RTP Survey
Summary Report
November 4, 2010
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 1
Introduction
In Spring of 2010 the Faculty Senate decided to survey the faculty on the Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion processes at
UNCW. Faculty were encouraged to send questions and comments to the President of Faculty Senate, Dr. Bruce McKinney.
Comments obtained were analyzed using NVivo software and common themes were developed. In addition, a search of the
Internet for other surveys about the RTP process occurred during the summer. Some of the questions used in this survey came
from a survey developed by a consortium of universities (e.g., Princeton, MIT) that evaluated similar processes. Once the survey
was developed, it went out to two dozen faculty at UNCW for comments and input. After two revisions, the survey was finalized.
On September 22, 2010, the Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Survey was sent to 502 tenured and tenured track faculty who
had been at UNCW for at least 1 year. The survey remained open for 3 weeks with 4 reminders sent to faculty. A total of 271
faculty completed the survey which is a 54% response rate. Depending on the tenure status of a faculty person, the survey
branched to different sets of questions. Therefore, this report has several components. Demographic information is provided first.
To determine if those that responded were different than those who did not respond, comparisons were made on gender, ethnicity,
college/school, and rank; both groups were similar in nature. Chi-square analyses were run to determine if significant differences
existed between respondents and non-respondents. No significant difference were found by rank (χ2 (3, N = 502) = 1.77, p = .618),
2
2
gender (χ (1, N = 502) = 0.18, p = .674), and ethnicity (χ (5, N = 502) = 1.27, p = .938).
The next section provides information about Assistant and Associate Professors and includes information about departmental RTP
expectations, University RTP expectations, open ended questions about barriers in the RTP process, practices that enhance ability
to get tenure, processes of RTP and the role of elements in the RTP process (i.e., narrative, SPOTS). The final section of the
report provides information about Tenured Professors. Questions on the Departmental and University RTP processes asked faculty
to respond from the point of view as a reviewer of faculty going through the RTP process. They also responded to practices that
enhance the ability to get tenure and elements of the tenure process.
For the majority of questions, the don't know response was eliminated from the calculations and percents are based on those that
used the options in the Likert scale for that question. There are a few exceptions to this practice. There was a series of questions
that asked individuals to compare their departmental standards against other departments. The don't know response was left in
since a large portion of faculty to responded to this question used this option so it was important to include that in calculations.
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 2
Table of Contents
Page
4
Demographic Information
Assistant & Associate Professors
Departmental Expectations
University Expectations
Open Ended Questions
Practices Enhance Tenure
Process of RTP
Role of Elements in RTP process
9
23
28
36
41
43
Professors
Departmental Expectations
University Expectations
Practices Enhance Tenure
Role of Elements in RTP process
46
48
50
63
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 3
Demographic Information
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 4
Gender
Male
Female
Total Responses
262
155
59%
107
41%
97%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
262
100%
Assistant
Professor
31
42%
Rank
Associate
Professor Professor
54
70
61%
70%
43
58%
34
39%
30
30%
74
88
100
75%
Asian
African American
Hispanic
White
Total Responses
UNCW RTP Results
59%
40%
41%
25%
0%
Male
Female
Gender Comparison Tenure & Tenure Track
Faculty vs Respondents
261
3
1%
16
6%
15
6%
8
3%
219
84%
261
96%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Assistant
Professor
1
1%
Rank
Associate
Professor Professor
0
2
0%
2%
7
9%
6
7%
3
3%
6
8%
6
7%
3
3%
2
3%
2
2%
4
4%
58
78%
71
84%
90
88%
74
85
102
100%
Tenure & Tenure Track Faculty
Respondents
84% 84%
75%
Percent
MultiRacial
60%
50%
Ethnicity
Response Rate:
Tenure & Tenure Track Faculty
Respondents
Percent
Response Rate:
50%
25%
11/4/2010
1%1%
5%
6%
5%
6%
5% 3%
0%
Multi
Asian African Hispanic White
Racial
American
Ethnic Comparison Tenure & Tenure Track
Faculty vs Respondents
Page 5
What is your college or school?
