Recently, the use and control of information technology have caused tension between academic administrators and academic staff. During the 1997 contract negotiations at York University unresolved technology issues were one of the underlying causes of the faculty strike. In universities where instructional technology is forced upon staff and students, faculty are concerned about loss of academic freedom and choice to use or not to use technology.¹

Academic staff must be centrally involved in how and why technology is introduced on campus. One means of reaching consensus and agreement between faculty and administrations is through the process of negotiation and joint planning structures.

Perry Robinson of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Cynthia Petersen, a lawyer with Sack Goldblatt Mitchell in Toronto, and David Clipsham of York University Faculty Association highlighted a number of issues that need to be jointly addressed by academic staff and administration.

The advent of instructional technology has increased interest in distance education. In its task force report on technology in higher education,² AFT suggested that faculty have a responsibility to "keep educational quality at the center of the discussion about distance learning" (p.13). This responsibility applies to all aspects of teaching and learning. AFT outlined five principles:

• faculty must retain academic responsibility and control over instruction
  
• distance learning courses should only be taught by faculty appointed and evaluated through the traditional process
  
• distance education courses should be structured to include substantial faculty-student and student-student interchange
  
• distance education should only be undertaken when a campus-based alternative is impractical
  
• only a limited number of credits should be awarded for distance education.
  

Faculty need to be involved in decisions that determine how many credits can be obtained through distance education courses. Restrictions need to be placed on importing courses that use instructional technology, especially if the course content is already taught, or could be taught by existing personnel. These restrictions are crucial during a strike or lockout, or if employees have been recently laid off. New special courses should be created by employees, and not by contracting outside the university. Special courses relying on information technology should go through the same rigorous academic approval process that applies to other university courses. Issues of job security can be partially addressed by prohibiting lay off as a result of instructional technology.

The introduction of information technology has implications for university budgets. Increased expenditure in technology is often coupled with cuts in personnel, salaries, benefits, library and other resources. Some of the effects on the university budget are difficult to trace.

While faculty must have the academic freedom to choose teaching methods and materials, those who adopt instructional technology need access to appropriate training and resources to sustain its use. The latter are costs that are not always taken into account when information technology is introduced. Grants and release time are two avenues that can be negotiated for teaching staff who choose to use technology, and for academic librarians who often have technological change imposed on them. Allowable professional development reimbursements need to cover purchase of appropriate equipment if not supplied by the university.

Reliance on instructional technology can have an impact on short term contractual staff, who are expected to use the new technology. Part-time staff must then spend valuable time undergoing training in new technologies rather than doing the crucial research that supports the teaching endeavour. This can lead to differential hiring of people with expertise in technology, potential weakening of course content, and loss of security of employment and income.

Since academic staff are salaried employees, issues of intellectual property can be complicated. Information technology adds to the complexity of this issue. In the United States, a Conference on Fair Use was set up to review the Copyright Act. By December 1996, this group had prepared guidelines covering the fair use of educational multimedia, and later circulated guidelines covering distance education.³ Some limitations should apply to university use of educational materials produced by staff. For example, staff who create educational resources turned over to the university need to be involved in any updating and editing of their original work.

The negotiation process identifies and defines the terms of employment and expectations of academic staff and administrations. As a complement to or as an outcome of negotiations, joint committees can help to plan for broad-based introduction of information technology or to address specific issues and problems. York University, for example, set up a joint sub-committee on the impact of technology with equal representation from the administration and the faculty association.

Academic staff, both faculty and librarians, must be involved in drafting regulations governing the use of information technology.

¹ There is a legal obligation, however, to accommodate students with special needs (such as a physical disability). In some such cases, instructional technology can be an appropriate means of accommodating the rights of these students.

² American Federation of Teachers. How Unions Can Harness the Technology Revolution on Campus. Report of the Task Force on Technology in Higher Education. January 1996.

³ Perry M. Robinson. Technology and Higher Education 1996-97. American Federation of Teachers. 1997. Appendix D and Appendix E, respectively.