If this is a site about teaching, why is there a page about sabbaticals?

The answer is simple. It seems that for many instructors, sabbaticals have strayed from their original intent and justification. As noted in the early descriptions of sabbaticals (e.g., Eells 1962 “The Origin and Early History of Sabbatical Leave), the intent was for someone, after a significant period of time (e.g., six years) to have a break from teaching and other duties and to have an opportunity to ‘refurbish’, to have contact with other institutions, nationally and internationally, and have contact with those in other specialties and to gain knowledge and experience not normally possible in the normal academic year. It was not to finish up papers, make a push towards a promotion goal. It was 'after' the promotion was received, after six years.



A modern definition from Lundquist and Misra (Inside HigherEd May 11, 2017):

• it is a replacement of teaching and service for a period to devote oneself entirely to the development of a new and transformative project -- whether that is writing a book, conducting fieldwork abroad or learning new teaching pedagogies.

Or as noted by Smith (EMBO reports, Science & Society, 2020):

• privilege of a sabbatical is overwhelmingly used for good - to do things that benefit the university and society as a whole.

And, these statements are in line with the historic roots of the practice. To justify the expense and investment, it was duly noted that the sabbatical was not for the benefit of the individual, but for the good of university education. This value is derived from the professional and/or personal development attained from the sabbatical. Starting a new and transformative project, fieldwork, learning new teaching pedagogies will all ‘help’ the institution and students in the future. Writing up existing research in the normal dissemination channels, or ‘doing more of the same’ will not. Self-serving and self-centered activities will not.

Those in favor of sabbaticals state a variety of benefits. While not always possible, a traditional theme was to attempt a sabbatical at a ‘level up’ institution or situation; to potentially elevate the situation at home upon return.

Common themes from the literature...

• Professional and/or personal development; sitting in on courses, seminars, exams, lunch meetings
• New experiences in new settings; culture, teaching, academic practice, research

• Development of collaborations, new friendships – enriching norms, expectations
• Provides time to think, make mistakes, a different brick wall to butt your head against (Pidd 2017)
• Time to pursue tangents and possibly related topics, explore multi-disciplinary cross-overs
• Learning about different approaches to curriculum design, delivery
• Exploring different philosophies about pedagogy, teaching methodologies; best (or better) practice

These are all good benefits and are aligned with the expectations surrounding sabbaticals.

Unfortunately, we have observed six trends with respect to sabbaticals. There are exceptions to all expected behaviors, but they should be the exceptions and not the norms.

• Half-sabbaticals (e.g., 6 month) after three years.
• It used to be that junior faculty members were not eligible for sabbaticals, and sabbaticals would be in the seventh year – after tenure.
• Half-sabbaticals as norms – not exceptions.
• A six-month break is not necessarily long enough for the type of activities and experiences envisioned for sabbaticals.
• Sabbatical time taken ‘at home’ as norms – not exceptions.
• It is difficult to learn the new practices and subtleties without leaving home. It is indeed possible to view webpages from the luxury of your home, but it is not the same as being ‘in situ’.
• Sabbatical visits to labs or research settings as the norm, without any ‘educational’ or ‘teaching’ aspect.
• Labs and research settings do little for improving teaching and pedagogy. They will definitely help with publishing and research, but not the education of students in general.
• Terminal sabbaticals not focused on the ‘end-game’.

• Summarizing bodies of work, helping with transitions, course handoffs, organizational knowledge should be the focus of terminal sabbaticals as sabbaticals are supposed to help and improve the future situation. Doing the same publishing and then retiring does little to improve the future (sorry).
• Sabbatical activity focused on getting ‘stuff’ done that did not get done, preparing for promotion and review.
• Versus focusing on renewal and learning. Really?

Society at times has looked at sabbaticals with a questioning eye; what is the value of them? Why is tax money being used to help faculty get promoted? That is, if sabbaticals are being used to do research that would have normally been done in the past during the normal school year with the goal of providing publications for promotion, tenure, or grant writing, it is not clear what the value is, or why society should fund them.

In the past, faculty were expected to do the required teaching and do sufficient research of a desired quality by the time of their promotion and review; without extra time off. It was also the case that faculty were expected to teach four or more courses at most institutions. Today, it is not uncommon to hear that the norm is three courses a year. Yet, the output (e.g., the number of pubs etc.) required for promotion has remained largely the same; 3-4 good pubs per year with a mix of sole authorship or 4-6 per year if an army of grad students are employed. The math does not add up. Less teaching, but teaching is still weighted the same, say 40% (Are instructors taking the course reduction and spending more time per course? On teaching related tasks? We do not think most do.), with roughly the same output (pubs per year), but with sabbaticals focused on career progression and not for the good of university education. Hmmm. One could argue that sabbaticals focused on promotion activities are not warranted. Sabbaticals are supposedly a privilege, not a right, and being paid additional to do what you should have done in the first place seems a bit out of whack.

To quote Lundquist and Misra (ibid): The sabbatical is an opportunity to take on something new and risky, but many faculty members approach it as an opportunity to do the research they usually do; just much more of it. You should think bigger. The sabbatical is not just about higher research productivity; it is about exploring new lines of inquiry and investing in a longer-term, potentially transformational project. Don’t squander your sabbatical doing exactly what you usually do, only in an office somewhere else.

Lecturers or teaching faculty should also have sabbaticals of some kind. They also have the need for renewal and self-development. This is not strictly a ‘research’ issue. Remember that sabbaticals are supposed to be for the good of the University education. However, if the decision makers are research oriented, they might think of sabbaticals as anything other than to further their research careers. Sad.

Further reading

• Eells, W.C. (1962). The Origin and Early History of Sabbatical Leave, AAUP Bulletin, 48, 3, pp. 253-256.
• Lundquist, J. and J. Misra (2017). How to Sabbatical, Inside Higher Ed, May 11, 2017.
• Pidd, M. (2017). In Praise of Sabbaticals, Impact, 3, 2, 13-14.
• Smith, D.R. (2020). Is sabbatical a dirty word? EMBO Reports, 21, 7.