COACHE: Tenure- Track Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey Conducted by the Harvard Graduate School of Education: The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education Office of Institutional Research Research Series Fall 2006

Theoretical framework  Sociological/generational theory  Generation-X  Born between  Skeptical  Believe parents suffered from VDD- vacation deficit disorder  Willing to work hard but wants to decide when, where and how

Generational comparison TRADITIONALIST ( ) BOOMER ( ) GEN-X ( ) Chain of command Self-command Collaborative Build a legacyBuild a stellar careerBuild a portable career Satisfaction of a job well done Money, title, recognition, corner office Freedom If we give into the demands for flexibility who will do the work? I can’t believe the nerve of those X’ers. They want it all. I’ll go where I can find the lifestyle I am seeking. Job changing creates a stigma. Job changing puts you behind. Job changing is necessary. If I am not yelling at you, you are doing fine. Feedback once a year, well documented Sorry to interrupt again, but how am I doing?

Purpose of the COACHE study  Make the academy a more equitable and appealing place for new faculty to work in order to recruit and maintain top talent  Increase the recruitment, retention, status, success and satisfaction of faculty of color  Give voice to early career faculty  Produce structural and cultural changes on campuses

COACHE themes  Importance and effectiveness of policies  Tenure clarity and reasonableness of expectations  Work load and environment  Climate, culture collegiality and support  Global satisfaction

Survey design and analysis  Survey design and questions based on focus group research using a sociological/generational framework  Survey conducted and analysis provided through Harvard Graduate School of Education  Comparisons within school (overall, female and minority) and between school and peers  Significant results + or – more than one standard deviation from the mean

Statistical briefs  118 faculty invited to participate  59.3% completion rate  Slightly higher than national rate of 56%  Within UNC  Greatest UNC-Asheville at 83.3%  Smallest Winston-Salem State at 33.3%

Visual measurement approach  UNCW mean compared with peer mean overall and by sub-groupings (gender and ethnicity)  Peers selected by GA were ASU, FSU, NCCU, UNC-P, WCU  Slide for each group of questions by theme and mean comparisons are noted as follows:  UNCW mean and (peer mean) included in each cell when available UNCW mean was more than one standard deviation above the comparison group mean UNCW mean was more than one standard deviation below the comparison group mean

CLIMATE, CULTURE AND COLLEGIALITY

QUESTIONS RELATED TO CLIMATE, CULTURE AND COLLEGIALITY COMPARED TO PEER OverallMaleFemaleColorWhite Satisfaction with the amount of professional interaction they have with junior colleagues in their dept (4.02) 4.12 (4.12)4.25 (3.92)4.11 (3.84)4.20 (4.06) Satisfaction with the amount of personal interaction they have with junior colleagues in their dept (4.04)4.11 (4.21)4.19 (3.85)3.93 (3.83)4.21 (4.00) Satisfaction with the fairness of their immediate supervisor's evaluation of their work 4.13 (4.05)4.22 (4.17)4.03 (3.94)4.04 (4.28)4.16 (3.98) Satisfaction with how well they "fit" in their department 3.89 (3.95)3.95 (4.13) 3.82 (3.75)3.83 (4.01)3.91 (3.85) Satisfaction with the amount of personal interaction they have with senior colleagues in their dept 3.83 (3.92)3.69 (4.20)3.99 (3.60)3.96 (3.77)3.79 (3.83) Sense that their department treats junior faculty fairly compared to one another 3.76 (3.85)3.80 (4.03)3.71 (3.65)3.83 (4.05)3.74 (3.78) Satisfaction with the amount of professional interaction they have with senior colleagues in their dept (3.74)3.41 (3.87)3.80 (3.63)3.92 (3.63)3.49 (3.80) Satisfaction with the interest senior faculty take in their professional development 3.46 (3.57)3.60 (3.71)3.29 (3.44)3.38 (3.74)3.48 (3.44) Sense of unity and cohesion among the faculty in their department 3.42 (3.54)3.56 (3.83)3.26 (3.22)3.41 (3.65)3.43 (3.46) Satisfaction with their opportunities to collaborate with senior faculty 3.42 (3.58)3.20 (3.62)3.69 (3.55)3.12 (3.67)3.50 (3.56) Satisfaction with the intellectual vitality of the senior colleagues in their department 3.37 (3.42)3.27 (3.58)3.48 (3.24)3.70 (3.53)3.28 (3.27) Sense of unity and cohesion among the faculty in their School 2.99 (3.11)2.91 (3.09)3.10 (3.13)3.18 (3.39)2.94 (2.99) Example: 5-point scale 5-very satisfied to 1-very unsatisfied

