An important component of faculty life is the sabbatical. A leave of one semester or one year to pursue individual research interests has become a standard part of the benefits available to university faculty. At USC, faculty are allowed to seek a sabbatical after six years of service. They may take either a full year at half pay, or one semester at full pay. It is also possible for some to take a one-semester sabbatical at half pay following six semesters of service. The purpose of this White Paper is to review USC's sabbatical policy, compare it with the sabbatical policies of similar universities throughout the country and propose modifications to the current policy if they are warranted. The committee's goal is to create a sabbatical policy that meets the needs of USC's faculty and is comparable, or better than, the sabbatical policies at other research universities.

The paper is organized into six sections as follows: We begin with a brief discussion of sabbaticals and their purpose. In this section we reaffirm the importance of sabbaticals for university faculty and our belief that USC should have a strong policy insuring the availability of sabbaticals for faculty members. The second section of this white paper focuses on current USC sabbatical policy and issues of eligibility. In the third section we consider the types of activities that might be undertaken during a sabbatical, and provide information on how faculty at other universities use this time.

A major issue in debates over sabbatical policies is how to hold faculty members accountable for the time spent during a sabbatical. In the fourth section of this paper we consider accountability policies as they relate to the activities of a sabbatical, and consider ways to help insure that the expenditure for this activity provides benefits to individual faculty members, their department or school, and the university in general. In the fifth section we address the topic of timing and frequency. We specifically consider the pros and cons of making sabbaticals available to junior (tenure-track) faculty prior to their tenure decision date. Finally, the sixth section discusses the issue of compensation and how changes in compensation during the sabbatical might change incentives for alternative sabbatical profiles. Our recommendations are summarized at the end of this paper.

Although sabbaticals have been part of faculty life for over 100 years. Rudolph (1990) states that by the 1890s sabbatical leaves were quite common and faculty members were aware that they were expected to return from these leaves with fresh journal articles, a new laboratory discovery or a book. Sabbaticals were in theory supposed to increase faculty productivity. Bowen and Schuster (1986) suggest that sabbaticals are an "opportunity for refreshment, new experience, uninterrupted study and research or travel." In its statement of principles on leaves of absence, the AAUP (1995) states:

Leaves of absence are among the most important means by which the teaching effectiveness of faculty members may be enhanced, their scholarly usefulness enlarged, and an institution's academic program strengthened and developed. A sound program of leaves is therefore of vital importance to a college or university, and it is the obligation of faculty members to make sure of the available means, including leaves, to promote their professional competence. The major purpose is to provide opportunity for continued professional growth and new, or renewed, intellectual achievement through study, research, writing, and travel.

We believe that if USC is to maintain and enhance its recognized excellence as a research university sabbatical leaves for faculty are an essential component of that effort. The balance of this paper considers current USC sabbatical policy, how it compares to other research universities, and makes recommendations for modifications to current practice designed to enhance the value of sabbatical leaves for both individual faculty and the University in general.

At USC, there are three types of sabbatical including a full year for half salary or a semester at full salary after six years of service, or a semester at half-salary following six semesters of service. These leaves are only available to tenured faculty. Individual units within the school may make other options available to their faculty, including offering sabbaticals to junior -- tenure track -- faculty and to clinical faculty. However, while the money to pay for sabbaticals for tenured faculty comes from the university's benefit pool, financing of these alternatives is the responsibility of the individual school or unit.

Typically, faculty may not accumulate sabbatical leaves. For example, it is not possible to work for 12 years and then take two consecutive sabbaticals of either two years at half pay or a full year at full pay. As described in a December 16, 1998 memo from the Provost, sabbaticals normally must be taken immediately following the period of service to which the leave relates. Exceptions of one year are possible to facilitate the work of the sabbatical, or to meet other needs of the department, but must be approved in writing by the Provost's office. Thus, if a faculty member does not take advantage of his or her eligibility following their sixth year of service, but waits until their tenth year, they are not eligible for a second sabbatical until they have provided an additional six years of service.

Section 3-19 of the USC policy manual describes sabbatical leaves. The policy establishes six criteria for sabbatical leaves:

1. A definite and well-defined research or study program must be submitted for approval. A candidate should indicate what he prospects of completion of the project will be.
2. Sabbatical leave will be allowed (a) one semester on full salary for each six years of service, (b) one academic year on half salary for each six years of service, or (c) one semester at half salary for each six semesters of service.
3. A faculty member on sabbatical leave should not engage in other activities for remuneration which would intrude on his/her sabbatical research.
4. The absence of a faculty member should not jeopardize the academic program of his/her department.
5. It is expected that the faculty member will return to the University for at least one year after sabbatical.
6. A final report shall be provided to the dean or director upon the faculty member's return.

