AAUP Survey #5 Results
Nov 6-24, 2014
Methodology: Recruitment
•
E-mail sent (to faculty on both campuses):
•
•
•
Colleagues,
•
•
•
The Purdue University Calumet chapter of American Association of University Professors
(AAUP) wishes to find out what impact the unification of Purdue Calumet and Purdue North
Central will have on you and your campus, and on how you feel about the unification process
and related issues. We ask for your cooperation in responding to the questions in the
attached survey, by Nov. 20, 2014. Your participation is voluntary. The survey should take
approximately 10 minutes to complete. We plan to share the aggregate (de-identified) results
with the campus communities and beyond. Thank you for your time!
If you have any questions about this study please contact the principal investigator, Prof.
David P. Nalbone, Associate Professor of Psychology, at 219-989-2712, or
dnalbone@purduecal.edu
Survey link: https://purdue.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9Ho3erB1SoS98kR
Methodology: Sample
• 73 faculty respondents
– 70 at Calumet campus (3 unknown)
•
•
•
•
•
•
16 Instructor, LTL, or CL
5 Assistant Professor
22 Associate Professor
26 Full Professor
1 Other
3 unknown rank
– 14 AAUP members
Methodology: Instrument I
• Responses on 4-point Likert scale: SA – A – D – SD (+ no opinion)
• 4 merger questions
– Process handled competently?
– Rationale adequately explained?
– Input sought beforehand?
– Input sought now?
• 4 unification process questions
– Information… Accurate? Informative? Timely? Useful?
• 10 who benefits? questions
– Who benefits? for 10 different stakeholders
Methodology: Instrument II
• Evaluation of administrators questions
– Targets: Chancellors Keon and Dworkin; Vice Chancellors
Turner, Gerard, and Schmid; your dean; your department
head/chair
– Questions: administrative ability, representation to public,
faculty support, overall competence
• 6 evaluation of merger questions
• 6 effects of merger questions
• 3 open-ended questions:
– Effects of merger, cause of merger, should merger occur?
• 3 demographic questions
– Faculty rank, campus, AAUP member?
Competence and Input
Item
%SA/A
Mean
The unification process has been handled competently.
25
2.31
The reasons for the unification have been adequately
explained.
24
1.97
Sufficient input was sought before the unification process
was begun.
3
1.59
Sufficient input is being sought now that the unification
process is under way.
31
2.48
Scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .81)
2.09
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree
Information
Item: Would you agree or disagree that information about
the unification process has been…
%SA/A
Mean
Accurate?
26
2.21
Informative?
30
2.08
Timely?
24
2.00
Useful?
23
2.06
Scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .94)
2.09
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree
Who Benefits?
Item: Would you agree or disagree that the merger will
benefit…
%SA/A
Mean
Purdue Calumet.
21
1.83
Purdue North Central.
30
2.00
Administrators.
60
2.83
Faculty.
13
1.67
Staff.
11
1.77
Students.
20
1.80
Alumni.
7
1.77
Northwest Indiana.
26
1.90
Board of Trustees.
66
3.30
Purdue President Mitch Daniels
79
3.57
Scale1 (Administrators, Board, Daniels: Cronbach’s alpha = .65)
3.28
Scale 2 (all other items: Cronbach’s alpha = .98)
1.85
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree
Evaluation of Administrators
Administrator (average of 4 rating items)
% missing
data
Cronbach’s
alpha
Mean
PUC Chancellor Keon
8
.97
2.22
PNC Chancellor Dworkin
10
.98
2.54
VC Turner
8
.97
2.60
PUC VC/Provost Gerard
8
.97
3.09
PNC VC/Provost Schmid
8
.98
2.12
Your dean
8
.99
2.60
Your department head/chair
8
.97
3.23
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree
Evaluation of Merger
Item
%SA/A
Mean
The merger is a good idea.
19
1.78
The merger will save money in the long run.
33
2.11
The merger is an effective use of time and resources.
16
1.63
The merger will improve the quality of students.
11
1.65
The merger will improve the quality of faculty.
14
1.61
The merger will improve the quality of teaching.
11
1.59
Scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .98)
1.73
Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree
Effects of Merger
Item
Mean
As a result of the proposed merger, I have devoted ____________ to
my teaching.
2.73
As a result of the proposed merger, I have devoted ____________ to
my scholarly activity.
2.58
As a result of the proposed merger, I have devoted ____________ to
my service.
3.10
As a result of the proposed merger, my teaching is of ____________.
2.85
As a result of the proposed merger, my scholarly activity is of
____________.
2.68
As a result of the proposed merger, my service is of ____________.