NATURE OF WORK

QUESTIONS RELATED TO NATURE OF WORK OverallMaleFemaleColorWhite Satisfaction with the discretion they have over the content of courses they teach 4.62 (4.58)4.65 (4.72)4.58 (4.43)4.39 (4.60)4.67 (4.53) Satisfaction with the influence they have over the focus of their research 4.36 (4.30)4.47 (4.41)4.23 (4.21)3.77 (4.40)4.49 (4.28) Satisfaction with the influence they have over which courses they teach 4.21 (4.14)4.08 (4.28)4.38 (3.99)4.01 (4.38)4.26 (4.01) Satisfaction with the level of the courses they teach 4.18 (4.12)4.22 (4.08)4.12 (4.14)3.78 (4.21)4.28 (4.05) Satisfaction with the number of students they teach 3.79 (3.89)3.86 (4.05)3.70 (3.75)3.70 (3.96)3.81 (3.95) Satisfaction with the quality of computing services 3.75 (3.62)3.75 (3.73)3.76 (3.54)4.16 (3.80)3.65 (3.51) Satisfaction with the quality of teaching services 3.71 (3.74)3.85 (3.83)3.52 (3.66)3.87 (3.82)3.66 (3.60) Satisfaction with the way they spend their time as faculty members 3.67 (3.85) 3.76 (3.99)3.55 (3.70)3.57 (3.99)3.69 (3.81) Satisfaction with the quality of graduate students with whom they interact 3.63 (3.41) 3.26 (3.24)4.09 (3.61)3.44 (3.60)3.68 (3.34) Satisfaction with the number of courses they teach 3.61 (3.25) 3.39 (3.27)3.88 (3.24)3.79 (3.62)3.57 (3.05) Satisfaction with the quality of clerical/administrative services 3.49 (3.47)3.33 (3.57)3.70 (3.37)3.96 (3.72)3.38 (3.39) Satisfaction with what's expected of them as researchers 3.47 (3.40)3.45 (3.74)3.49 (3.05)3.69 (3.69)3.41 (3.40) Satisfaction with the quality of undergraduate students with whom they interact 3.05 (3.07)2.77 (3.05)3.41 (3.13)2.80 (3.11)3.12 (2.94) Satisfaction with the amount of research funding they are expected to find 2.89 (2.66)2.97 (2.90)2.81 (2.44)2.53 (2.79)2.98 (2.61) Satisfaction with the quality of facilities 2.85 (2.98) 3.03 (3.09)2.62 (2.89)3.06 (3.20)2.79 (3.07) Satisfaction with the quality of research services 2.72 (2.81)2.56 (2.88)2.91 (2.79)3.00 (2.98)2.64 (2.67) Satisfaction with the amount of access they have to Teaching Fellows, Graduate Assistants, et al 2.57 (2.48)2.62 (2.56)2.51 (2.38)2.57 (2.49) Satisfaction with the amount of time they have to conduct research 2.03 (2.18)2.14 (2.40)1.90 (2.00)2.17 (2.78)2.00 (2.07) Example: 5-point scale 5-very satisfied to 1-very unsatisfied

TENURE

QUESTIONS RELATED TO TENURE PEER COMPARISON OverallMaleFemaleColorWhite Reasonableness of the expectations for performance as a student advisor 4.08 (3.95)4.24 (4.01)3.87 (3.88)3.68 (4.27)4.18 (3.82) Reasonableness of the expectations for performance as a teacher 4.05 (4.30) 4.30 (4.34)3.72 (4.24)3.47 (4.50)4.20 (4.19) Reasonableness of the expectations for performance as a department colleague 4.02 (3.99) 4.11 (4.10)3.92 (3.87)4.17 (4.21)3.98 (3.84) Reasonableness of the expectations for performance as a scholar 3.92 (3.88)3.80 (4.16)4.06 (3.57)4.08 (4.24)3.88 (3.78) Clarity of their own prospects for earning tenure 3.86 (3.91)3.92 (4.08)3.79 (3.72)4.02 (4.09)3.82 (3.87) Reasonableness of the expectations for performance as a campus citizen 3.86 (3.80)3.85 (3.92)3.86 (3.67)4.00 (3.91)3.82 (3.74) Clarity of the expectations for performance as a teacher 3.82 (4.05) 3.87 (3.98)3.76 (4.12) 3.69 (4.20)3.86 (3.94) Reasonableness of the expectations for performance as a community member 3.82 (3.62) 3.86 (3.72)3.77 (3.50)3.68 (3.77)3.86 (3.53) Clarity of the expectations for performance as a student advisor 3.53 (3.65)3.44 (3.63)3.64 (3.68)3.55 (3.89)3.53 (3.44) Clarity of the expectations for performance as a campus citizen 3.50 (3.61)3.37 (3.72)3.66 (3.50)3.54 (3.79)3.49 (3.44) Clarity of the tenure process 3.45 (3.62)3.49 (3.69)3.40 (3.54)3.51 (3.71)3.44 (3.57) Clarity of the expectations for performance as a scholar 3.37 (3.68)3.32 (3.76) 3.43 (3.58)3.89 (3.88)3.24 (3.56) Clarity of the expectations for performance as a department colleague 3.35 (3.63) 3.22 (3.71)3.51 (3.53)3.59 (3.91)3.28 (3.40) Perception that tenure decisions are based primarily on performance 3.33 (3.16)3.25 (3.21)3.41 (3.08)3.65 (3.15)3.25 (3.25) Clarity of the criteria for tenure 3.2 (3.53) 3.26 (3.63)3.40 (3.41)3.41 (3.69)3.30 (3.51) Clarity of the expectations for performance as a community member 3.28 (3.25)3.18 (3.32)3.41 (3.18)3.28 (3.76)3.28 (2.97) Clarity of the body of evidence that will be considered in making decisions about their own tenure 3.2 (3.37) 3.19 (3.44)3.23 (3.31)3.52 (3.60)3.12 (3.23) Clarity of the standards for tenure 3.03 (3.27)2.87 (3.35)3.23 (3.17)3.49 (3.46)2.91 (3.21) Not receiving mixed messages from senior colleagues about the requirements of tenure 2.34 (2.62)2.29 (2.76)2.42 (2.48)2.87 (2.84)2.21 (2.64) Example: 5-point scale 5-very clear to 1-very unclear