Finally, the policy requires that sabbatical leaves be taken over consecutive academic periods. Table 1 shows how USC's sabbatical policy compares to the policies of other research universities.

Funding for sabbatical leaves at USC is provided through the benefits pool. Any savings that results can be kept by the department or school. It should be pointed out that the pool of funds for sabbaticals is not adequate to fund all eligible faculty. But since not all elect to take advantage of a sabbatical, there has been enough money. Professional schools must submit a plan to the university for sabbaticals so funds can be transferred to the school. Changes in sabbatical plans may result in the school being told that funds are not available.

Other universities have different policies for funding sabbaticals. Many provide support through central resource pools like USC. Policies for sharing the savings with departments vary. Some universities capture all of the savings, while others share the savings with the department. At MIT, for example, 60 percent of the departmental savings are taken by the university and the remaining 40 percent available to departments to hire replacements or for other uses.

The eligibility of clinical faculty for sabbatical at other universities is not clear. All policies seem to favor tenured members of their faculty, and where exceptions are provided, they are generally for junior faculty to help them develop their research. Despite the range of policy options at different universities, it appears that clinical faculty typically do not receive the same sabbatical leave benefit that is available to tenured faculty.

We recommend that efforts be made to provide more sabbatical leave options for clinical faculty. To the extent that the annual sabbatical funding pool is not used by tenured faculty, central funds should be available for these leaves. If this resource is exhausted, then such leaves should be the financial responsibility of the individual school or department. While this will not give clinical faculty the same "status" as full-time tenured faculty, it will go a long way toward recognizing the important role these individuals serve within the university.

Once eligibility has been determined, it seems appropriate to consider what a faculty member might do during his or her sabbatical. This is the focus of the next section of this White Paper.

An important question is what kinds of activity are appropriate for a sabbatical? Clearly sabbaticals are not intended to be long term paid vacations. Rather they offer an opportunity for renewal and research, and an opportunity to focus on one thing without interruption for an extended period of time. Defining exactly what a professor should do during a sabbatical is extremely difficult given the vast variation in research interests of individual faculty.

For example Zahorski (1994) listed the following four reasons for taking a sabbatical: 1) opportunity for scholarly enrichment 2) to improve teaching 3) to promote course and curriculum development and 4) to enhance artistic performance and creative growth. Others have suggested that a sabbatical be an opportunity for extended travel and study. Clearly each of these options results in different activities.

At USC, faculty seeking a sabbatical leave must submit a definite and well-defined research or study program for approval. This must be approved by both the Dean and Provost before a sabbatical can be taken. The real issue at USC is the extent to which these plans are reviewed and sabbaticals denied based on the quality of the work plan. In general, it appears that most requests are routinely approved. Few data are available regarding the approval rate in the Provost's office, and less data are available concerning the standards for approval of sabbaticals within individual units of the university.

In the committee's view, it is important that sabbatical time be used effectively to foster growth and development, and to participate in activities that foster the development of the individual's career and the academic excellence of the university. Engaging more intensely on one portion of a faculty member's work, be it research, performance, or even development of a new course, is what is important. Exactly what is done and accomplished is the responsibility of the individual who takes advantage of the sabbatical leave.

Below, we discuss the issue of accountability for the way sabbatical time was used.

In addition to assessing the prospects for completion of the project to be undertaken during a sabbatical will be, faculty are required to submit a final report to their dean or director upon return. No data are available as to how many faculty actually submit these reports, nor what the contents of the reports might be. Analysis of these reports would no doubt yield a great deal of information about the use of sabbatical time by faculty an how productive they were during their leaves.

Sima and Denton (1995) in an analysis of what 125 faculty accomplished on their sabbaticals found that most activities centered around traditional measures of faculty productivity, writing books or articles, seeking research grants or making professional presentations. Table 2 summarizes their findings. As the table shows, faculty activities while on sabbatical focused mostly on writing, with the 125 faculty surveyed producing 42 books, 26 book chapters, 4 monographs, 91 published articles and 65 more submitted for publication. What the article does not indicate is how these figures compare with individual faculty productivity prior to the sabbatical leave.

This highlights a critical question, should a person who publishes an average of two journal articles a year be expected to publish more (or write a book) during their sabbatical? Or does the sabbatical provide an opportunity to immerse oneself in a more in-depth data collection activity, leading to more potential publications and research findings following the end of the sabbatical, but slowing down publication numbers during that year? This is a difficult issue, and clearly one that needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Faculty should be held accountable for their activities while on sabbatical, but the university should stay away from defining how that would be measured, instead relying on the standards of individual disciplines. Rather than have a standardized set of expectations for the outcomes of sabbaticals, we believe that accountability can best be approached through careful analysis of the plans submitted in advance of the sabbatical. Faculty research plans should be held to the highest standards of research, and only approved if they meet those standards. Accountability can then be assessed in terms of the success each individual has in meeting the goals they establish for themselves.