2.88
Scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .85)
2.80
Scale: for items 1-3: 1 = Much less time, 5 = Much more time;
for items 4-6: 1 = Much lower quality, 5 = Much higher quality
Conclusions:
Survey #5 Quantitative Items
• Unification process not handled well, and presumed to
benefit administrators, Board of Trustees, and president of
Purdue.
• Information on merger process was poor, and not wellreceived.
• Evaluation of administrators reveals disparity: high marks
for PUC VC/Provost Gerard, one’s department head; low
marks for PUC Chancellor Keon, PNC VC/Provost Schmid.
• Little confidence that merger will be beneficial.
• Merger has reduced time for teaching and scholarly
activity, reduced quality of scholarly activity.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Why is the merger occurring?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
18 no response
5 No idea
23 Cost savings/consolidation
13 Mitch Daniels/Board of Trustees/top administrator
3 Chancellor Keon (and Chancellor Dworkin) wanted to “shine”
for Mitch Daniels
2 Politics
2 Best interest of students
2 To eliminate faculty/unwanted people and academic freedom
1 Administrative attempt to increase income vs. faculty/staff
1 Anti-regional mindset of Mitch Daniels
1 To strengthen One Purdue
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Positive Comments:
• An increase in the student population on both campuses
through innovative programs would increase income and
offset expense management.
• Yes it should be. Higher education is going through a
seismic shift in its mission and the way it operates and we
need to be ready. This merger will help us be ready for the
next shift.
• Yes, but my answer may be backwards; there never should
have been separate campuses this close together from the
outset.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Positive Comments (cont’d):
• Yes, many universities and community colleges work best
on mergers and grow rapidly after becoming one.
• Yes. There are visible ways to serve the same number of
students with less resources, or better, more students with
the same number of resources.
• Yes. [It is] in the best interest of students
• Yes. It makes no sense to be competing with a "sister"
campus 30 miles away.
• Yes, it is ludicrous to have two major universities (and a
third minor, Crown Point) within such a short distance to
each other.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Neutral, Uncertain, or Conflicted Comments:
• As long as it does not inconvenience students or staff.
• It may be a good idea to save money by having fewer
administrators. But everything else is a big unknown.
• Long-term effect has not be discussed.
• Perhaps, but I think there should have been some input
from faculty and staff before making the decision for us.
• The timing is suspect. If PUC's administration cannot even
project its tenure track faculty salaries a semester ahead, I
have little confidence in their hope for significant cost
savings. I am still waiting to see a projection of the savings
they expect.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Neutral, Uncertain, or Conflicted Comments (cont’d):
• Possibly, but we need a study about likely outcomes,
financial and otherwise.
• Since merging and other alternatives were not openly
discussed before the merger was announced, I don't know
if the merger decision was the optimal one.
• The merger should occur only if it is done in such a way
that the primary focus is on high quality academics,
collaborative research and shared resources.
• It is a foregone conclusion.
• Long-term effect has not be discussed.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Neutral, Uncertain, or Conflicted Comments (cont’d):
• The research that has. Been found on this does not show
significant savings. Why continue. I do like the idea of
working with and sharing other faculty to be able to offer a
wider range of classes s at PUC.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Neutral, Uncertain, or Conflicted Comments (cont’d):
• Maybe for a chancellor and some top level administrators. No from
all other perspectives - currently from the "grapevine" some money
will be saved - however the cost of unification on software and such
appears to have the potential to cost much more than the initial
savings. In terms of students it is unlikely that the majority will want
to drive between two different campuses. Many students at PUC and
PNC are here for convenience of location. Dorm students generally
choose to live in dorms to be close to school. For the minority of
student who may take an upper level class (>300) class on the other
campus, maybe could work out an agreement that would accept
those toward the 32 campus residency requirement and for there
major - as long as it is an appropriate course. If faculty have to
commute between campuses that will add hours to there day - hours
that should be devoted to students, scholarship and service. Driving
back and forth would be inefficient for the faculty. Also adds more
fossil fuel emissions to the atmosphere.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Negative Comments:
• Absolutely not. There is no justifiable reason for it. The
logistics of unifying two campuses 35+ miles apart are
indescribable. Any paltry sum of money that might be
saved is being spent on travel alone (of course on our own
dime) and on unification work hours that could be better
spent. It makes no sense whatsoever for students to drive
to both campuses or for faculty to drive to both campuses.
