Central Washington University
Summary of the Collaborative on Academic Careers
in Higher Education Survey, 2014
Judy Hennessy, Associate Professor of Sociology
Dominic Klyve, Association Professor of Mathematics
Our charge in preparing this report is to summarize and share with CWU faculty the results from the Faculty
Job Satisfaction Survey developed by the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education
(COACHE). Central Washington University, similar to universities across the country has faced challenges in
the last five years in response to unsettled economic times, and changes in higher education. These changes
influence faculty life and faculty’s view of the degree of support and/or lack of support from the institution
for the work that they do.
In order to improve the academic workplace and understand where faculty stand related to work satisfaction
and to identify areas of importance to faculty, representatives from faculty and the administration expressed
interest in conducting a survey of faculty about these issues. The goal was to gather reliable information
about faculty preferences and priorities related to CWU, their feelings about their workplace, their role within
the university, and where they felt supported in their work and areas that needed improvement. The
COACHE report compiles benchmark measures, which are used to identify the overall performance of CWU
relative to selected institutions, compares subgroups at CWU with those at other campuses, and identifies
differences between subgroups among CWU faculty.
The main areas addressed in the COACHE survey ask faculty about their experiences and views related to:
• Research, teaching, service
• Resources in support of faculty work
• Benefits, compensation, and work/life
• Interdisciplinary work and collaboration
• Mentoring
• Tenure and promotion practices
• Leadership and governance
• Departmental collegiality, quality, engagement
• Appreciation and recognition
1
This report presents the major findings from the COACHE survey for faculty to review and use as a starting
point for discussions related to faculty satisfaction at CWU. Our report provides the main findings in
distilled form, which we intend to be used as a springboard for more in depth discussions including focus
groups, discussion among subgroups identified in the report, and faculty forums.
The first part of our report summarizes the findings from the Provost’s Report provided by COACHE
comparing CWU to selected universities. The second part focuses specifically on CWU and presents
benchmark measures by the four college divisions: CAH, COB, COTS and CEPS. We also compare
subgroups within CWU and present results by rank, gender and race. This section identifies problem areas or
strengths on the CWU campus among the four colleges and by subgroups. We conclude by pointing out
specific areas of concern on the part of faculty for departments, colleges and CWU administration to consider
in developing plans to address the issues identified in our report.
Summary of the COACHE Report
One hundred and seventy CWU faculty took part in the survey resulting in a response rate of 56 percent.
The five institutions selected to compare with CWU’s results are: Radford University, SUNY-Brockport,
SUNY-Cortland, University of Wisconsin-Platteville, and Western Carolina University. Eight hundred faculty
from these peer institutions completed the survey for a response rate of 58 percent. The response rate for
the 26,258 faculty members from the entire cohort of COACHE institutions is 49 percent. The list of the
entire cohort of COACHE universities is available in supplementary documents on the Faculty Senate Web
site (http://www.cwu.edu/faculty-senate/)
The first chart from the COACHE report shows overall results for CWU compared to five select comparison
institutions and the larger cohort of colleges and universities participating in the COACHE survey.
How to read the summary of results
Each column in the summary of benchmark measures presents the mean score (not the distribution of
2
individual respondents) on a dimension related to: research, teaching, service, resources in support of
faculty work, benefits, compensation, and work/life, interdisciplinary work, collaboration, mentoring,
tenure and promotion practices, leadership and governance, departmental collegiality, quality, engagement,
and appreciation and recognition.
In each column in the chart CWU’s mean score on the benchmark is presented by the symbol (), each of
the mean scores of the five selected comparison institutions by (), and the distribution of the responses of
the entire cohort are signified by the red, grey, and green boxes.
CWU scores () in the red section of the column indicate ranking in the bottom 30 percent of all
institutions. The green section indicates the top 30 percent of all institution, and the grey area indicates a
middle-of-the- road result.
Areas of strength are benchmarks or survey items where CWU is in the top two among comparison
institutions and in the top 30 percent across all institutions. Areas of concern are benchmarks or items where we
fall in the bottom two among comparison institutions and in the bottom 30 percent compared to the entire
survey cohort.
COACHE labels this chart as “Results at a Glance,” as this provides an overall picture of CWU compared to
others. This snapshot of benchmark measures shows that CWU faculty lag behind other institutions on
many important measures of faculty satisfaction. There are few areas where faculty satisfaction on
benchmark items indicates an area of strength and over half of the benchmark items are identified as problem
areas (red) compared to positive ones (green).
CWU faculty scores on benchmark measures indicating Areas of concern compared to peer institutions and the
broader cohort of institutions include: Nature of work: teaching, Interdisciplinary work, Collaboration,
Mentoring, Tenure Clarity and Reasonableness, Senior Leadership, Departmental collegiality, engagement,
quality, and lastly Appreciation and recognition. On these benchmark measures CWU identifies only one area,
Divisional leadership, as an Area of strength.
3
4
The COACHE Dashboard
The next chart in this first section is the COACHE Dashboard. The findings in this table compare CWU’s
mean score on benchmark measure to other institutions, and also by subgroup. In this table, two adjacent
triangles () are used to compare CWU’s rating to our selected comparison institutions (the left ) and
the cohort (the right ). Red triangles () indicate an area of concern relative to the comparison group;
green triangles () are areas of strength; grey triangles () suggest unexceptional performance; and
empty triangles () signify insufficient data for reporting comparisons.
The right side of the page highlights meaningful differences between subgroups on CWU’s campus. Effect
sizes are indicated as small (text appears in cell), moderate (text appears in cell with yellow highlight), and
large (text appears in the cell with orange highlight). Trivial differences are left blank. The name of the group
with the lower rating appears in the cell to indicate the direction of the difference.
For example, CWU faculty rate the benchmark measure Personal and family policies as an area of strength
compared to select comparable universities, with the exception of the subgroup faculty of color (foc). Relative
to the entire cohort, CWU’s score on this dimension is unexceptional. Faculty also rate Divisional leadership as
an area of strength, yet women faculty at CWU rate this as an area of concern in comparison to select
universities and unexceptional compared to the entire cohort. Senior leadership and Appreciation and recognition
appear as areas of concern compared to select institutions and the larger cohort. Men faculty members rate
this area as unexceptional compared to select comparable colleges. Interdisciplinary work, Collaboration,
Departmental engagement and Collegiality also appear as areas of concern compared to other institutions across
almost all subgroups. Women faculty members and associate professors rate each of these as areas of concern
compared to peer institutions and others.
