Faculty Workload Policy (Interim Policy for 2026)

College of Health Sciences and Professions

Workload Policy

Interim policy for 2026

I.    Introduction

Ohio University Policy 18.009 states the following:

Each college, or equivalent unit having permanent faculty, shall develop a policy on faculty workload that will allow for differentiation of mission for departments and schools within the college and for faculty within the departments and schools. Within the college there may be significant differences in the assignment of responsibilities to individual faculty members so long as all units within the college are able to meet their responsibilities for instruction. All policies at the department or school-level must comply with college-level policy and are subject to approval by the dean. All college-level policies are subject to approval by the provost.

This policy applies to CHSP faculty whose primary worksite is the Athens or Dublin campus. CHSP faculty whose primary worksite is a regional campus may follow either this policy or the workload policy of their assigned regional campus, as determined in consultation with the department chair or school director and consistent with university guidelines. Any future changes to the University’s model for academic integration across the campuses will be reflected in revisions to this policy. In addition, changes involving collective bargaining may also affect the implementation of this policy. This workload policy uses Workload Units (WUs) as the standard measurement, providing a transparent and consistent method for allocating effort across teaching, research, service, clinical, and administrative responsibilities

Faculty workload can be distributed across teaching, research, service, non-clinical administrative, and/or clinical domains based on the classification of each faculty position. Individual workload distributions should be set for each faculty member at the time of hire and documented in the letter of offer/initial contract. Faculty can renegotiate workload annually based on unit needs and resources, faculty goals, and promotion status. All changes will be documented by department chair, school director, dean’s office, or other person responsible in unit leadership.

WUs are the standard unit of measure for all workload allocations in this policy. WUs provide a transparent and consistent method for assigning effort across teaching, research, service, clinical, and administrative categories.

II.    Context and Principles

The CHSP workload policy identifies the level of effort (in WUs) for each component of a faculty contract. While workload allocations are critical to faculty evaluation, the quality and impact of work are assessed through the annual review and promotion and/or tenure processes. 

A. Alignment and Scope

• Must be consistent with other faculty policies (promotion and/or tenure, annual review, workload units assignments, overload contracts, etc.).
• Workload allocations are based on the typical 9-month appointment length rather than weekly, monthly, or semester-based hours. The scaled workload assignment for faculty on appointments other than nine months or less than 1.0 FTE is prorated relative to the 30 WUs, nine-month baseline. For example: 
  • Part-time faculty receive a workload proportional to their appointment percentage (e.g., 0.5 FTE=15 WUs annual load). 
  • Ten-month appointments are typically =33 WUs annual load. 
  • Eleven-month appointments are typically =36 WUs annual load. 
  • Twelve-month appointments are typically =40 WUs annual load. 

B. WU Framework

• WUs are the only standard for measuring workload allocations. 
• WUs estimate effort, not an accounting of clock hours. 
• A single activity may not receive WU credit in more than one workload category (“no double counting”). For example, clinical site visits may be credited either as administrative responsibilities (e.g., Clinical Education Coordinator duties) or as clinical workload, but not both.
• Consistent with university workload guidance, one WU is generally informed by an estimated 40 hours of work over the academic year for non-instructional activities such as service, administrative, and clinical responsibilities. This benchmark is used only for workload planning and does not translate into an expected number of work weeks or weekly hours. This benchmark is intended to support consistency, transparency, and equity in workload planning and assignment. WUs represent reasonable estimates of effort, not a requirement for timekeeping or hour-by-hour reporting. Faculty effort occurs throughout the academic year, including periods outside direct instructional delivery (e.g., course preparation, student mentoring, clinical continuity, scholarship, and service responsibilities). Actual time devoted to assigned responsibilities may vary based on role complexity, scope, and context. 