Response Rate:
266
98%
Assistant
Professor
College of Arts
and Sciences
173
65%
Count
Column%
43
59%
Rank
Associate
Professor Professor
62
68%
100%
Tenure & Tenure Track Faculty
Respondents
68
67%
75%
School of
Education
School of Nursing
School of Health
and Applied
Human Sciences
School of Social
Work
Total Responses
UNCW RTP Results
31
12%
Count
Column%
32
12%
Column%
11
4%
Column%
Count
Count
7
10%
11
12%
13
13%
11
15%
12
13%
9
9%
5
7%
3
3%
3
3%
65% 65%
Percent
School of
Business
50%
25%
12%
14
5%
Count
Column%
5
7%
3
3%
6
6%
266
Count
Column%
2
3%
0
0%
3
3%
73
91
102
12%
11%
3%
4%
3%
5%
2% 2%
4%
0%
0%
CAS
5
2%
12%
11/4/2010
CSB
WSE
SON SHAHS SSWK Admin
College/School Comparison Tenure & Tenure
Track Faculty vs Respondents
Page 6
What is your rank
Asst Professor
99%
Count
Column%
Assoc Professor
Rank
Tenure &
Tenure
Track RespondFaculty
ents
131
74
26%
28%
Count
Column%
Professor
Count
Column%
Total Responses
100%
Tenure & Tenure Track Faculty
Respondents
75%
50%
26% 28%
186
37%
91
34%
25%
185
37%
102
38%
0%
502
267
Which best describes your position
Response Rate:
Faculty member
Librarian
Department Chair
260
232
89%
1
0%
19
7%
100%
96%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Assistant
Professor
73
99%
37% 38%
37% 34%
Assistant Professor Associate Professor
Professor
Rank of Faculty Comparison Tenure & Tenure Track
Faculty vs Respondents
Rank
Associate
Professor Professor
80
79
91%
81%
1
1%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
7
8%
12
12%
Percent of Respondents
267
Percent
Response Rate:
89%
75%
50%
25%
7%
0%
3%
0%
Higher
administration
Total Responses
UNCW RTP Results
8
3%
260
Count
Column%
0
0%
1
1%
7
7%
74
88
98
11/4/2010
Faculty
member
Librarian
Department
Chair
Higher
administration
Role of Faculty Member
Page 7
Assistant Professor's status in the RTP process
Initial appointment
Planning to go up
in the next year
Currently going
through tenure
process
Total Responses
74
12
16%
48
65%
100%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Assistant
Professor
12
16%
48
65%
100%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
65%
50%
25%
19%
16%
0%
14
19%
Count
Column%
74
Initial appointment
14
19%
Planning to go up in next Currently going through
year
process
Assistant Professor's Tenure Status
74
Associate Professors status in the RTP process
91
100%
Associate
Professor
Tenured in last
year
Tenured longer
than 1 year
Currently going
through process
Total Responses
UNCW RTP Results
14
15%
71
78%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
14
15%
71
78%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
100%
78%
75%
50%
25%
15%
7%
0%
Tenured in last year
6
7%
91
Count
Column%
6
7%
Tenured longer than 1 Currently going through
year
process
Associate Professor's Tenure Status
91
11/4/2010
Page 8
Assistant & Associate Professor Responses
Departmental Evaluation
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 9
My departmental expectations for RTP are
Very clear (5)
Fairly clear (4)
Neither clear nor
unclear (3)
162
29
18%
98%
Count
Column%
92
57%
Column%
15
9%
Column%
Count
Count
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
9
20
12%
22%
43
59%
49
55%
10
14%
5
6%
100%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
Asst Professor
Assoc Professor
75%
59%
55%
50%
22%
25%
14%
12%
Fairly unclear (2)
16
10%
Count
Column%
8
11%
8
9%
3
4%
7
8%
6%
10
6%
Count
Column%
Total Responses
162
73
89
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
3.70
4.00
1.07
3.64
4.00
0.98
3.75
4.00
1.14
UNCW RTP Results
4%
8%
0%
Very Clear Fairly Clear
Very unclear (1)
11% 9%
Neither
Fairly
Unclear
Very
Unclear
Departmental Expectations for RTP by Rank
11/4/2010
Page 10
Department's annual review process gives concrete feedback on my progress towards tenure.
161
98%
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
Strongly disagree
(1)
Somewhat
disagree (2)
Neither disagree
no agree (3)
Somewhat agree
(4)
Strongly agree (5)
17
11%
15
9%
14
9%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
4
5%
13
15%
6
8%
9
10%
4
5%
10
11%
Asst. Professor
Assoc. Professor
75%
47%
50%
34%34%
30%
25%
15%
5%
60
37%
Column%
55
34%
Column%
Count
Count
34
47%
26
30%
25
34%
30
34%
Total Responses
161
73
88
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
3.75
4.00
1.30
3.96
4.00
1.11
3.58
4.00
1.43
UNCW RTP Results
100%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
8%
11%
10%
5%
0%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Annual Review Gives Feedback about Tenure Process
11/4/2010
Page 11
The clarity of my department RTP expectations for teaching are
Very clear (5)
Fairly clear (4)
Neither clear nor
unclear (3)
Fairly unclear (2)
Very unclear (1)
162
43
27%
77
48%
20
12%
18
11%
4
2%
98%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
15
28
21%
31%
38
52%
