Redefining faculty workload metrics: A data-driven approach

Benchmarking faculty workload is key for equity, but a standard model like the Carnegie Unit, originally designed for student workload, does not fit all scenarios. A novel Faculty Effort Data Collection Tool assessed whether the Carnegie Unit accurately reflected faculty effort in a graduate nursing program. Workload was evaluated course-by-course based on faculty self-reported hours. Analysis of 62 APRN courses showed faculty spent nearly twice the Carnegie Units expected (84 h of faculty effort per student credit hour vs the 45 projected). Half of courses exceeded 90 h per credit; 21 % were under the anticipated 45. In some courses, faculty effort was up to sevenfold higher than expected for a 3-credit course (996 h vs 135 h). A single, universally applicable “per credit hour” formula for all courses could not be identified. Using faculty reported hours, the taskforce designed a new course workload credit plan. Revised workload credits increased from 1 to 8 (mean 3.7) to 2 to 15 (mean 4.92), appropriately crediting faculty for their work. The Carnegie Unit did not accurately reflect faculty effort in our program. A tailored approach was necessary to ensure fairness, and promote a more equitable distribution of effort. •Novel Faculty Effort Data Collection Tool was developed and implemented.•Faculty reported 84 h per credit versus customary 45 h.•Courses with substantial non-lecture activities had highest reported hours.•No universal “per credit hour” formula fit all; unique calculations were needed.•Carnegie Units were not an effective predictor of faculty effort.