Retention and Advancement for Mid Career Faculty K.D. JoshiKelly Ward Associate Professor of Interim Chair and Information Systems Professor, Education Leadership & Co. Psychology College of Business College of Education

Overview Who are mid career faculty? Importance of the topic National scene COACHE--Mid Career Findings Other research—Mid Career Faculty Next steps

Who are mid career faculty? Associate professors Post tenure (associate or full) more than five years from retirement “Not so young anymore” Faculty with tenure between 10 and 30 years on the job Faculty with tenure who are of age WSU--COACHE --Post tenure associate faculty

Why is the advancement of mid career faculty important? Who cares?

Why important? Develop potential leaders Maintain faculty pipeline Faculty morale Wise institutional investment Maintain research vitality and productivity Role model for junior faculty Other reasons?

Issues and challenges associated with advancement of mid-career faculty The pipeline is lacking—not enough people to go up for full Promotion to full is voluntary—not on a set time line like promotion to associate Tenure and promotion policies vague Work/family issues (child and elder care) Gendered cultures Disciplinary cultures vary Service responsibilities Other ideas?

COACHE Findings Related to Mid-Career Faculty

Background Cohort analysis at WSU – Fran McSweeney Focus group at WSU - Fran McSweeney What we can learn from COACHE 2009 Data Associate Professor Perspectives on Factors that shape Job Satisfaction of Faculty – A comparison of Assistant, Associate and Full Professors Are there any Gender Differences? Begin Conversation

Background – Cohort Analysis Cohorts of those hired as, or promoted to, associate professor between 1992 and 2001 Major Conclusions: We lose associate professors (23% in 6 years; 33% over all years) at a lower rate than we lose assistant professors (44% in 6 years). Few associate professors move to full professor status in a timely manner (22% in 6 years) or at all (40% in 15 years for the 1992 cohort. Women (13% in 6 years) are only approximately half as likely to be promoted to full professor as men (27% in 6 years) Women may encounter a “glass ceiling” for salaries at approximately $130,000 per year. Doing better in more recent years than we did in the earlier years.

Background – Focus Groups Four discussion sessions of Associate Professors were conducted during February/March A set recommendations were derived from the insights gained through these sessions: Increase Transparency Clarify Responsibilities Increase Institutional Support

Distribution of Survey Participants by Rank N = 578

COACHE Survey for Associate Professors COACHE focuses mainly on Pre-tenure faculty, however, associate and full were included in a small set of ADVANCE Institutions Comparative data not available from other institutions This work focuses Associate Professors and conducts analysis to compare perspectives of Associates with Assistant and Fulls. I do not compare Assistant and Fulls. A five point scale is used to measure perceptions

Survey Themes Tenure and Promotion Nature of the Work Policies and Practices Climate, Culture and Collegiality Global Satisfaction

How Satisfied are Associate Professors Compared to Assistant and Full?

Global Satisfaction Differences between Associate and Assistant & Associate and Full are Significant

Tenure and Promotion

Level of Agreement All the Faculty rated their level of agreement with the following two statements: “I have received consistent messages from tenured/Full colleagues about the requirements for tenure,” and “In my opinion, tenure/promotion decisions here are made primarily on performance-based criteria rather than on non- performance criteria.” Fulls ONLY rated their perceptions of level of clarity regarding the promotion of associates.

Consistent Message and Objectivity Differences between Associate and Assistant & Associate and Full are Significant

Tenure and Promotion – Overall The survey asked Assistants and Associates to rate their level of clarity regarding four aspects of tenure: process, criteria, standards, and the body of evidence required. Along the same scale, the survey asked faculty to rate their level of clarity regarding their sense of whether or not they will achieve tenure/promotion. The survey also asked the Fulls to rate their perceptions of level of clarity regarding getting promoted to Full on the aforementioned items

Tenure and Promotion Process - Perception Differences Between Associates and Assistants Differences are Significant for all items except the “Sense” Item

Promotion to Full Professor: Perception Differences Between Associates and Full Differences are Significant for all items

Tenure and Promotion – Drilling Down Performance Expectation – Clarity and Reasonableness Next, the survey asked faculty to rate their level of clarity regarding the expectations for earning tenure or promotion in six areas where faculty work is judged: scholarship, teaching, advising, colleagueship in the department, campus citizenship, and membership in the broader community. For each item, the survey also asked faculty about the reasonableness of those expectations.

Performance Expectation Clarity Differences are Significant for all items except “advisor” and “broader community member” Item

Performance Expectation Clarity Differences are Significant for only “scholar” item

Performance Expectation Reasonableness Differences are Significant for all items except for “advisor” Item

Expectation Reasonableness Differences are Significant only for Scholar, Teacher and Colleague items

Nature of Work

Nature of Work Overall The Nature of Work – Overall composite represents the mean satisfaction scores of the following: Satisfaction with the number of hours worked The allocation of faculty members’ time Clerical/administrative support services Access to TAs, RAs, and/or GAs Quality of facilities Computing support services

Nature of Work – Teaching The Teaching composite represents the mean satisfaction scores of the following: Level of courses taught Number of courses taught Degree of influence over which courses are taught Discretion over content of courses taught Number of students taught Quality of undergraduates taught/interacted with Quality of graduates taught/interacted with Teaching services

Nature of Work - Research The Research composite represents the mean satisfaction scores of the following: Amount of time to conduct research Amount of external funding required Influence over research focus Research Services

Work Related Satisfaction Differences between Associate and Assistant (except for Teaching) & Associate and Full are Significant

Compensation and Work-Life Balance

Differences between Associate and Assistant & Associate and Full are Significant for Compensation, but not for Work-Life Balance

Climate

Differences between Associate and Assistant & Associate and Full are Significant

Overall Male and Female Perceptions are not statistically different, but females consistently rate their satisfaction lower than males. Gender Differences

Policies and Practices – Gender differences in how the Importance of these policies were rated

Now what? Next steps? Best practices: What are you doing in your department? Issues: What challenges do you face in addressing mid career faculty development? Future: What can you do in your department to maintain faculty vitality and advancement? Institution: What can WSU do to maintain the pipeline?

Policy and practice Next steps… Transparency in policies for promotion—not a cure all, but a help Work/family balance issues remain very important for women faculty, regardless of rank (Britton, 2010) Pay attention to departmental/disciplinary culture and expectations for promotion Maintain a faculty development mindset that includes associate faculty

Institutional initiatives What data analysis needs exist? What can ADVANCE do to be helpful?