5
Central Washington University
Nature of work: Research
Nature of work: Service
Nature of work: Teaching
Facilities and work resources
Personal and family policies
Health and retirement benefits
Interdisciplinary work
Collaboration
Mentoring
Tenure policies
Tenure clarity
Tenure reasonableness
Promotion
Leadership: Senior
Leadership: Divisional
Leadership: Departmental
Departmental collegiality
Departmental engagement
Departmental quality
Appreciation and recognition
YOUR RESULTS COMPARED TO PEERS t
AREAS OF STRENGTH IN GREEN
YOUR RESULTS COMPARED TO COHORT u
AREAS OF CONCERN IN RED
mean
overall
2.93
3.15
3.55
3.32
2.96
3.56
2.38
3.26
2.90
3.58
3.18
3.65
3.80
2.69
3.53
3.64
3.71
3.40
3.40
3.07
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tenured pre-ten
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
N/A
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
full
assoc
men
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
N/A
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
N/A
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
WITHIN CAMPUS DIFFERENCES*
sm. (.1)
women
white
foc
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tenure
status
tenured
ranks
assoc s
fullmall
smal
l s
assoc
mall s
assoc
mall s
assoc
mall
med (.3)
lrg. (.5)
gender
race
women
moderat
women
small
women
small foc smal
women
small
l
women
small foc smal
women foc lsmal
small foc lsmal
women
moderat
l
tenured assoc s women
mall
small foc smal
N/A
N/A women
vu small
moderat white
l s
N/A
N/A women
vu
small
mall
N/A
N/A
women
white
s
vu
small
mall
N/A
assoc
la
women
vu
small white s
tu tenured fullrge
smal women
small
l
small focmall
tu tenured
women
smal
tu tenured
small assoc s women
moderat
l
small
mall m women
moderat foc smal
tu
pre- assoc
oderatem women
moderat
l
tu ten smal assoc
oderate
small
tu
pre- assoc la women
small
tu ten smal rge women
moderat
*
A group named in the Within Campus Differences rated the survey item lower than its comparison group. Coloration reflects the magnitude (effect size) of the difference. Additional explanation of effect size differences can
be found in the “Background and Definitions” section of this report.
"If I had it to do all over,
I would again choose to work at this institution."
tenured
small
tenured
small
tenured
small
tenured
moderat
If a candidate for a position asked you about your department as
a place to work, would you...
100%
100%
75%
75%
strongly recommend your
department as a place to
work
recommend your
department with
reservations
somewhat or strongly
agree
50%
neither/nor
50%
25%
somewhat or strongly
disagree
25%
not recommend your
department as a place to
work
0%
0%
you
peers
all comparables
you
peers
all comparables
The next set of findings provide additional context for each of the benchmark measures. These charts present
mean scores of each of the items in the benchmark measure and the rating of subgroups relative to other
institutions and also within CWU. The first chart compares results on the nature of work, primarily research,
teaching, and service. According to the COACHE report, faculty satisfaction is largely a function of balancing
the time and ability to perform each of these aspects of faculty work, with institutional expectations and
resources. Faculty satisfaction in teaching is related to the amount of time spent on teaching, number of
6
courses and the equitable distribution of that work in courses taught across faculty. Faculty evaluate service
by the nature of the assignment and the equity of the load distribution among other factors. Dissatisfaction
occurs when there is a mismatch between what facutly feel are reasonable expectations, sufficient institutional
support, inequity in the distribution of work, and importantly time to fulfill the demands of reserch, teaching
and service.
Key results from the benchmark nature of work category indicate that Time spent on teaching appears as an area
of concern for most faculty, and Time spent on outreach and administrative tasks. Full Professors rate service load
lower compared to others across several dimensions. Support for travel to present/conduct research rates higher
related to our peer institutions and higher or neutral for the entire cohort. Women and faculty of color
subgroups rate this item as unexceptional relative to other institutions. Number of students in classes taught is also
rated as an area of strength compared to peer insitutions for all groups except full professor rank.
7
Central Washington University
YOUR RESULTS COMPARED TO PEERS t
AREAS OF STRENGTH IN GREEN
YOUR RESULTS COMPARED TO COHORT u
AREAS OF CONCERN IN RED
WITHIN CAMPUS DIFFERENCES
sm. (.1)
med (.3)
*
lrg. (.5)
tenure tenured
mean overall tenured pre-ten full assoc men women white foc
gender race
prior
status ranks
Benchmark: Nature of Work Research
2.93 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
assoc s women
N/A
mall s women
moderat white s N/A
Time spent on research
2.88 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
pre- assoc
small l focmall
Expectations for finding external funding
3.10 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu ten mod fullmall
smal women
smal N/A
tu
tu
tu
l
arge
l
Influence over focus of research
4.16 tu
tu tu tu tu tu
pre- assoc m women foc smal N/A
smal assoc
oderates women
moderat foc lsmal N/A
Quality of grad students to support research
2.71 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenpresmall
l
Support for research
2.52 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu ten smal mall women
N/A
small
Support for engaging undergrads in research
2.98 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
women
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
small
Support for obtaining grants (pre-award)
2.79
full smal women
N/A
l
small foc smal N/A
Support for maintaining grants (post-award)
2.84 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenured
women
small full smal women
small whitel m N/A
Support for securing grad student assistance
2.30 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenured
tu
tu
small
l
moderat
Support for travel to present/conduct research
3.28 tu tu
tu
tu tu tu tu tenured assoc s women oderate N/A
mall women
small
Availability of course release for research
2.35 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu small
preN/A
smal full smal women
moderat
Benchmark: Nature of Work: Service
3.15 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu ten
tenured
N/A
small
l
small white m N/A
Time spent on service
3.23 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenured
women
small full mod women
small oderate N/A
Support for faculty in leadership roles
2.52 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenured
small fullerate
Number of committees
3.35 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenured
smal small white s N/A
small full smal
l
Attractiveness of committees
3.37 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenured
women focmall
smal N/A
l
small foc lsmal N/A
Discretion to choose committees
3.52 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu small
l
Equitability of committee assignments
2.90 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenured full smal women
N/A
l s small
Number of student advisees
3.26 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu small
pre- assoc
N/A
mall s women
Benchmark: Nature of Work: Teaching
3.55 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu ten smal assoc
N/A
tu
mall
small
Time spent on teaching
3.60 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
women white s N/A
small white
mall m N/A
Number of courses taught
3.38 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
pre- assoc s women
Level of courses taught
3.96 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu ten smal mall moderat oderate N/A
Discretion over course content
4.27 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
assoc s women
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
mall
small
Number of students in classes taught
3.77
tu
tu tenured
N/A
Quality of students taught
3.11 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu small
pre- assoc m
N/A
Equitability of distribution of teaching load
3.14 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu ten smal oderate women white s N/A
small focmall
Quality of grad students to support teaching
2.93 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
prewomen
smal N/A
ten mod
small
l
Related survey items
Time spent on outreach
3.32 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
preN/A
smal full smal men sm white s N/A
Time spent on administrative tasks
2.47 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu ten
tenured
l
all
mall s N/A
Ability to balance teaching/research/service
2.81 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu small
prewomen
white
*
ten smal
malldifferences can
A group named in the Within Campus Differences rated the survey item lower than its comparison group. Coloration reflects the magnitude (effect size) of the difference.
Additional explanationsmall
of effect size
be found in the “Background and Definitions” section of this report.