C. Differentiated Assignments

• Tenure track, tenured, and clinical faculty in the same unit may have differential workload distributions as appropriate to meet the needs of the department/school, but all should contribute to the teaching, research, and service missions of the university (per Faculty Handbook).
• Instructional faculty will have a workload distribution of teaching between 80-100% and service between 0-20%. Instructional faculty will not have a workload allocation for research, clinical, or administration (per Faculty Handbook). 

D. College-Level Guidelines

• Units must define WU ranges for service, clinical, and administrative activities; set minimum and maximum expectations; and review/update annually.
• Service outside the University may not exceed half of the total service workload allocation.
• Faculty must meet assigned minimum service expectations; extra service is voluntary and cannot be used to buy out of other workload categories.
• Faculty may not receive duplicative compensation for the same work (e.g., reassigned time plus additional pay for identical duties), unless the additional pay is documented as compensating duties performed outside contract period or extraordinary responsibilities beyond baseline expectations.
• All examples in this policy are illustrative, not exhaustive; units may propose additional roles with Dean’s Office approval.

E. Equity and Practicality

• Policies must be realistic and not require significant additional resources.
• Metrics for workload effectiveness may include quantitative and qualitative measures.
• The workload policy may not capture all work a faculty member does, but it covers the most significant elements.

F. Accreditation and Compliance

• Nothing in this policy is intended to place an academic program or faculty role out of compliance with applicable accreditation standards, licensure requirements, or contractual obligations. Where such requirements specify minimum effort allocations (e.g., administrative effort for accredited program leadership roles), workload distributions may be adjusted accordingly, with documentation in the annual workload plan.

G. Relationship Between Workload, Annual Review, and Promotion and/or Tenure

• Workload allocations define the expected distribution of effort across teaching, research, service, clinical, and administrative domains for a given faculty appointment. Meeting assigned workload expectations indicates that a faculty member has fulfilled the effort requirements of their position. However, workload fulfillment alone does not determine the quality, impact, or trajectory of a faculty member’s contributions. Evaluation of quality, significance, leadership, and sustained impact occurs through the annual review and promotion and/or tenure processes, consistent with university and college policies.
• Accordingly, workload and evaluation processes operate in parallel but distinct ways. A faculty member may meet or exceed assigned workload expectations without necessarily meeting standards for promotion and/or tenure, and conversely, a faculty member may demonstrate exceptional quality or impact that exceeds evaluative expectations even if workload benchmarks are not met in a purely quantitative sense. Chairs, directors, and review committees are expected to exercise professional judgment in interpreting workload in relation to annual review and promotion and/or tenure standards.
• The distinction between workload and evaluation applies across all domains of faculty responsibility. The following examples are illustrative and not exhaustive:
  • A faculty member may meet a research workload allocation through multiple scholarly contributions (e.g., middle-authored publications or grant submissions) that collectively satisfy workload expectations. However, such a pattern may not constitute a sustained, independent research program for promotion and/or tenure. Conversely, a single high-impact first-authored publication or principal investigator led grant may exceed expectations for promotion and/or tenure, even if it does not fully satisfy assigned research workload benchmarks within a given review period.
  • A faculty member may meet assigned teaching workload through multiple course preparations or high-enrollment courses. However, teaching effectiveness for annual review and promotion and/or tenure is evaluated based on quality indicators such as instructional effectiveness, curriculum leadership, innovation, and student outcomes, not solely on course counts. Conversely, exceptional teaching impact (e.g., curricular transformation, pedagogical innovation, or sustained excellence) may exceed evaluative expectations even when teaching workload is lower due to reassigned effort in other domains.
  • Meeting service workload expectations reflects participation in assigned roles. Promotion and/or tenure evaluations may emphasize the significance, leadership, and impact of service contributions rather than the number of service activities alone. Routine service contributions that fulfill workload expectations may not be sufficient for advancement, while sustained leadership in high-impact service roles may exceed evaluative expectations.
  • Administrative workload reflects formally assigned roles and responsibilities. Evaluation for annual review or advancement considers effectiveness, scope, and outcomes of administrative contributions, not merely the presence of an administrative assignment. High-impact administrative leadership may be recognized in evaluation even when workload allocations vary over time.
  • Clinical workload reflects assigned clinical supervision, instruction, or practice responsibilities. Evaluation emphasizes clinical excellence, educational impact, innovation, and contributions to program quality or accreditation, rather than volume of clinical activity alone.

