers & P. J. Schloss (Eds.), Organization and administration in higher education (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hippenhammer, C. T., & Trott, G. (2017). Current state of scholarship in Christian liberal arts schools: A study of CCCU teaching faculty and librarians. The Christian Librarian, 60 (2), 141 – 158.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holmes, A. F. (1987). The idea of a Christian college. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes, R. T., & Adrian, W. B. (Eds.). (1997). Models for Christian higher education: Strategies for survival and success in the twenty-first century. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaul, C. R., Hardin, K. A., & Beaujean, A. A. (2017). Predicting faculty integration of faith and learning. Christian Higher Education, 16 (3), 172 – 187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2016.1250684</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J, & Associates (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter (1st ed). Jossey-Bass and American Association for Higher Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longman, K. A. (2014). Introduction: Leadership literature implications for Christian higher education. In K. A. Longman, (Ed.), Thriving in leadership: Strategies for making a difference in Christian higher education. (pp. 21 – 35). Abilene Christian University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lund, J. W. (2007). Successful faculty mentoring relationships at Evangelical Christian colleges. Christian Higher Education, 6 (5), 371 – 390. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363750701285875</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mallard, K. S., & Atkins, M. W. (2004). Changing academic cultures and expanding expectations: Motivational factors influencing scholarship at small Christian colleges and universities. Christian Higher Education, 3 (4), 373 – 389. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363750490507384</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsden, G. M. (1997). The outrageous idea of Christian scholarship. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matthias, L. R. (2019). Faculty development: A review of the (relatively recent) literature and implications for Christian higher education. Christian Higher Education, 18 (4), 260 – 275. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2018.1517618</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer, A. J. (2009). Realizing our intentions: A guide for churches and colleges with distinctive missions. Abilene Christian University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morey, M. M., & Piderit, J. J. (2006). Catholic higher education: A culture in crisis. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morton, D. R. (2012). Adjunct faculty embraced: The institution's responsibility. Christian Education Journal: Research on Educational Ministry, 9 (2), 396 – 407. https://doi.org/10.1177/073989131200900211</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mouw, R. J. (2014). Called to the life of the mind: Some advice for evangelical scholars. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noll, M. A. (2011). Jesus Christ and the life of the mind. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ream, T. C., & Glanzer, P. L. (2013). The idea of a Christian college: A reexamination for today's university. Cascade Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rine, P. J., Glanzer, P. L., & Davignon, P. (2013). Assessing the denominational identity of American Evangelical colleges and universities, part II: Faculty perspectives and practices. Christian Higher Education, 12 (4), 243 – 265. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2013.805996</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. (3rd ed.). SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simon, C. J., Bloxham, L., Doyle, D., Hailey, M., Hokanson Hawks, J., Light, K., Scibilia, D. P., & Simmons, E. (2003). Mentoring for mission: Nurturing new faculty at church-related colleges. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, D. (2018). On Christian teaching: Practicing faith in the classroom. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> VanZanten, S. (2011). Joining the mission: A guide for (mainly) new college faculty. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> VanZanten, S. (2015). A brave new world: Imagining faculty development in the global era. Christian Higher Education, 14 (1–2), 40 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2015.973345</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wells, C. A. (2016). A distinctive vision for the liberal arts: General education and the flourishing of Christian higher education. Christian Higher Education, 15 (1–2), 84 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2016.1117277</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zuidema, L. A., Daichendt, G. J., & Fulcher, K. (2019). Supporting teaching faculty as scholars: A developmental model. Christian Higher Education, 18 (1–2), 78 – 97. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2018.1543246</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Theodore F. Cockle; Perry L. Glanzer and Madeline Whitmore</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref97"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1368574
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Faculty Development for Christian Mission: The State of the Field
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cockle%2C+Theodore+F%2E%22">Cockle, Theodore F.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5335-8362">0000-0001-5335-8362</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Glanzer%2C+Perry+L%2E%22">Glanzer, Perry L.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3649-2516">0000-0002-3649-2516</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Whitmore%2C+Madeline%22">Whitmore, Madeline</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Christian+Higher+Education%22"><i>Christian Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2022 21(5):377-401.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 25
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Christianity%22">Christianity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Religious+Colleges%22">Religious Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Religious+Education%22">Religious Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Concept%22">Self Concept</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Workshops%22">Teacher Workshops</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Mission%22">Institutional Mission</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Identity%22">Professional Identity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Surveys%22">School Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Periodicals%22">Periodicals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Discussion%22">Group Discussion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Associations%22">Professional Associations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Innovation%22">Innovation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Incentives%22">Incentives</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Protestants%22">Protestants</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrator+Attitudes%22">Administrator Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Race%22">Race</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethnicity%22">Ethnicity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intellectual+Disciplines%22">Intellectual Disciplines</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Work+Experience%22">Work Experience</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/15363759.2022.2029622
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1536-3759<br />1539-4107
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Scholars studying Christian higher education frequently suggest that faculty are the campus constituents with the most influence over the future of an institution's Christian mission. Thus, both faculty hiring and development are important elements for maintaining and strengthening the Christian identity of a university over time. Despite this importance, we do not know of a study that has surveyed the missional faculty-development processes of Christian colleges and universities. We utilized a survey research design to determine how Christian institutions educate faculty to integrate their Christian mission into their teaching, scholarship, and institutional service. We found that institutions tended to offer introductory trainings and workshops early in the career of faculty. After these early programs, the most effective faculty development resources identified were the conversations facilitated through discipline-specific academic journals and professional organizations. Moving forward, the institutions from which we heard hoped for increased resources and institutional prioritization for these conversations, especially at the advanced and senior faculty level. In conclusion, we suggest four opportunities for practical innovation to ensure future growth and engagement of faculty development for Christian mission: include a proactive approach to hiring practices, place a renewed emphasis on Christ-animated scholarship, continue to expand the conversation beyond the humanities, and introduce programming and incentives aimed at engaging senior faculty.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1368574
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1368574
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/15363759.2022.2029622
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 25
        StartPage: 377
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Christianity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Religious Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Religious Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Concept
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Workshops
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Mission
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Professional Identity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Periodicals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Group Discussion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Professional Associations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Innovation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Incentives
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Protestants
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administrator Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Race
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethnicity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intellectual Disciplines
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Work Experience
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Faculty Development for Christian Mission: The State of the Field
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cockle, Theodore F.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Glanzer, Perry L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Whitmore, Madeline
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1536-3759
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1539-4107
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 21
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Christian Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1