At the end of last week I sent an email to all the remaining faculty at BSU. There are about 200 right now, there will be 171 after the retrenchment. I asked three, multiple-choice questions and got about fifty responses (a couple of people didn't answer every question or answered them with qualifications that ended up not really fitting the categories). Here are the results. It only represents about a quarter of the faculty, and probably is skewed toward people who were already interested in OER and Z-Degrees anyway, but I think the info is at least suggestive.
The first question was about familiarity with Open Educational Resources (OER) and other methods of reducing student course expenses. The responses split pretty evenly, with about half (27) saying they were familiar with OER but have not yet used it and another half (25) saying either that they were very familiar and have already used OER (18) or that they were unfamiliar with OER but had used other methods to reduce costs (7). Additionally, one said they were unfamiliar and have not tried to reduce student cost yet. No one said they were skeptical about the importance of this, relative to other needs.
The second question asked if they would support an effort by some BSU faculty to continue exploring how Bemidji might participate in this Z-Degree effort. I asked them to keep in mind that other universities in the system will be pursuing this opportunity. Despite this, six people responded that Z-Degrees should "not be a priority, given everything else that's going on" or that it sounded like a good idea, "but probably too soon given the situation". Seventeen people said Z-Degrees "might help BSU in the future, and initial steps should be taken". Twenty-two chose, "As a possible solution to our enrollment issue, we should pursue this soon." Finally, eight checked "Should be top priority; get on with it!"
The final question addressed individual actions, and I asked whether the faculty thought reducing student textbook cost would be something they and their program would consider exploring. Nineteen responded that they were already working on it (I'm following up with them to get details). Fifteen more said they had begun work but were waiting to see whether it will be possible to continue. Nine said they had considered it, but were now would consider it "once the situation going forward is more clear". Seven said they would consider it, "if there were appropriate incentives". And three (including a former chair of a large department) said they would not consider it at this time.
Several of the faculty who elaborated on their answers pointed out that in addition to the uncertainty over what the departments are going to look like next year and what programs might be cut, there is a high level of anxiety over the increased workloads that are going to come from remaining faculty picking up lots of new courses as they take over topics previously covered by the retrenched. I heard from several people whose programs are being reduced to two or even one professor. In my own History program, it is unclear how the faculty who remain will be able to teach my courses and when they will be able to do it in their rotations. In addition, one colleague pointed out that the administration is considering a new "mixed-modal" requirement, where low-enrollment courses will be required to add an asynchronous online option for students. Depending on how this is rolled out, it may create additional (unpaid) work for faculty, especially in upper-level "major" courses that typically don't have high enrollments. The prospect of quite a lot of additional work makes it especially difficult for some faculty to consider taking on OER or Z-Degree projects.
I’ll be reporting on this when I check in with the system office people who are funding the grant I got, and we’ll see where we go from there.