III.    Teaching

A typical 3-credit, credit-bearing course (3 WUs) is estimated to reflect 10% of total faculty workload. It is recognized that a great deal of effort goes into teaching that is beyond the class session time. This includes course preparation, grading, communicating with students, and other activities. In addition, the level of effort for each course could be inconsistent over the semester with some weeks taking more time than others. As such, the 10% baseline for a 3-credit course does not necessarily equate to the number of hours per week but is estimated to reflect the percentage of effort over the entire course length.

Credit-bearing clinical, laboratory, practicum, internship, and field-based courses that are classified as “standard” (i.e., instructional credit hours are equivalent to assigned WUs, such as 3 credits=3 WUs) shall be assigned under Teaching. Courses classified as “non-standard” (e.g., internship/practicum courses where student credit hours exceed typical faculty instructional effort) may be assigned under Clinical or Teaching using unit-defined credit hour equivalencies, consistent with unit workload policies and with documentation of rationale.

Each school/department can establish and publish criteria for teaching modifiers. This may include assigning additional WUs (no more than 3 WUs can be awarded as modifiers) for such factors as:

• High course enrollment; 
• High impact practice.

Teaching modifiers are implemented through workload redistribution or reassignment within the unit. The academic unit must show that proposed additional WUs will not limit its ability to accommodate all necessary courses required for the academic majors. To ensure equity, additional weights for teaching workload should be consistent across the unit. 

In addition to instruction, faculty are often engaged in advising and mentoring students. While there is not a specific workload allocation for this component of teaching, faculty should note this in their annual review summaries.

IV.    Research

The research component of workload policies does not apply to instructional faculty. All tenure-track, tenured, and clinical faculty with a research allocation are expected to engage in scholarly activities consistent with their role, discipline, and academic rank. The nature of expected outputs may vary between tenure-track and clinical faculty, but all workload will be quantified using WUs.

Three WUs is equivalent to 10% workload. Research workload will be evaluated over a rolling two-year window. Faculty may combine outputs across the two years to fulfill assigned research workload. WUs are designed to promote consistency across teaching, research, service, and clinical domains.

Externally funded effort (e.g., salary-supported effort on awarded grants/contracts) may be used to support the research component of a faculty member’s assigned workload distribution. When external funds support a defined percentage of faculty effort, the corresponding effort may be documented within the faculty member’s workload plan (e.g., 10% funded effort aligns with 3 WUs of research allocation or funded effort may be used for a course buyout where 10% effort on a grant=3WUs).

A. Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty

1. WU Framework and Scholarly Output

Presentations, abstracts, posters, and internal funding applications do not count toward research WUs. These activities may be included in annual evaluations or promotion dossiers and are generally expected to contribute to the development of peer-reviewed manuscripts and/or external grant submissions.

2. Example Scaling of Expectations

Faculty may mix scholarly outputs as needed to fulfill assigned WUs. Partial credit for in-progress work (e.g., manuscript under review) may be granted at the discretion of the chair/director.

3. Research Inactivity

A tenure-track or tenured faculty member will be designated “research inactive” after two consecutive years of not meeting workload benchmarks of meets or exceeds expectations. This determination is made by the department chair or school director based on the annual review process. Faculty designated as research inactive will work with the chair/director, in consultation with the Associate Dean for Research, to determine an appropriate path forward. This may include either a) a change in role through reallocation of workload expectations or b) a remediation plan intended to restore the faculty member to research-active status. A role reallocation adjusts future workload expectations based on an agreed change in responsibilities and does not require demonstration of prior research expectations once the new workload distribution is approved. A remediation plan outlines expectations and support for re-engagement in scholarship and may include mentoring, targeted scholarly goals, and a defined timeline appropriate to the discipline and rank. The remediation plan may include temporary adjustment of workload to support recovery toward the anticipated research allocation. A faculty member may return to research-active status upon demonstrating sustained progress toward research expectations aligned with the assigned workload allocation, typically within a subsequent evaluation cycle. Upon return to research-active status, workload distribution may be adjusted accordingly.

