Summary of Feedback on
University of South Alabama’s Strategic Plan
Content Analysis Methodology
Data Collection
Comments were received in written form from the small group discussions during town
hall meetings, via the online survey, via personal notes handed to Office of Institutional
Effectiveness staff during town hall meetings, and via email to the Office of Institutional
Effectiveness. Further, notes were taken during large group discussions at town hall
meetings and during phone calls with Office of Institutional Effectiveness staff. All
comments are available in a separate document.
Analysis
First, all comments were labeled as pertaining to either:
 The strategic plan overall
 The mission, vision, and essential activities
 A specific priority in general
 A specific objective
Excel was used to organize the comments. After being organized, the comments were
then coded as:
 ?: A question posed or an un-interpretable comment
 Critique: A critique (positive or negative) about the plan or element of the plan
 Ideas: Something that USA should consider doing or spending money on
 Indicators: A comment about the quality of the indicators
 Philosophy: A comment about the general philosophy or messaging of the plan
or element of the plan
 To be heard: A general comment that was not feedback about the plan nor
presented an idea for consideration
 Wordsmith: Suggestions for improvements in wording
Because comments coded as ‘Ideas’ were not relevant to the revision of the strategic
plan text, those comments received a second level of coding to indicate what division
and/or area of the university should receive those comments. Also, comments coded
as ‘To be heard’ or as ‘?’ were not included in the extraction of themes and/or ideas for
making potential revisions to the plan.
Comments coded as ‘Critique’, ‘Indicators’, or ‘Philosophy’ were included in the content
analysis to extract themes and/or ideas for making potential revisions to the plan. It is
10.31.15 Strategic Plan Feedback Summary Page 1 of 8 important also to note that while the comments are categorized by individual priority
statement and individual objective, this content analysis attempted also to consider
holistically all the comments within a specific priority. As such, while one set of
comments pertaining to a specific objective may have included only one reference to
non-traditional students (for example), taken as a whole, a clear theme emerges across
the whole priority of Student Success and Access about how the success of nontraditional students is addressed.
Those comments coded as ‘Critique’, ‘Indicators’, or ‘Philosophy’ also received a
secondary code, when appropriate, to help extract themes and/or ideas related to
specific populations, types of work, departments, etc. within the University. Those
themes are presented within each priority as some were specific to a particular priority.
Strategic Plan—Essential Activities
While participants were not specifically asked for feedback on the mission, vision, and
essential activities, we received feedback specific to essential activities that fell into
three major themes:
 Delete the statement pertaining specifically to athletes
 Add a statement about the libraries
 Add a statement about faculty support
The following would be recommended language about the libraries and faculty support:
 Providing library and information resource support to meet academic and
research needs
 Engaging faculty and staff and recognizing their efforts in advancing the mission
and priorities.
Priority 1: Student Access and Success: To develop, implement, and assess
initiatives and practices to insure all students are offered the resources and
relationships necessary for high quality learning, academic persistence, and
degree completion.
General Comments
Four major themes were identified from the feedback related to the overall messaging
and direction of Priority 1—Student Success and Access:
 Faculty Support
 Non-traditional students
 The state and/or value of general education
 Focus and/or message of academic excellence and quality of academic
programs.
In addition, these themes also are seen in the feedback related to specific objectives. It
is important that this statement of priority remain focused exclusively on our students.
And, it is important that the University not attempt to identify every student group it
values in the statement. Thus, significant modification to the statement of priority is not
recommended.
10.31.15 Strategic Plan Feedback Summary Page 2 of 8 Objective 1.1: Increase the academic success of undergraduate and graduate
students.
The primary critique of Objective 1.1 relates to its focus on full-time students, and what
some perceive also as a focus on only traditional freshman students. Given that
approximately 80% of the University’s student population begin the academic year as
full-time students (a large majority of whom are traditional freshman) and that the
numbers of part time students have been steadily decreasing, a significant focus on this
objective is to guide and support those students to degree completion. That said, the
addition of an indicator to monitor the degree progression of part-time and nontraditional students to ensure they are not floundering would be prudent. While one size
will never fit all in an educational environment, it is in the University’s and the students’
best interests (academically and financially) to complete their academic goals in as
timely a manner as possible.
Recommendation: addition of an indicator g. Time to degree completion for degreeseeking part-time and non-traditional students
Objective 1.2: Ensure students are meeting learning outcomes established by the
faculty.
Two themes emerged from the feedback about this objective.
 Not all important aspects of student learning are addressed
 Most indicators are not faculty driven metrics
Both of these issues are of concern. As the University’s faculty engages in learning
outcomes assessment, beyond the assignment of course grades, direct measures of
student learning as evaluated by faculty will become the preferred indicators of student
learning in lower- and upper-division courses. However, external and/or comparative
measures of student learning will continue to be valuable, as will post-graduation
outcomes (e.g., employment and licensure rates).