8
Facilities, Supports and Benefits
COACHE surveyed faculty on facilities including office, lab and studio space, support for technology and
improvements to teaching. COACHE also measured faculty beliefs about the effectiveness of personal and
family policies and health and retirement benefits. Areas of concern among all CWU faculty identified in the
chart below are Library resources and Phased retirement options. Other aspects of this section rated as areas of
concern by most faculty compared to other institutions are Support for improving teaching, support for work life
compatibility, and Right balance between professional/personal were also rated as areas of concern among most groups
(with the exception of male faculty who ranked the latter as an area of strength compared to peer
instititutions). Areas of strength are Tuition waivers, remisssion or exchange for most faculty groups and faculty
Offices, with the exception of faculty of color and associate faculty who rate this aspect as unexceptional.
Central Washington University
YOUR RESULTS COMPARED TO PEERS t
AREAS OF STRENGTH IN GREEN
YOUR RESULTS COMPARED TO COHORT u
AREAS OF CONCERN IN RED
mean overall tenured pre-ten
Benchmark: Facilities and work resources
Support for improving teaching
Office
Laboratory, research, studio space
Equipment
Classrooms
Library resources
Computing and technical support
Clerical/administrative support
Benchmark: Personal and family policies
Housing benefits
Tuition waivers, remission, or exchange
Spousal/partner hiring program
Childcare
Eldercare
Family medical/parental leave
Flexible workload/modified duties
Stop-the-clock policies
Inst. does what it can for work/life compatibility
Right balance between professional/personal
Benchmark: Health and retirement benefits
Health benefits for yourself
Health benefits for family
Retirement benefits
Phased retirement options
Related survey items
Salary
*
WITHIN CAMPUS DIFFERENCES*
sm. (.1)
full
assoc
men women white
foc
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
3.32
2.94
3.87
3.08
3.31
3.39
3.13
3.31
3.37
2.96
1.98
3.12
2.28
2.43
2.77
3.47
3.25
3.06
2.66
2.95
3.56
3.74
3.75
3.62
2.49
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
2.71
tu
tu
tu
tu
vu
vu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tenure
status
tenured
small
tenured
small
tenured
small
preten
smal
tenured
small
tenured
small
tenured
small
preten smal
preten smal
tenured
moderat
tenured
small
N/A
tenured
small
tenured
moderat
tenured
small
tenured
small l
tenured
arge
preten smal
med (.3)
lrg. (.5)
tenured
gender race
prior
ranks
assoc s women foc smal N/A
mall m small
l
assoc
N/A
oderate
foc smal N/A
women foc lmod N/A
small focerate
assoc s women
smal N/A
mall women
small
l
N/A
smallsm foc mod N/A
men
all
erate
women
N/A
moderat white s N/A
assoc s women
mall s women
small
mall
assoc
N/A
small foc smal N/A
fullmall
large women
moderat
assoc m men
sm foc llarge N/A
oderate
full
smal menall sm
N/A
l
all white lar N/A
full smal
l
ge m N/A
full large
men sm white
all foc
oderate
mod N/A
erates N/A
full large
white
mall s N/A
N/A
white
mall s N/A
full smal women white
l women
moderatl mall
N/A
arge foc smal N/A
assoc s men sm foc lsmal N/A
mall s menall sm foc lsmal N/A
assoc
mall women
all foc lsmal N/A
smallsm whitel m N/A
full large men
all
oderate
assoc s women foc smal N/A
mall moderat
l
A group named in the Within Campus Differences rated the survey item lower than its comparison group. Coloration reflects the magnitude (effect size) of the difference. Additional explanation of effect size differences can
be found in the “Background and Definitions” section of this report.
9
Mentoring, Collaboration, Interdisciplinary work
The authors of the COACHE report note the importance of interdisciplinary work in research collaboration,
collaboration within and outside of faculty member’s own disciplines and mentoring. Obstacles to
interdisciplinary work include the lack of institutional incentives, and disincentives for faculty related to
promotion, tenure and merit.
CWU faculty rank Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in merit as an area of concern in addition to Opportunities for
collaboration both within and outside of departments, with the exception of men faculty who rate Opportunities for
collaboration within department as an area of strength.
Central Washington University
YOUR RESULTS COMPARED TO PEERS t
AREAS OF STRENGTH IN GREEN
YOUR RESULTS COMPARED TO COHORT u
AREAS OF CONCERN IN RED
WITHIN CAMPUS DIFFERENCES*
sm. (.1)
med (.3)
lrg. (.5)
tenure tenured
mean overall tenured pre-ten full assoc men women white
foc
gender race
prior
status ranks
Benchmark: Interdisciplinary work
2.38 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
women foc smal N/A
l
Budgets encourage interdiscip. work
2.11 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
full mod small
N/A
Facilities conducive to interdiscip. work
2.48 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenured fullerate
mod women
N/A
small
erate women
moderat foc smal N/A
Interdiscip. work is rewarded in merit
2.29 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
Interdiscip. work is rewarded in promotion
2.40 tu tu N/A tu tu tu tu tu vu
N/A assoc s small foc lmod N/A
mall
Interdiscip. work is rewarded in tenure
2.55 tu N/A tu N/A N/A tu tu tu vu
N/A
N/A women focerate
smal N/A
moderat
l
Dept. knows how to evaluate interdiscip. work
2.56 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
pre- assoc s women
N/A
moderat foc smal N/A
Benchmark: Collaboration
3.26 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu ten smal mall women
moderat foc lsmal N/A
Opportunities for collab. within dept.
3.43 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
pre- assoc s women
smal mall women
moderat foc lmod N/A
Opportunities for collab. outside dept.
3.12 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenpresmal
moderat erate
Opportunities for collab. outside inst.
3.22 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu ten
tenured
women
N/A
small assoc s women
small
Benchmark: Mentoring
2.90 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenured
N/A
small assoc
mall la small white s N/A
Effectiveness of mentoring within dept.
3.41 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenured
small
rge
mall s N/A
Effectiveness of mentoring outside dept.
3.21 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
white
mall
Mentoring of pre-tenure faculty
3.01 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
pre- assoc m women
N/A
mod assoc
oderatem women
small
Mentoring of associate faculty
2.56 tu tu N/A tu tu tu tu tu vu tenN/A
N/A
moderat white m N/A
Support for faculty to be good mentors
2.06 tu tu N/A tu tu tu tu tu vu
N/A oderate women
oderates N/A
Being a mentor is fulfilling
4.10 tu tu N/A tu tu tu tu tu vu
N/A assoc m moderat white
oderate
mall
Related survey items
Importance of mentoring within dept.
4.22 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenured
men sm white s N/A
mall m N/A
Importance of mentoring outside dept.
3.47 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu moderat full smal menall sm white
l
oderatem N/A
Importance of mentoring outside inst.
3.47 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenured full smal
menall sm white
small assoc
l s menall sm white
oderate
Effectiveness of mentoring outside the inst.
3.74 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenured
lar N/A
small
mall
all
ge
*
A group named in the Within Campus Differences rated the survey item lower than its comparison group. Coloration reflects the magnitude (effect size) of the difference. Additional explanation of effect size differences can
be found in the “Background and Definitions” section of this report.