POLICIES AND PRACTICES

QUESTIONS RELATED TO POLICIES AND PRACTICES PEER COMPARISON OverallMaleFemaleColorWhite Effectiveness of informal mentoring Effectiveness of periodic, formal performance reviews Departmental colleagues do what they can to make having children and the tenure-track compatible 3.63 (3.77)3.91 (3.96)3.20 (3.59)3.22 (3.68)3.71 (3.74) Effectiveness of travel funds to present papers or conduct research Departmental colleagues do what they can to make raising children and the tenure-track compatible 3.59 (3.72)3.94 (3.91)3.06 (3.58)3.34 (3.94)3.65 (3.66) Effectiveness of written summary of periodic performance reviews Effectiveness of peer reviews of teaching and research Effectiveness of professional assistance for improving teaching Effectiveness of an upper limit on teaching obligations Effectiveness of formal mentoring program Satisfaction with the balance they are able to strike between professional time and personal or family time 2.88 (3.01)3.12 (3.40)2.60 (2.60)2.70 (2.97)2.93 (3.10) Effectiveness of an upper limit on committee assignments Effectiveness of stop-the-tenure-clock for parental or other family reasons Institution does what it can to make raising children and the tenure-track compatible 2.52 (3.00) 2.60 (3.16)2.41 (2.83)2.90 (3.58)2.44 (2.89) Satisfaction with compensation 2.51 (2.80) 2.46 (2.73)2.56 (2.87)2.27 (2.56)2.57 (2.88) Effectiveness of professional assistance in obtaining externally funded grants Institution does what it can to make having children and the tenure-track compatible 2.45 (2.93) 2.56 (3.03)2.30 (2.81)2.60 (3.14)2.43 (2.93) Effectiveness of spousal/partner hiring program Effectiveness of paid or unpaid personal leave during the probationary period Effectiveness of paid or unpaid research leave during the probationary period Effectiveness of financial assistance with housing Effectiveness of child care Example: 5-point scale 5-very effective to 1-very ineffective

GLOBAL SATISFACTION

PEER COMPARISON OverallMaleFemaleColorWhite Sense that if they had to do it over again, they would accept their current position 3.97 (4.16) 4.13 (4.25)3.77 (4.05)3.89 (3.96)3.98 (4.14) Satisfaction with their departments as places to work 3.94 (3.97)4.03 (4.12)3.84 (3.78)4.00 (4.06)3.93 (3.86) Rating their institution as a place for junior faculty to work 3.76 (3.69)3.78 (3.76)3.73 (3.63)4.00 (3.85)3.69 (3.65) Satisfaction with their institution as a place to work 3.71 (3.64)3.65 (3.65)3.78 (3.65)4.01 (3.95)3.64 (3.48) Satisfaction that the CAO at their institution seems to care about the quality of life for junior faculty 3.37 (3.62)3.28 (3.67)3.53 (3.56)3.71 (4.07)3.26 (3.37) GLOBAL SATISFACTION

Top five best and worst aspects about working at UNCW

Best and Worst across UNC  Geographic location  Average 1.78 (14 schools)  My sense of ‘fit’ here  Average 2.07 (14 schools)  Diversity  Average 2.7 (6 schools)  Quality of colleagues  Average 3.4 (10 schools)  Support of colleagues  Average 3.5 (10 schools)  Compensation  Average 2 (14 schools)  Teaching load  Average 2.25 (12 schools)  Lack of support for research  Average 2.8 (15 schools)  Quality of UG students  Average 3 (11 schools)  Too much service/too many assignments  Average 4.44 (9 schools)

What can we learn?  How does UNCW compare to its peers?  Are there significant differences by demographic category?  Are there areas where we do especially well? Not as well?  What changes in policy or practice could we consider to positively impact these results?