Also important to note, in addition to comments below, there were a significant number
of ideas presented related to general education. Certainly, the general education
curriculum is fundamental to students meeting program learning outcomes. That said,
as better assessments of student learning in the general education program are
developed, a specific indicator could be added to monitor achievement.
Objective 1.3: Ensure recruitment and admission of a high quality, diverse
student body that is well prepared for college study and representative of the
racial/ethnic, gender, and social class diversity of the region.
There were two strong sentiments expressed by the feedback:
 Geographic focus
 Definition of diversity
10.31.15 Strategic Plan Feedback Summary Page 3 of 8 With regard to geographic focus, perhaps wordsmithing of the objective would help
clarify that the University is not limiting its recruitment to the local region. While the
University recruits students globally, the intent is to ensure a student body that is (at the
very least) representative of the local region’s diversity.
With regard to the definition of diversity, the indicators for gender and race are selfexplanatory; however, Pell-status, which is an indicator of socio-economic status, is
unclear. A recommendation is that Pell-status be revised to read to socio-economic
status throughout the document.
Objective 1.4: Increase students’ access to a diverse faculty and staff among
whom students may find exemplars and mentors.
There was very little feedback related to revision of this objective and/or its indicators.
The feedback received was largely a critique of the University’s history to increase the
diversity of its faculty and staff.
Objective 1.5: Increase faculty and student engagement through excellence in
instruction, advising, and academic/professional mentorship.
The principle theme identified from the feedback on this objective relates primarily to the
indicators and the focus on specific high-impact practices for teaching. As with student
learning outcomes, until the University has a more robust method for assessing the
quality of teaching, we must rely on whether we observe certain types of behaviors
associated with quality instruction, which include high-impact practices currently
supported by the University.
Objective 1.6: Offer student programming that increases student engagement
with the University and meets co-curricular learning outcomes established by
Student and Academic Affairs.
There were not enough comments regarding this objective to support a revision.
Objective 1.7: Provide a safe and civil environment.
While there was not a lot of feedback on this objective and given the recent focus locally
and nationally on Title IX, it would be prudent to add an indicator related to Title IX. A
recommended indicator would be: number and percentage of students engaged in the
University’s Title IX educational programs, which focus on the areas of sexual assault,
sexual violence/harassment, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking.
10.31.15 Strategic Plan Feedback Summary Page 4 of 8 Objective 1.8: Increase enrollment in a fiscally responsible manner while
strengthening academic standards for admission.
The primary themes extracted from the comments on this objective related to the
indicators. First, it is recommended that the University establish a target faculty/student
ratio that it intends to maintain. Second, it is recommended to not have indicators
overlap, and as such, perhaps an overall enrollment number would suffice.
Priority 2: Enhancement of Research and Graduate Education: To build USA
capacity for discovery in research, scholarship, and creative activities and ensure
excellence in graduate education.
General Comments
The majority of comments related to Enhancement of Research and Graduate
Education and its objectives fall into three themes:
 Graduate students
 Faculty incentives/support
 Research infrastructure/expertise
 Undergraduate research opportunity
These themes are prevalent across all the priorities. And, are largely addressed by the
objectives and related indicators in their explicit direction to increase funding for both
graduate students and faculty (objectives 2.1 and 2.2) and to increase opportunities and
support for undergraduate student research (objective 2.3).
Objective 2.1: Increase resources and infrastructure to support faculty research
and scholarly activity.
Objective 2.2: Increase the recognition for excellence of graduate programs.
Objective 2.3: Increase opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students to
participate with faculty in research, discovery, and creative activities.
Objective 2.4: Increase faculty participation in making application for and
securing external funding.
Objective 2.5: Increase the number of regional, national, and international
collaborations in research, scholarly, and creative activities.
Objective 2.6: Advance entrepreneurial activities that support the development of
new technologies.
Objective 2.7: Increase the dissemination and impact of research and scholarship
produced by USA faculty and postdoctoral fellows on Mobile, nationally, and
internationally.
10.31.15 Strategic Plan Feedback Summary Page 5 of 8 Priority 3: To strengthen the connections and collaborations between the
University and the larger world by enhancing faculty, staff, and students’
international experiences and their understanding of other societies and cultures
among faculty, staff, and students.