The intent of this recommendation is not to "punish" faculty who do not meet their full expectations, but rather to help encourage faculty to establish reasonable plans for the activities they intend to pursue, and measure the degree to which they are able to meet those plans. The end of sabbatical report would be expected to document what was done, how that corresponds to the initial plans for the sabbatical and explains the reasons for any differences between the two.

Table 1 shows that faculty at most universities are eligible for sabbatical leave after six years of service. This seems a reasonable time frame to the committee. However, we feel it is important that additional sabbatical leave options be made available to junior faculty seeking tenure. If the opportunity to pursue research interests is valuable and important to senior faculty, it seems critical to junior scholars seeking to advance their careers.

For new faculty members, the demands of teaching new courses, advising students, and conducing their research can be overwhelming. Moreover, these individuals often have young children and the attendant family responsibilities to consider. We believe that providing them a one semester, or possibly one year sabbatical during their third or fourth year would greatly enhance their ability to construct a coherent, and valuable research agenda. This would be beneficial to both the individual faculty member, and to the university as it strives to improve its overall academic reputation.

We recommend that the university develop procedures to allow junior tenure track faculty to take a sabbatical leave during their third or fourth year of service to facilitate their development and research agenda.

For tenured faculty, we support the current policy of making a sabbatical available every seventh year, or for those seeking one semester at half pay, every seventh semester. We concur with the university policy of not allowing sabbatical leave to accumulate, and agree that allowing one year of flexibility on timing provides ample opportunity for individuals to develop research plans, and individual units to plan for a faculty member's absence.

In the matter of early leaves for junior faculty, should they take advantage of this program, we believe they should not be eligible for a second sabbatical leave until their fourteenth year. Thus early sabbaticals would be treated as a "loan" rather than an adjustment of the sabbatical clock.

USC policy, like many other universities, allows faculty to take one semester at full pay or a year at half pay. We believe that the fiscal difficulties of living on half pay for a year causes most faculty to elect a one semester sabbatical. We also believe that longer sabbatical leaves can be beneficial to faculty and should be encouraged. To this end, we recommend that the University increase the pay for year-long sabbaticals to 2/3 of an individual's salary. We believe this would encourage more faculty to take longer leaves, providing them more opportunity to advance learning and the academic excellence of USC.

1. We believe that if USC is to maintain and enhance its recognized excellence as a research university sabbatical leaves for faculty are an essential component of that effort.
2. We recommend that efforts be made to provide more sabbatical leave options for clinical faculty. To the extent that the annual sabbatical funding pool is not used by tenured faculty, central funds should be available for these leaves. If this resource is exhausted, then such leaves should be the financial responsibility of the individual school or department. While this will not give clinical faculty the same "status" as full-time tenured faculty, it will go a long way toward recognizing the important role these individuals serve within the university.
3. It is important that sabbatical time be used effectively to foster growth and development, and to participate in activities that foster the development of the individual's career. Engaging more intensely on one portion of a faculty member's work, be it research, performance, or even development of a new course, is what is important. Exactly what is done and accomplished is the responsibility of the individual who takes advantage of the sabbatical leave.
4. We believe that accountability can best be approached through careful analysis of the plans submitted in advance of the sabbatical. Faculty research plans should be held to the highest standards of research, and only approved if they meet those standards. Accountability can then be assessed in terms of the success each individual has in meeting the goals they establish for themselves.
5. We recommend that the university develop procedures to allow junior tenure track faculty to take a sabbatical leave during their third or fourth year of service to facilitate their development and research agenda. Should they take advantage of this program, we believe they should not be eligible for a second sabbatical leave until their fourteenth year. Thus early sabbaticals would be treated as a "loan" rather than an adjustment of the sabbatical clock.
6. We recommend that the University increase the pay for year-long sabbaticals to 2/3 of an individual's salary. We believe this would encourage more faculty to take longer leaves, providing them more opportunity to advance learning and the academic excellence of USC.

AAUP. (1995).

Bowen, H. and Schuster, J. (1986). American professors: A national resource imperiled. New York

Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. London: The University of Georgia Press.

Sima, and Denton (1995). The Reasons for and products of Faculty Sabbatical Leaves

Zahorski, K.J. (1994). The Sabbatical Mentor: A Practical Guide to Successful Sabbaticals. Boston: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

Source: Sima and Denton (1995)