• Both campuses seem to have their own sustainability, so
therefore should not be merging at all.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Negative Comments (cont’d):
• I believe that the whole idea was very incompetently
developed. I could see some consolidation at the top,
because perhaps some money could be saved with one
Admissions Director, for example, or one Provost (I'm not
sure, but I'm assuming that some of these functions could
be consolidated.) However, attempting to merge
departments and disciplines is a recipe for disaster. It will
be a bureaucratic nightmare as attempts are made to
merge majors, for example. Department meetings will also
be problematic One effect will be that the administration
will be that much more consolidated while the faculty will
be consolidated on paper, but in fact be more fragmented.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Negative Comments (cont’d):
• I can see it occurring at the top levels, like Chancellor, vice
chancellors, assistant vice chancellors. But it think it's
disruptive to do things like have one sports team--how can
students who attend both campuses do practice sessions
together? Also employees who don't drive being told they
have to work at PNC once a week and the university not
providing any transportation is not an employee-friendly
situation.
• I felt that the decision was made before a through study of
impacts, cost and benefit.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Negative Comments (cont’d):
• I don't think it should be happening without a sufficient
feasibility study. How does an organization make a major
move such as a merger without even a cursory exploration
of its impact? If we want a previous model of how PUC has
forged ahead with a major project without any sound
feasibility studies, we need look no further than the
abandoned Academic Learning Center in Crown Point.
• I have heard NO justification that indicates to me that the
merger should be occurring.
• It probably will not result in any major changes.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Negative Comments (cont’d):
• It should not. The campuses are too far apart and any
positives are far outweighed by the huge expenditure of
time and effort.
• No in the way it is conducted. There needs to be a study of
the merits (advantages), and the disadvantages and the
cost to students and faculty. Will the quality of the
programs and the learning improve or decline? I'm sure
Daniels did not study it!
• No, because an analysis of the impact has never been
done. The financial, academic, employment, and studentrelated impacts have never been determined. Failing to do
this is poor planning.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Negative Comments (cont’d):
• NO--it's frozen faculty ability to develop and maintain
curriculum because we don't have any idea what's going on
with the merger and how combining (or not--we don't even
know if there will be a combined curriculum) will happen.
All projects that were launched prior to the announcement
of the merger have crashed and there are other curricular
issues that we can't address because the future is unclear.
It is a BIG F*CKING mess.
• No, could have shared administrators without merging.
• No, it doesn't make sense to me, or students.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Negative Comments (cont’d):
• No, this merger between Purdue University Calumet and
Purdue North Central should not be occurring at all. If any
merger should take place that involves Purdue University
Calumet, it should be a merger between Purdue University
Calumet and Indiana University Northwest. These two
campuses are about 12 miles apart and it is conceivable
that considerable savings could have been achieved with
this merger.
• No. I don't believe this is in the best interest of faculty or
students.
• No. It is merely an attempt to fix something that is not
broken.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Negative Comments (cont’d):
• No, this merger should not be happening. The distance
between the two campuses is reason enough. I will
however support a merger of the top administration
including all levels of administration: Chancellor's office, all
Vice Chancellors, and perhaps all deans. I will keep all
academic units functioning the same way, however, we can
align the courses so there is commonality within the two
campuses. Say a course is taught only in Fall semesters at
PUC, it can be taught only in Spring semesters at PNC. Cost
savings may be achieved with this and also it gives students
a way to catch up if they do not do well in any particular
course, they have the option to go to the other campus so
continuity within the program is not affected.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Negative Comments (cont’d):
• No. It seems like an immense amount of additional time
and effort from many parties without a clear payoff in the
end. If financial savings are the primary objective, it seems
like there could have been other ways of combining
services without necessitating a full merger. After all, we
are already both part of the same system...why couldn't
there just be more streamlining at the system level that
would have allowed for combined services at both
campuses.
• No. The two schools are very far apart physically and serve
different groups of students.
• No. There is no need for a merger.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Negative Comments (cont’d):
• No. There are no demonstrable advantages, and a lot of
logistical disadvantages to closer ties between the
campuses. A full merger is a logistical nightmare, especially
when considering curricular issues.
• No. Faculty and academic affairs can't benefit anything
from this unnecessary merger.
• No. I think this is an ill conceived, shoot from the hip
decision, that is causing chaos and disruption, for little
actual benefit. I think the decision is not having or going to
have positive outcomes for students. There was a creation
of an "air of inevitability" that faculty just bought into. That
is too bad....
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Negative Comments (cont’d):
• No. It does not benefit students or faculty or staff.
• No. It imposes tremendous costs, and the savings appear
illusory.
• No. The curricula are very different
• No. The focus and target student population of the two
campuses are totally [different].