B. Clinical Faculty

Clinical faculty may negotiate a research workload allocation that aligns with their clinical and educational responsibilities. The WU system applies, but acceptable research outputs may be broader to reflect clinical scholarship. The maximum research workload allocation for clinical faculty is 20% (6 WUs).

1. Acceptable Scholarly Outputs

Faculty may combine outputs (e.g., 1 grant + 2 abstracts = 6 WUs). Internal reports or case studies must be published in peer-reviewed venues to qualify.

2. Example Scaling of Expectations for Clinical Faculty

Unit-level workload policies may include additional types of outputs specific to clinical scholarship, subject to approval by the Dean’s Office.

C. Research Ethics and Responsible Scholarship

Maintaining high ethical standards is essential for all faculty. This includes adhering to responsible research practices and avoiding predatory journals, deceptive publications that lack peer review, charge excessive fees, and damage the credibility of scholarly work.

Faculty are strongly encouraged to publish in established, reputable journals and should be vigilant for the following red flags:

1. Promise of rapid publication
2. No International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)
3. Not indexed in MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, Web of Science, or other established databases
4. Publisher is unknown or lacks a legitimate academic reputation

The inclusion of work in predatory journals may not be counted toward WU credit.

V.    Service

Service is negotiated between the faculty member and the chair or director to ensure equitable assignments. Faculty are expected to include service activity minimally to their unit and the college. The service activity for faculty typically accounts for 3-6 WUs (10-20%) of their total workload. WUs for service will be assigned based on College- and unit-level designations.

The College has established WUs for College-level service roles. Units must establish their own WUs for common unit-level service roles, using the College values as a guideline. To promote equity and avoid inflation of service WUs in units where committee participation is widespread, chairs/directors may consolidate, adjust, or cap service WU assignments across multiple roles to reflect total effort and differentiate leadership responsibilities from routine participation expectations. College-level service WU values include:

• Curriculum Committee
  • Chair: 2.0 WUs
  • Member: 1.5 WUs
• Promotion and Tenure Committee
  • Chair: 1.5 WUs
  • Member: 1.0 WU
• Research Council
  • Chair: 1.5 WUs
  • Member: 1.0 WU
• College Level Activities
  • Communities of Practice: 0.5 to 1.0 WU, depending on the involvement
  • IPE Events: 0.2 to 1.0 WU, depending on the involvement

Guidelines for Unit-level Service:

• Units may assign 1.0 WU for base departmental service (e.g., faculty meetings, participation in search committees, and ad hoc departmental committees). Units may assign up to 2.0 WUs for base departmental service when required responsibilities are substantial or when base service expectations are structured to include additional unit-level obligations.
• Committee Chair roles will typically range from 1.5 to 3.0 WUs, depending on the assignment.
• Committee Member roles will typically range from 0.5 to 1.0 WU, depending on the assignment.
• Service WUs for activities external to the University may not exceed half of the total service workload allocation.
• All faculty must meet their assigned minimum service workload; additional service is voluntary and cannot be used to buy out of other workload categories.
• Instructional faculty are not required to have a service workload allocation if their teaching allocation is 100%.

VI. Non-Clinical Administrative

Administrative workload includes formally assigned responsibilities such as unit or program leadership, accreditation support, scheduling, and student support functions. These responsibilities must be documented in the faculty member’s annual workload agreement. Faculty may not exceed an administrative workload of 14.7 WUs (49%) and retain faculty rank and status, in accordance with university policy. Faculty may not receive duplicative compensation for the same work (e.g., reassigned time plus additional pay for identical duties), unless the additional pay is documented as compensating duties performed outside contract period or extraordinary responsibilities beyond baseline expectations.