10
Mentoring Supplement
COACHE also surveyed faculty on facets of mentoring not included in benchmark scores demonstrating that
CWU faculty see mentoring as important, however participation in mentoring lags behind other comparable
institutions.
% faculty rating
mentoring from within
dept. as important
Effectiveness of mentoring for those faculty who rated
mentoring as important
84%
48%
12%
13%
% of respondents reporting s/he has not received mentoring within the
department
% of respondents reporting s/he has not received mentoring outside the
department at this institution
18%
50%
% faculty rating
mentoring from outside
dept. as important
49%
20%
22%
33%
8%
25%
% faculty rating
mentoring from outside
inst. as important
49%
39%
18%
21%
5%
0%
pre-ten
somewhat or very effective
neither/nor
have not received
assoc
men
women
white
foc
somewhat or very ineffective
Whom are the mentors mentoring?
% of respondents who report serving as
a mentor in the past five years
within the
department
100%
75%
non-tenure track faculty
associate faculty
pre-tenure faculty
outside the
department
50%
25%
non-tenure track faculty
associate faculty
pre-tenure faculty
0%
full
assoc
men
you
women
peers
white
all
foc
0%
25%
you
50%
peers
75%
100%
all
11
Tenure policies, clarity and reasonableness
As stated in the COACHE report, it is in the best interest of all for clarity in institutional expectations for
tenure --research, teaching, advising, collegiality and service to the institution and the broader community. In
addition the tenure process should be clear, as to criteria, standards, and the body of evidence to be presented
in the tenure file. Pre-tenure faculty should also receive consistent messages about what is required for tenure
and should have reasonable assurance that tenure decisions are fair and equitable, based on performance, and
not on other factors.
In addition to being clear, COACHE argues that tenure expectations should be reasonable, and despite the
trend of raising the bar for tenure, COACHE finds that tenure track faculty do not mind high standards, but
they should be reasonable related to faculty work-load. Unfortunately COACHE survey results of tenure
policies are only available for pre-tenured faculty. So findings do not reflect responses from faculty who have
actually completed the tenure process at CWU.
Tenure clarity is an area of overall concern with the exception of scholarship expectations. An area of note on
this benchmark measure is differences between men and women faculty on Tenure policies. Men rate Tenure
policies as areas of strength compared to select institutions, women faculty rate them as areas of concern.
Among subgroups women and white faculty members rate all aspects of Clarity of expectations as area of
concern except scholarship. Faculty of color rate three aspects as areas of concern in comparison to the larger
cohort of institutions: Expectations for Advisor, Colleague, and Campus citizen but no difference in relation to peer
institutions. The Promotion policy benchmark score indicates this as an area of strength. On this measure,
women and faculty of color rate aspects of promotion policies as areas of strength relative to the entire
cohort. However, women faculty rate of Clarity of whether I will be promoted as an area of concern.
CWU faculty are less likely than faculty at other institutions to receive formal feedback on their progress
toward tenure and promotion to full professor. More than 25 percent of CWU faculty report they have not
received formal feedback on their progress toward tenure. Less than 25 percent report they have not received
12
formal feedback on promotion to full professor.
Central Washington University
YOUR RESULTS COMPARED TO PEERS t
AREAS OF STRENGTH IN GREEN
YOUR RESULTS COMPARED TO COHORT u
AREAS OF CONCERN IN RED
mean
Benchmark: Tenure policies
Clarity of tenure process
Clarity of tenure criteria
Clarity of tenure standards
Clarity of body of evidence for deciding tenure
Clarity of whether I will achieve tenure
Consistency of messages about tenure
Tenure decisions are performance-based
Benchmark: Tenure clarity
Clarity of expectations: Scholar
Clarity of expectations: Teacher
Clarity of expectations: Advisor
Clarity of expectations: Colleague
Clarity of expectations: Campus citizen
Clarity of expectations: Broader community
Benchmark: Tenure reasonableness
Reasonable expectations: Scholar
Reasonable expectations: Teacher
Reasonable expectations: Advisor
Reasonable expectations: Colleague
Reasonable expectations: Campus citizen
Reasonable expectations: Community member
Benchmark: Promotion
Reasonable expectations: Promotion
Dept. culture encourages promotion
Clarity of promotion process
Clarity of promotion criteria
Clarity of promotion standards
Clarity of body of evidence for promotion
Clarity of time frame for promotion
Clarity of whether I will be promoted
3.58
3.81
3.70
3.53
3.60
3.64
3.13
3.61
3.18
3.96
3.64
3.00
2.87
2.94
2.66
3.65
3.87
3.94
3.52
3.64
3.51
3.36
3.80
3.80
3.64
3.93
3.82
3.70
3.89
3.94
3.26
overall tenured pre-ten
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
full
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
assoc
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
WITHIN CAMPUS DIFFERENCES*
sm. (.1)
men
women
white
foc
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
vu
tenure
status
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
tenured
ranks
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
assoc la
rge la
assoc
rge la
assoc
rge la
assoc
rge m
assoc
oderatem
assoc
oderatem
assoc
oderatem
assoc
oderate
N/A
med (.3)
lrg. (.5)
gender
race
prior
women
moderat
women
moderat
women
small
women
small
women
small
women
small
women
moderat
women
small
women
moderat
women
moderat
women
small
women
small
women
small
women
small
women
moderat
women
small
women
small
women
small
men sm
all
women
small
women
small
women
moderat
foc smal
l
foc smal
foc lsmal
foc lsmal
l
foc smal
l
white s
mall s
white
mall s
white
mall
white s
mall
white m
oderate
white
s
mall m
white
oderate
foc
smal
l s
white
mall m
white
oderate
white
s
mall s
white
mall
foc smal
l
white s
mall
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
foc smal
l s
women white
small l white
mall s
women
vu
arge
mall
*
A group named in the Within Campus Differences rated the survey item lower than its comparison group. Coloration reflects the magnitude (effect size) of the difference. Additional explanation of effect size differences can
be found in the “Background and Definitions” section of this report.
Have you received formal feedback on your progress towards promotion to
full professor?
Have you received formal feedback on your progress towards tenure?
0%
25%
50%
75%
0%
100%
you
you
peers
peers
all
all
no
yes
25%
50%
no
75%
100%
yes
13
Leadership: Senior, Divisional, and Departmental
As noted in the COACHE report, leadership and those in leadership positions—the provost, dean, and
department chair—play important roles in the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of faculty members. Benchmark
measures on leadership, as we saw earlier in the “Results at a Glance” indicate that leadership is identified as
an area of concern in these results, specifically on the Benchmark Leadership: Senior scores on the dimensions
of CAO: Pace of decision making, Stated priorities, Communication of priorities as an area of concern across all groups.
On the Benchmark Leadership: Departmental, men rate most dimensions of leadership as areas of strength,
compared to women who rate all aspects as areas of concern. Associates also rated these items as areas of
concern related to peers and the entire cohort of institutions. The Benchmark measure, Leadership: Divisional
is rated as an area of strength with the exception of women faculty who rate this as an area of concern relative
to peer institutions. Women faculty also rate Dean: Pace of decision making and Stated priorities as areas of concern
compared to peer institutions.