General Comments
The majority of comments related to the Global Engagement priority and its objectives
(and to other objectives related to diversity such as 1.3 and 1.4) could be classified
together under a theme of narrowing our definition of global or of diversity). So, there is
no objective by objective review of feedback as was done with priority 1. While
objectives 1.3 and 1.4 have clear benchmarks (e.g., census data on the diversity of the
region or national benchmarks of faculty diversity), defining global engagement is much
more difficult. While it is important for students to encounter a large array of cultures,
even those within the United States, developing knowledge of and ability to work with
people from cultures beyond the United States is also important. Given the University’s
commitment to ensure that its students can work with anyone and anywhere in our
world, the focus of global engagement will remain on providing students with curriculum
and experiences that educate them about the world beyond the United States.
Objective 3.1: Increase the diversity of the international student body.
Objective 3.2: Increase the incorporation of global perspectives into the
educational environment.
Objective 3.3: Increase engagement with international businesses and
organizations especially those with a local presence.
Priority 4: To actively participate in research, to educate healthcare professionals,
and to be the region’s leader in patients’ access to care, outcomes, and
satisfaction by providing health care that uses an interprofessional approach, is
efficient, and is informed by research and education
General Comments
While there were a number of comments received for the priority as a whole and on
each individual objective, themes emerged that suggested a more holistic approach to
the revision of the priority. Specifically, those themes included:
 Committing to the educational mission
 Interprofessional education
 Interprofessional patient care
 Collaboration across health system and university divisions
As a result, recommended revisions to the plan include the following:
Recommendation 1: combine objectives 4.1 and 4.2.
 Objective 4.1: Achieve exceptional patient quality and satisfaction for the USA
Hospitals, Clinics and the Mitchell Cancer Institute in comparison to peer groups.
10.31.15 Strategic Plan Feedback Summary Page 6 of 8 Recommendation 2 to revise 4.2 to be clearer about intended outcomes.

Objective 4.2: Adapt to reimbursement changes based on patient outcomes and
value to provide financial stability and a quality teaching environment.
a. Financial penalties for patient quality indicators by any payer.
b. Dollars in the Value Based Purchasing program for CMS.
c. Meeting all accreditation and regulatory/certification requirements.
Recommendation 3: add objective related to medical education: Develop and support
the facilities, faculty, and curriculum necessary to ensure excellence in the educational
outcomes for medical professionals.

Objective 4.3: Ensure excellence in the educational outcomes for medical
professionals.
a. The number of collaborative endeavors with the Colleges of Medicine,
Nursing and Allied Health resulting in research publications, quality
improvement projects and clinical support of curriculum such as
student practicums and internships.
b. Participation and successful completion of the Graduate Medical
Education (GME) Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER).
c. The number of clinical staff participating in curriculum development
committees.
Recommendation 4: add an indicator related to interprofessional education to objective
about medical education (e.g., the amount of interprofessional educational opportunities
available to students in the Colleges of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health.
Recommendation 5: add an indicator about the quality of the Health System/University
partnership under research and graduate education: 2.4 c. number of grant applications
with inter-disciplinary collaborations among USA Faculty, staff and/or students.
Recommendation 6: add an objective related to increasing collaboration and
partnership within the USA Health System and between USAs Health System and
University.
 Objective 4.4: Provide support for Health System and University partnerships in
inter-disciplinary collaborative research projects, grants, and translational
research projects.
a. Health System staff serve on clinical research committees.
b. Number of grant applications generated by partnership.
Objective 4.1: Achieve exceptional patient quality outcomes for USA Hospitals,
Clinics, and the Mitchell Cancer Institute in comparison to peer groups.
Objective 4.2: Achieve exceptional patient satisfaction in USA Hospitals, Clinics,
and the Mitchell Cancer Institute.
10.31.15 Strategic Plan Feedback Summary Page 7 of 8 Objective 4.3: Adapt to changes in reimbursement resulting from healthcare
reform as evidenced by USA Hospitals, Clinics, and the Mitchell Cancer Institute
being financially balanced.
Priority 5: To define, support, and strategically advance the University of South
Alabama's commitment to ongoing, permanent, sustainable, and mutually
beneficial partnerships with the communities it serves.
General Comments
There were not enough comments on this priority to support a revision; however, there
was a lot of support expressed for this priority and for the University to move forward
with mutually beneficial partnerships that fit with the mission of the institution (i.e., doing
what USA does best). An example of this would be to add number of community
engaged research projects as an indicator under 5.2.
Objective 5.1: Increase experiential learning opportunities for USA students in
the private and public sectors.
Objective 5.2: Increase strategic engagement of faculty, staff, and students with
business, government, non-profit and other organizations directly involved in
regional economic, civic, and cultural development.
Objective 5.3: Increase University outreach to encourage community participation
in University-life.
10.31.15 Strategic Plan Feedback Summary Page 8 of 8