College guidelines provide the following ranges for common administrative WUs:

• Department Chair/School Director
  • Up to 14.7 WUs (range allows for size and complexity of the unit)
• Clinical Education Coordinator/Program Coordinator
  • Up to 9 WUs (range allows for size and complexity of the unit)
  • Faculty performing clinical coordination duties (e.g., onboarding, site visits, placement management) as part of an administrative assignment may not also receive clinical or other WUs for the same work.
• Accreditation/Self-Study Lead
  • Up to 6 WUs depending on scope and cycle

Guidelines for Unit-level Administrative:

• Units may propose additional administrative activities for WUs if they are clearly defined and reviewed annually by the chair/director and approved by the Dean’s Office.
• The list above is illustrative, not exhaustive, and units should define additional common roles using these ranges as a guideline.

VII.    Clinical

According to the Faculty Handbook (II.C.3.ii) CHSP Clinical Faculty hold clinical licenses/credentials, may practice in their disciplines, and are primarily hired to mentor/teach students in clinical disciplines and/or clinical settings.

Clinical workload includes responsibilities that are clinical in nature and are not fully captured through instructional credit hours. These responsibilities may include clinical supervision of students in clinical placements, onboarding and placement coordination, clinical site oversight and visits, and direct clinical/patient care. Direct clinical/patient care WU credit applies only to clinical responsibilities performed as part of assigned university duties (e.g., supervision/precepting of OHIO students or required faculty practice responsibilities) and may not be granted for externally compensated clinical employment unless explicitly approved and documented in the annual workload plan. The remainder of a clinical faculty member’s workload should be assigned to teaching, research, administrative, or service activities consistent with the guidelines described above and in unit workload policies. Faculty may not receive duplicative compensation for the same work (e.g., reassigned time plus additional pay for identical duties), unless the additional pay is documented as compensating duties performed outside contract period or extraordinary responsibilities beyond baseline expectations.

Credit-bearing instruction, including courses with clinical content or clinical instructional components, is assigned under Teaching when the course is classified as “standard” (i.e., credit hours = WUs). Non-standard credit-bearing clinical/practicum/internship courses (e.g., internship or practicum experiences in which student credit hours do not reasonably reflect faculty instructional effort) may be assigned under Clinical using equivalency values defined at the unit level and documented in the annual workload plan.

Units may define their own clinical WU expectations within the following College guidelines:

• Clinical Coordination & Supervision (up to 9.0 WUs; depending on scale)
  • 1.0 WU, Supervision of 10 students in a weekly clinical placement (per semester)
  • Up to 9.0 WUs, Onboarding, placement coordination, and site visits, based on frequency and scale
  • Faculty who perform site visits or placement coordination as part of clinical supervision or teaching may not also receive administrative or other WUs for those same duties.
• Clinical teaching of non-standard courses assigned using equivalencies
  • Non-standard credit-bearing clinical/practicum/internship courses in which student credit hours do not reasonably reflect faculty instructional effort may be assigned WUs based on supervision intensity, number of students supervised, number of sites managed, placement coordination requirements, and documentation expectations, consistent with unit workload policies.
• Direct clinical/patient care in support of OHIO programs (e.g., precepting/supervision or assigned faculty practice)
  • Up to 6.0 WUs, based on frequency  

Guidelines for Unit-level Clinical:

• Clinical WU assignments should reflect actual scope and complexity of the work and may include both direct supervision and clinical-adjacent activities.
• Units must document thresholds (e.g., number of students supervised, number of sites managed) for assigning WUs.
• Faculty involved in both didactic and clinical teaching should have workload split appropriately between teaching and clinical WUs.
• This list is illustrative, not exhaustive; units should define additional clinical roles within these ranges.