Central Washington University
YOUR RESULTS COMPARED TO PEERS t
AREAS OF STRENGTH IN GREEN
YOUR RESULTS COMPARED TO COHORT u
AREAS OF CONCERN IN RED
mean
Leadership Items (not included in benchmark scores)
Priorities are stated consistently
2.46
Priorities are acted on consistently
2.36
2.25
Changed priorities negatively affect my work**
Benchmark: Leadership: Senior
2.69
Pres/Chancellor: Pace of decision making
2.91
Pres/Chancellor: Stated priorities
2.84
Pres/Chancellor: Communication of priorities
2.74
CAO: Pace of decision making
2.67
CAO: Stated priorities
2.52
CAO: Communication of priorities
2.48
CAO: Ensuring faculty input
N/A
Benchmark: Leadership: Divisional
3.53
Dean: Pace of decision making
3.58
Dean: Stated priorities
3.57
Dean: Communication of priorities
3.50
Dean: Ensuring faculty input
3.48
Benchmark: Leadership: Departmental
3.64
Head/Chair: Pace of decision making
3.56
Head/Chair: Stated priorities
3.54
Head/Chair: Communication of priorities
3.54
Head/Chair: Ensuring faculty input
3.72
Head/Chair: Fairness in evaluating work
3.82
overall tenured pre-ten
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
WITHIN CAMPUS DIFFERENCES*
full
assoc
men
women
white
foc
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
N/A
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tenure
status
tenured
small
tenured
small
preten
smal
tenured
small
tenured
small
med (.3)
lrg. (.5)
gender
race
full mod
fullerate
smal
l
full smal
l
full smal
l
full smal
l
full mod
fullerate
mod
fullerate
smal
l
full smal
l
N/A
women
small
women
small
women
small
women
small
white lar
ge s
white
mall s
white
mall s
white
mall
white s
mall s
white
mall s
white
mall
N/A
foc smal
foc lsmal
foc lsmal
foc lsmal
foc lsmal
l
prior
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
women
small
N/A
women
moderat
women
moderat
women
moderat
women
moderat
women
moderat
assoc s women
mall s women
moderat
assoc
mall s women
moderat
assoc
mall s women
moderatl
assoc
mall s women
arge
assoc
mall m women
moderat
assoc
oderate moderat
*
A group named in the Within Campus Differences rated the survey item lower than its comparison group. Coloration reflects the magnitude (effect size) of the difference. Additional explanation of effect size differences can
be found in the “Background and Definitions” section of this report.
**
This item is reverse coded.
Faculty who report that changes in priorities have had a negative impact on their work are
In the past five
years, my
institution's
priorities have
changed in ways
that negatively
affect my work.
net disagree
tenured
small
N/A
tenured
small
tenured
small
tenured
small
tenured
small
tenured
small
tenured
small
tenured
small
tenured
small
tenured
small
sm. (.1)
tenured
ranks
then asked if they have received sufficient support to adapt to changes from their Dean and
their Chair.
66%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
my dean
18%
16%
neither/nor
my chair/head
net agree
somewhat or strongly agree
neither/nor
somewhat or strongly disagree
14
Departmental collegiality, engagement, quality
The COACHE report reminds us that how faculty feel about their institutions is important. Even more
important, according to COACHE, is the way faculty judge their departments. And, as they note in their
report, departmental culture has the greatest impact on faculty satisfaction and morale. The report also
emphasizes that faculty are well aware of how they “fit” in with their colleagues, their personal interactions,
and the degree to which faculty support one another. How faculty get along with each other is one of if not
the most important aspects of faculty satisfaction.
The COACHE survey results on a variety of dimensions related to departments indicate several areas of
concern given the importance of departments to faculty satisfaction and the emphasis on collegiality. An
overall assessment of this chart shows that associate faculty and women faculty rate most dimensions of
department collegiality, engagement and quality as areas of concern in comparison to full professors and male faculty
who rate many dimensions of these categories as areas of strength. Areas of strength in the Benchmark
measure of department collegiality are limited to interaction with pre tenured faculty and interaction with tenured
faculty. Interaction with pre-tenured faculty is an area of strength for tenured faculty compared to peer institutions,
and full professors and men compared to all others. Full professors and male faculty rate interaction with tenured
faculty as an area of strength compared to both peer institutions and the larger cohort.
Faculty rating of the dimension How well you fit presents this aspect of departmental collegiality as an area of
concern across categories with the exception of full professor rank and men relative to the full cohort of
institutions.
15
Central Washington University
YOUR RESULTS COMPARED TO PEERS t
AREAS OF STRENGTH IN GREEN
YOUR RESULTS COMPARED TO COHORT u
AREAS OF CONCERN IN RED
WITHIN CAMPUS DIFFERENCES*
sm. (.1)
med (.3)
lrg. (.5)
tenure
foc
status
tu pretu ten smal
tenured
mean overall tenured pre-ten full assoc men women white
gender race prior
ranks
Benchmark: Departmental collegiality
3.71 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
assoc m women foc smal N/A
oderates moderat foc lsmal N/A
Colleagues support work/life balance
3.51 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
assoc
tu
tu
tu
mall
l
Meeting times compatible with personal needs 4.01 tu tu tu
tu tu
tu
N/A
Amount of personal interaction w/Pre-tenure
3.72 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
assoc s women
N/A
mall m women
small foc smal N/A
How well you fit
3.55 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
assoc
oderatem women
moderat l
Amount of personal interaction w/Tenured
3.64 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu pre- assoc
N/A
oderates women
small
Colleagues pitch in when needed
3.70 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenpre-mod assoc
N/A
tu
tu
ten
smal
mall
small
Dept. is collegial
3.82 tu tu
tu tu tu tu tu
assoc m women foc smal N/A
oderate moderat l
Related survey items
Colleagues committed to diversity/inclusion
3.87 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu pre- assoc m women foc smal N/A
oderatem women
small
l
Benchmark: Departmental engagement
3.40 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu ten mod assoc
N/A
oderates small foc smal N/A
Discussions of undergrad student learning
3.83 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenured assoc
mall s
l
Discussions of grad student learning
2.89 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu small
pre- assoc
N/A
mall la women foc smal N/A
Discussions of effective teaching practices
3.52 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu ten smal assoc
rge s women
small foc lsmal N/A
Discussions of effective use of technology
3.25 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
assoc
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
tu
mall
l
Discussions of current research methods
2.90
tu
tenured assoc s small
N/A
mall s women white s N/A
Amount of professional interaction w/Pre-tenure 3.83 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu small assoc
mall s women
small mall N/A
Amount of professional interaction w/Tenured
3.64 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu pre- assoc
mall la women
moderat
Benchmark: Departmental quality
3.40 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenpre-smal assoc
N/A
rge la women
small foc smal N/A
Intellectual vitality of tenured faculty
3.42 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenpre-smal assoc
rge s women
small foc lsmal N/A
Intellectual vitality of pre-tenure faculty
3.83 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu ten smal assoc
mall la women
small
l
Scholarly productivity of tenured faculty
3.39 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu pre- assoc
N/A
rge la women
small foc mod N/A
Scholarly productivity of pre-tenure faculty
3.71 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenpre-mod assoc
rge m women
small focerate
Teaching effectiveness of tenured faculty
3.52 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenpre-smal assoc
smal N/A
oderatem small foc lsmal N/A
Teaching effectiveness of pre-tenure faculty
3.86 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenpre-smal assoc
oderates women
l
Dept. is successful at faculty recruitment
3.15 tu tu N/A tu tu tu tu tu vu tenN/Asmal assoc
N/A
mall m women
small
Dept. is successful at faculty retention
3.27 tu tu N/A tu tu tu tu tu vu N/A assoc
N/A
oderatem women
moderat white m N/A
Dept. addresses sub-standard performance
2.70 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu pre- assoc
ten smal oderate moderat oderate
*
A group named in the Within Campus Differences rated the survey item lower than its comparison group. Coloration reflects the magnitude (effect size) of the difference. Additional explanation of effect size differences can
be found in the “Background and Definitions” section of this report.