• No. The two campuses serve the needs of very different
groups of students
• No. The university community was not consulted. There
was no transparency or shared governance.
• No. This was not sought-after or initiated by faculty or
students at either campus.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
Should the merger be occurring?
Negative Comments (cont’d):
• [No] and not without broad discussion of regional campus
function and purpose as well as affiliation with PWL
• The decision was made unilaterally, which makes people be
against it, until all the repercussions are investigated, aren't
we after all an institution that promotes and supports
critical thinking and rigorous scientific analysis?
• The merger, in the long run, is going to cost more with
more administrators and travel between the two campuses,
not to mention the time and resources that will be wasted.
• This merger should not be occurring as it will not save
money in the long run.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
How has the unification process
affected you?
Positive Comments:
• An opportunity to teach more classes on a more consistent
basis is one potential benefit for me.
• My work has not been affected by the unification process
I'm excited about the merger.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
How has the unification process
affected you?
Neutral, Uncertain, or Conflicted Comments:
• At this time I have been minimally impacted by the merger.
However, I can see this as having a negative impact on
faculty teaching and scholarship time if on any joint
committees and even in cases for department meetings.
• Discussing this has taken up some hours of time, but
otherwise, I have avoided (for now) dealing with the
bureaucratic nightmare which I suspect will come soon and
swallow up a great deal of my and others' time.
• I don't believe that my work has been affected so far.
• It has not been affected.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
How has the unification process
affected you?
Neutral, Uncertain, or Conflicted Comments (cont’d):
• It has not been impacted in any significant way.
• It really has not at this point except for the stress and
uncertainty it has generated.
• Not yet, but I am sure it'll affect once the merger is under
way.
• [It] remains to be seen.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
How has the unification process
affected you?
Negative Comments:
• The unification process is a diversion of resources (time,
laboratory support, etc.).
• The unification process takes up time that could be better
spent on teaching and research.
• This process has required a great deal of time and energy,
through added committee work, more time spent in
meetings in general, the inability to plan for the future, etc.
it has also created an air of anxiety, which has a an overall
affect on productivity. We are all spending time talking in
the halls about the uncertainty associated with unification
instead of our research and classes and students. That is
probably hard to measure but everyone knows it.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
How has the unification process
affected you?
Negative Comments:
• Too much time spent gathering, sifting information.
• Unification of academic department will be very
challenging. I expected huge amount work will be ahead
and it will take away time and energy of faculty and
compromise quality of teaching, research, and service.
• Wasted time devoted to the unification process. Many unproductive meetings! Lower morale across the campus!
• I am being asked to serve on several committees.
• I am committeed to death.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
How has the unification process
affected you?
Negative Comments:
• I have less time to do what I as a faculty member should be
doing, and must spend more time trying to undo and combat
administrative stupidity.
• I have not been able to spend as much time as I would like for
my students, as I have had to find a second position to
supplement my lost income.
• It's a distraction; increased committee load has cut into the
time necessary for teaching.
• Just general stress as to the prospect of how to get to PNC once
a week.
• Less time to devote to teaching and research because of
committee work.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
How has the unification process
affected you?
Negative Comments:
• Look, I can't even get copies of my syllabus for the first week of
school because the university is so badly managed. The
unification only adds insult to injury.
• All at once -- new course management system, new teaching
evaluation system, curriculum in the air between our degree
major and PNC's along with our ABET accreditations, new
regional accreditation system, new hour-long commutes for
many faculty and staff between campuses, all the work
developing inter-collegiate athletics and spirit up in the air, 60
years of tradition and identity set aside, Our campus culture is
unraveled and must be re-knit together with another campus
that is an hour away without any public transportation between
campuses.
Responses to Open-Ended Items:
How has the unification process
affected you?
Negative Comments:
• More meetings and issues that distract us from the real
work of university faculty.
• I'm trying to please too many people and do so with a great
deal of uncertainty about promotion expectations,
scholarship standards, teaching and learning objectives.
The requirements for promotion (scholarship) have
skyrocketed in recent years (in comparison to publishing
"achievements" of faculty promoted in the past, and it's
difficult to determine what is acceptable to faculty in two
institutions.
Conclusions:
Survey #5 Open-Ended Items
• High levels of frustration with merger decision, its apparent
political genesis, and lack of confidence that any tangible
improvements will be produced by it.
• Most responses on effects of unification process point to
less time on teaching and scholarly activities, increased
stress, lack of confidence in any positive results.
• Overall, there is a lack of confidence that the merger
process will be worth the time and effort it takes to bring
about.