16
Appreciation and Recognition
Not surprisingly, according to the COACHE report, faculty, like others, want to be recognized and
appreciated by their colleagues and administrators when they do well. The results from each of the items in
this benchmark measure show that relative to their peers and other institutions surveyed, overall, CWU
faculty report lower levels of satisfaction in the recognition they receive for the work that they do compared
to others. The few areas of strength on this measure are associate professor’s rating of Recognition from CAO,
and most subgroups with the exception of full professors and women faculty on Recognition: From Dean.
Faculty also rate Schools/college is valued by the President/Provost as an area of concern. Faculty of color do not
differ from peer institution or other institutions on this item. The item CAO cares about faculty of my rank is
rated as an area of concern across all groups and the lowest score among all dimensions of the benchmark
Appreciation and recognition. How faculty rate feeling valued varies by academic area. The chart in the bottom right
of the page presents results of response to the question “ I feel that my department is valued by this
institutions President/Chancellor and Provost,” by academic area.
17
Central Washington University
YOUR RESULTS COMPARED TO PEERS t
AREAS OF STRENGTH IN GREEN
YOUR RESULTS COMPARED TO COHORT u
AREAS OF CONCERN IN RED
WITHIN CAMPUS DIFFERENCES*
sm. (.1)
med (.3)
lrg. (.5)
tenure tenured
mean overall tenured pre-ten full assoc men women white foc
gender race
prior
status ranks
Benchmark: Appreciation and recognition
3.07 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
women
N/A
moderat
Recognition: For teaching
3.15 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
pre- assoc s women
N/A
smal mall women
small
Recognition: For advising
2.76 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tenpreN/A
small
Recognition: For scholarship
3.18 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu ten smal assoc s women
N/A
mall s women
small
Recognition: For service
2.98 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
assoc
N/A
mall women
moderat
Recognition: For outreach
2.87 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
N/A
small foc smal N/A
Recognition: From colleagues
3.52 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
pre- assoc m women
smal full
oderate
moderat
l
Recognition: From CAO
2.79 tu tu N/A tu tu tu tu tu vu tenN/A
smal women
N/A
l
small
Recognition: From Dean
3.36 tu tu N/A tu tu tu tu tu vu
N/A full smal
women
N/A
l s women
small foc smal N/A
Recognition: From Head/Chair
3.51 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
pre- assoc
smal mall women
moderat whitel s N/A
School/college is valued by Pres/Provost
3.13 tu tu N/A tu tu tu tu tu vu tenN/A
moderat white
mall s N/A
Dept. is valued by Pres/Provost
2.92 tu tu N/A tu tu tu tu tu vu
N/A full smal women
l
moderat focmall
CAO cares about faculty of my rank
2.64 tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu tu
full smal
women
smal N/A
l
small
l
*
A group named in the Within Campus Differences rated the survey item lower than its comparison group. Coloration reflects the magnitude (effect size) of the difference. Additional explanation of effect size differences can
be found in the “Background and Definitions” section of this report.
The person who serves as my chief academic officer seems to care about the
quality of life for faculty of my rank.
I feel that my department is valued by this institution's President/Chancellor
and Provost by Academic Area.**
(1=Strongly disagree 5=Strongly Agree)
100%
1
2
3
4
5
Humanities
somewhat or strongly
disagree
Social Sciences
75%
Physical Sciences
neither/nor
Biological Sciences
Visual & Performing Arts
50%
Engineering/Comp Sci/Math/Stats
I don't know
Health & Human Ecology
Agriculture/Nat Res/Env Sci
somewhat or strongly
agree
25%
Business
Education
Medical Schools & Health Professions
Other Professions
0%
assistant
associate
full
**
See the "Background and Definitions" section of the report for a more detailed explanation of
Academic Areas.
18
Best and Worst Aspects
The next charts present results of the COACHE survey where faculty were asked to identify the two best
aspects of working at CWU. The top four responses appear in red. CWU responses appear in the column
labeled you. The column Peer presents the number of times an item appeared in the top four of the five peer
institutions. The All column shows the number of times an item appeared in the top four at any of the
institutions in the larger cohort. The following chart presents results from faculty’s identification of the worst
aspects of working at CWU.
Best Aspects of work at CWU were: quality of colleagues, support of colleagues, geographic location and academic freedom.
Some differences among faculty are that Pre-tenure faculty and men identify manageable pressure to perform and
not academic freedom as a best aspect. Whites include commute and manageable pressure to perform in best aspects in
addition to the top four aspects identified by other groups. Faculty of color identify manageable pressure to
perform in best aspects and support for research and professional development, in addition to the top four identified
by others.
19
Tenured
Pre-tenure
Men
Women
White
Faculty of Color
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
you peer (98) you peer (98) you peer (98) you peer (98) you peer (98) you peer (98) you peer (98)
Overall
quality of colleagues
support of colleagues
opportunities to collaborate with colleagues
quality of graduate students
quality of undergraduate students
quality of the facilities
support for research/creative work
support for teaching
support for professional development
assistance for grant proposals
childcare policies/practices
availability/quality of childcare facilities
spousal/partner hiring program
compensation
geographic location
diversity
presence of others like me
my sense of "fit" here
protections from service/assignments
commute
cost of living
teaching load
manageable pressure to perform
academic freedom
t&p clarity or requirements
quality of leadership
other (please specify)
decline to answer
there are no positive aspects
27%
15%
4%
1%
4%
4%
2%
7%
4%
0%
1%
0%
0%
3%
41%
1%
1%
10%
0%
11%
7%
4%
12%
13%
2%
1%
5%
5%
3%
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
91
57
7
5
15
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
9
0
62
0
0
26
0
3
58
0
0
1
0
0
27%
12%
4%
1%
4%
4%
2%
8%
2%
0%
1%
0%
0%
4%
42%
1%
2%
10%
0%
11%
7%
4%
10%
13%
1%
1%
5%
6%
4%
4
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
84
52
7
7
15
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
64
10
0
57
0
1
25
0
2
58
0
0
1
0
0
29%
19%
4%
0%
6%
4%
2%
6%
8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
38%
0%
0%
10%
0%
12%
8%
4%
17%
12%
6%
2%
6%
2%
2%
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
1
3
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
81
73
6
3
15
1
1
10
1
0
1
0
0
4
53
5
0
52
0
3
33
5
12
38
3
0
0
2
1
32%
14%
5%
0%
4%
5%
3%
7%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
37%
0%
1%
13%
0%
11%
10%
3%
14%
13%
2%
0%
4%
5%
1%
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
89
41
5
8
15
2
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
65
8
0
65
0
0
34
1
4
66
1
0
0
1
0
21%
15%
3%
1%
4%
3%
0%
7%
6%
0%
1%
0%
0%
3%
45%
1%
1%
6%
0%
11%
4%
4%
10%
13%
3%
3%
7%
4%
6%
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
91
76
8
5
17
0
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
2
63
9
1
56
0
3
26
4
6
39
1
0
2
0
0
29%
14%
4%
1%
3%
2%
2%
6%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
43%
0%
1%
10%
0%
13%
9%
2%
13%
13%
2%
1%
6%
6%
2%
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
91
58
6
8
17
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
63
7
0
67
0
0
27
0
2
53
0
0
1
0
0
21%
16%
5%
0%
8%
11%
3%
11%
5%
0%
3%
0%
0%
3%
32%
3%
3%
8%
0%
5%
3%
8%
11%
11%
3%
3%
5%
0%
8%
4
5
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
2
1
1
3
1
0
0
1
0
75
60
8
7
18
6
3
9
2
1
0
0
0
2
62
16
1
41
0
5
41
5
17
69
8
0
6
7
0
The worst aspects of work identified by faculty are: lack of support for research/creative work, compensation,
teaching load, and quality of leadership. There are also some differences among faculty in worst aspects identified
among subgroups. Women and tenured faculty identify too much service/too many assignments as among the worst
aspects but not teaching load. Faculty of color also do not include teaching load as a worst aspect of their work
but do identify geographic location and lack of diversity
20
Tenured
Pre-tenure
Men
Women
White
Faculty of Color
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
you peers (98) you peers (98) you peers (98) you peers (98) you peers (98) you peers (98) you peers (98)
Overall
quality of colleagues
support of colleagues
opportunities to collaborate with colleagues
quality of graduate students
quality of undergraduate students
quality of the facilities
lack of support for research/creative work
lack of support for teaching
lack of support for professional development
lack of assistance for grant proposals
childcare policies/practices (or lack of)
availability/quality of childcare facilities
spousal/partner hiring program (or lack of)
compensation
geographic location
lack of diversity
absence of others like me
my lack of "fit" here
too much service/too many assignments
commute
cost of living
teaching load
unrelenting pressure to perform
academic freedom
t&p clarity or requirements
quality of leadership
other (please specify)
decline to answer
there are no negative aspects
4%
7%
0%
2%
8%
6%
21%
2%
5%
3%
1%
0%
6%
28%
5%
7%
3%
4%
15%
1%
1%
16%
3%
0%
2%
21%
6%
5%
2%
0
0
0
0
2
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
4
0
0
6
24
26
79
1
2
0
1
0
2
85
19
3
0
1
56
2
12
30
6
0
9
30
6
1
0
4%
6%
0%
0%
9%
6%
18%
3%
5%
4%
1%
0%
4%
32%
4%
6%
2%
4%
17%
0%
2%
16%
4%
0%
3%
22%
5%
6%
2%
1
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
8
1
1
3
25
24
72
3
6
0
0
1
1
83
14
3
0
0
63
3
10
32
2
0
2
33
11
2
1
4%
8%
0%
8%
8%
6%
27%
0%
6%
0%
2%
0%
10%
21%
10%
10%
6%
4%
10%
2%
0%
17%
2%
0%
2%
17%
8%
4%
2%
1
0
0
0
1
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
2
1
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
7
3
0
17
19
26
72
3
3
2
1
1
16
72
31
11
5
3
33
5
12
27
10
0
29
7
8
6
3
2%
5%
0%
3%
9%
7%
20%
2%
6%
3%
0%
0%
6%
31%
7%
6%
2%
2%
14%
0%
1%
18%
2%
0%
3%
21%
6%
5%
2%
0
0
0
0
3
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
6
0
0
11
33
29
68
1
4
0
1
0
5
92
21
2
1
0
41
2
16
31
2
0
8
32
6
3
1
6%
8%
0%
1%
8%
4%
21%
1%
4%
3%
3%
0%
6%
25%
3%
8%
4%
7%
15%
1%
1%
14%
4%
0%
1%
20%
6%
6%
1%
1
0
0
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
5
4
1
2
10
28
77
1
3
1
2
0
1
78
20
15
2
2
68
5
10
35
12
0
11
20
10
3
1
3%
6%
0%
2%
9%
6%
20%
2%
6%
3%
0%
0%
6%
28%
2%
6%
3%
5%
19%
0%
0%
20%
3%
0%
2%
24%
5%
5%
2%
1
0
0
0
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
5
1
0
6
25
29
77
1
3
0
1
0
1
85
15
1
0
1
62
4
11
32
7
0
9
33
7
2
1
5%
8%
0%
3%
5%
5%
24%
0%
5%
3%
5%
0%
8%
32%
16%
11%
3%
3%
0%
3%
5%
5%
3%
0%
3%
11%
11%
8%
3%
21
1
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
2
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
11
4
0
21
22
21
75
1
6
2
2
1
14
77
35
32
8
2
31
6
15
29
5
2
9
21
7
13
10
Improving the workplace
The last section of the COACHE survey asks CWU faculty to describe the one thing their institution could
do to improve the workplace for faculty. The chart below shows those results coded into one or more
common themes. Comments may be included in more than one category if applicable. The full text of the
comments is available on the Faculty Senate website (http://www.cwu.edu/faculty-senate/).
Faculty comments on the one thing the institution could do to improve the workplace overwhelmingly
referred to Senior, divisional and departmental leadership, and the nature of work. CWU faculty identified
areas within these two themes with much greater frequency compared to all other comparable institutions.
What is the number one thing your institution can do to improve the workplace for faculty?
75%
50%
25%
0%
Appreciation and Collaboration and Compensation, The Department Senior, divisional,
recognition
interdisciplinary benefits, facilities
departmental
work
and other
leadership
resources
Central Washington University
Mentoring
Research,
teaching, service
Promotion and Work and personal
tenure
life balance
all comparable institutions
22
Inside CWU: Groups within Central Washington University
In addition to comparing CWU with other universities, it is useful to look internally at CWU. We
can learn quite a bit by comparing the scores given by different groups (broken down by college, gender, race,
and academic rank) on the benchmarks.
Benchmarks by College
Table 1: Benchmarks by Colleges
Benchmark
Nature of Work - Service
Nature of Work - Teaching
Nature of Work - Research
Facilities And Work Resources
Personal And Family Benefits
Health And Retirement Benefits
Interdisciplinary Work
Collaboration
Mentoring
Tenure Policies
Tenure Reasonableness
Tenure Clarity
Promotion
Senior Leadership
Division Leadership
Departmental Leadership
Departmental Engagement
Departmental Quality
Departmental Collegiality
Appreciation And Recognition
Sig.
CAH COB CEPS COTS Diff
2.82 3.42 2.96 3.51
**
3.54 3.79 3.37 3.65
2.82 3.05 2.62 3.12
**
3.27 3.40 3.32 3.46
2.81 3.36 3.05 3.17
3.52 3.67 3.72 3.69
2.26 2.54 2.00 2.61
**
3.18 3.21 3.11 3.47
2.81 2.91 2.85 2.98
3.68 2.46 2.99 3.99
**
3.63 3.00 3.44 3.88
2.63 2.33 2.92 3.51
3.91 3.49 3.63 4.03
2.47 2.76 2.85 2.80
3.42 4.01 3.01 3.85
**
3.77 3.85 3.09 4.20
**
3.38 3.01 3.34 3.57
3.59 3.05 3.02 3.62
**
3.71 3.60 3.52 3.97
3.03 3.20 2.91 3.31
** p. <= .03 (see statistics appendix)
This table presents mean scores for the benchmark measures compiled in the COACHE survey. We indicate
where there are significant differences between colleges on these measures. Results of this chart show
differences among colleges on Nature of work related to service and research, Interdisciplinary work, Tenure policies,
Division leadership, departmental leadership, and Departmental quality. These scores can also identify variation in
23
mean scores on specific areas across colleges and also to evaluate scores on specific benchmark measures that
may warrant closer inspection.
Benchmarks by Gender
Table 2: Benchmarks by Gender
Benchmarks
Nature of Work - Service
Nature of Work - Teaching
Nature of Work - Research
Facilities And Work Resources
Personal And Family Benefits
Health And Retirement
Benefits
Interdisciplinary Work
Collaboration
Mentoring
Tenure Policies
Tenure Reasonableness
Tenure Clarity
Promotion
Senior Leadership
Division Leadership
Departmental Leadership
Departmental Engagement
Departmental Quality
Departmental Collegiality
Appreciation And Recognition
Gender
Male
Female Sig Diff
3.22
3.11
3.64
3.49
3.05
2.80
**
3.42
3.26
3.11
2.96
3.62
2.49
3.42
2.98
3.75
3.75
3.34
3.86
2.73
3.69
3.93
3.46
3.48
3.87
3.22
3.63
2.23
3.07
2.74
3.40
3.56
3.03
3.71
2.64
3.25
3.43
3.29
3.24
3.58
2.96
**
**
**
**
Table 2 presents mean scores on benchmark measures for CWU faculty by gender. Results show that women
differ from male counterparts scoring lower on average on Nature of Work Research, Collaboration, Division
Leadership, Departmental Leadership and Departmental Collegiality. We hope to be able dig further into more detail
on particular aspects contributing to differences in these areas of work for women faculty compared to men
faculty with focus groups and women’s forums.
24
Benchmarks by Race
Table 3: Benchmarks by Race
Nature of Work - Service
Nature of Work - Teaching
Nature of Work - Research
Facilities And Work Resources
Personal And Family Benefits
Health And Retirement
Benefits
Interdisciplinary Work
Collaboration
Mentoring
Tenure Policies
Tenure Reasonableness
Tenure Clarity
Promotion
Senior Leadership
Division Leadership
Departmental Leadership
Departmental Engagement
Departmental Quality
Departmental Collegiality
Appreciation And Recognition
Faculty
Sig.
White
of Color
Diff*
3.17
3.17
3.56
3.59
2.95
2.93
3.37
3.27
3.07
2.96
3.67
2.39
3.30
2.84
3.62
3.58
3.10
3.80
2.67
3.53
3.69
3.37
3.38
3.76
3.12
3.46
2.34
3.11
2.98
3.49
3.80
3.34
3.80
2.77
3.38
3.71
3.42
3.35
3.67
3.05
*None of these differences is significantly significant.
Table 3 compares means of benchmark measures of CWU faculty by race. There are no significant
differences on benchmark measures between responses of white faculty and faculty of color.
25
Benchmarks by Rank
Table 4: Benchmarks by Rank
Benchmark
Nature of Work - Service
Nature of Work - Teaching
Nature of Work - Research
Facilities And Work Resources
Personal And Family Benefits
Health And Retirement
Benefits
Interdisciplinary Work
Collaboration
Mentoring
Tenure Policies
Tenure Reasonableness
Tenure Clarity
Promotion
Senior Leadership
Division Leadership
Departmental Leadership
Departmental Engagement
Departmental Quality
Departmental Collegiality
Appreciation And Recognition
Instructor/ Asst. Assoc. Full
Lecturer
Prof
Prof
Prof
Sig Diff
3.29 3.29
3.22 3.03
3.77 3.47
3.49 3.61
2.94 2.96
2.87 2.98
3.52 3.38
3.21 3.35
3.51 3.10
2.84 2.94
3.97
2.41
3.24
2.78
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.76
3.27
3.99
3.31
3.24
3.95
3.31
3.74
2.43
3.24
2.95
3.58
3.65
3.18
n/a
2.72
3.71
3.70
3.40
3.36
3.63
3.04
3.53
2.38
3.23
2.72
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.40
2.84
3.49
3.43
3.19
3.10
3.53
3.06
3.48
2.34
3.31
2.95
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.03 **
2.55
3.45
3.76
3.53
3.62 **
3.87
3.09
Results from table four comparing mean scores on benchmark measures by faculty rank show differences
among rank by clarity of promotion policies (associate and full professor) and Departmental quality. Consistent
with the findings from the COACHE report, associate professors score lower on these measures.
Conclusion:
It is clear from these findings that some faculty members experience greater satisfaction with important
aspects of work life than others. The results of the tables above demonstrate that faculty satisfaction on
specific benchmark measures are influenced by the college faculty work in, the gender of faculty members
and faculty rank. These findings can be used to identify conditions within divisions that contribute to greater
faculty satisfaction and to address practices that contribute to lower levels of satisfaction among faculty
26
members. They can serve as the starting point for identifying workplace conditions that lead to women
faculty rating their satisfaction with the workplace lower than male faculty on almost every measure, and
differences in work satisfaction among faculty members by rank.
A note on statistics
When determining whether various groups had significantly different scores on various benchmarks, we
employed a Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance by ranks. This non-parametric test was designed for
ordinal data, and tests the hypothesis the the medians of all groups in the sample have idential medians (it is
not inappropriate to think of this as ANOVA for ordinal data). We attempted to balance the needs of using
post-hoc methods to reduce our significance level to account for issues of multiple comparisons with the
desire not to be so conversative that we miss important differences. Since we hope that noting benchmark
scores differ between groups will simply begin important conversations, we opted for a not-too-stringent
significance level. In practice, we found it test to replace the traditional (if arbitrary) value of 0.05 with the
more useful (if equally arbitrary) 0.03.
27