39
44%
10
14%
10
11%
10
14%
8
9%
0
0%
4
4%
Total Responses
162
73
89
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
3.85
4.00
1.02
3.79
4.00
0.93
3.89
4.00
1.09
UNCW RTP Results
100%
Asst. Professor
Assoc. Professor
75%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
52%
50%
44%
31%
21%
25%
14%
9%
14%
11%
4%
0%
0%
Very
Unclear
Fairly
Unclear
Neither
Fairly Clear Very Clear
Clarity of Departmental Teaching Expectations
11/4/2010
Page 12
My department RTP expectations for teaching are
162
98%
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
Very reasonable
(5)
Fairly reasonable
(4)
Neither reasonable
nor unreasonable
(3)
Fairly
unreasonable (2)
Very unreasonable
(1)
48
30%
80
49%
22
14%
9
6%
3
2%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
15
21%
44
60%
10
14%
Asst. Professor
Assoc. Professor
33
37%
36
40%
12
13%
3
4%
6
7%
1
1%
2
2%
Total Responses
162
73
89
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
3.99
4.00
0.91
3.95
4.00
0.80
4.03
4.00
0.99
UNCW RTP Results
100%
75%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
60%
50%
40%
25%
37%
21%
14%13%
1% 2%
4%
7%
0%
Very
Fairly
Unreasonable Unreasonable
Neither
Fairly
Reasonable
Very
Reasonable
Reasonableness of Departmental Teaching Expectations
11/4/2010
Page 13
Compared to other departments at UNCW, my departmental RTP expectations for teaching are
Much higher (5)
Somewhat higher
(4)
About the same
(3)
Somewhat lower
(2)
Much lower (1)
Don't know (0)
160
13
8%
26
16%
38
24%
5
3%
1
1%
77
48%
97%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
6
7
8%
8%
8
11%
14
19%
2
3%
18
21%
24
28%
Asst. Professor
Assoc. Professor
75%
59%
50%
39%
28%
25%
3
3%
0
0%
1
1%
43
59%
34
39%
Total Responses
160
73
87
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
3.54
3.00
0.87
3.60
3.00
0.89
3.51
3.00
0.87
UNCW RTP Results
100%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
21%
8% 8%
19%
11%
3% 3%
0% 1%
0%
Much
Higher
Somewhat
Higher
Same
Somewhat
Lower
Much
Lower
Don't
Know
Departmental Expectation of Teaching Compared
Others
11/4/2010
to
Page 14
The clarity of my department RTP expectations for scholarly productivity are
Very clear (5)
Fairly clear (4)
Neither clear nor
unclear (3)
162
31
19%
98%
Count
Column%
71
44%
Column%
19
12%
Column%
Count
Count
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
9
22
12%
25%
33
45%
38
43%
13
18%
6
7%
14
19%
13
15%
4
5%
10
11%
100%
Asst. Professor
Assoc. Professor
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
50%
45% 43%
25%
25%
19%
15%
18%
12%
11%
Fairly unclear (2)
27
17%
Count
Column%
5%
0%
Very Unclear Fairly Unclear
Very unclear (1)
14
9%
Count
Column%
Total Responses
162
73
89
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
3.48
4.00
1.22
3.40
4.00
1.10
3.55
4.00
1.31
UNCW RTP Results
7%
Neither
Fairly Clear
Very Clear
Clarity of Departmental Scholarly Productivity
Expectations
11/4/2010
Page 15
My department RTP expectations for scholarly productivity are
Response Rate:
162
98%
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
Fairly reasonable
(4)
Neither reasonable
nor unreasonable
(3)
42
26%
74
46%
36
22%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
13
18%
29
33%
40
55%
34
38%
17
23%
19
21%
Asst. Professor
Assoc. Professor
75%
Percent of Respondents
Very reasonable
(5)
100%
55%
50%
38%
33%
23%
25%
Fairly
unreasonable (2)
Very unreasonable
(1)
18%
5
3%
Count
Column%
2
3%
3
3%
4%
1%
3% 3%
0%
5
3%
Count
Column%
1
1%
4
4%
Total Responses
162
73
89
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
3.88
4.00
0.94
3.85
4.00
0.79
3.91
4.00
1.04
UNCW RTP Results
21%
Very
Unreasonable
Fairly
Unreasonable
Neither
Fairly
Reasonable
Very
Reasonable
Reasonableness of Department Scholarly Productivity
Expectations
11/4/2010
Page 16
Compared to other departments at UNCW, my departmental RTP expectations for scholarly productivity are
Much higher (5)
Somewhat higher
(4)
About the same
(3)
Somewhat lower
(2)
Much lower (1)
Don't know (0)
160
15
9%
21
13%
49
31%
8
5%
97%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
4
3%
Column%
63
39%
Column%
Count
Count
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
5
10
7%
11%
9
12%
17
23%
3
4%
12
14%
32
37%
Asst. Professor
Assoc. Professor
75%
53%
50%
37%
28%
0
0%
4
5%
39
53%
24
28%
160
73
87
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
3.36
3.00
0.98
3.47
3.00
0.86
3.30
3.00
1.04
23%
25%
5
6%
Total Responses
UNCW RTP Results
100%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
11%
7%
12%
14%
4%
6%
5%
0%
0%
Much
Higher
Somewhat
Higher
Same
Somewhat
Lower
Much
Lower
Don't Know
Departmental Expectation of Scholarly Productivity
Compared to Others
11/4/2010
Page 17
The clarity of my department RTP expectations for service are
Very clear (5)
Fairly clear (4)
Neither clear nor
unclear (3)
Fairly unclear (2)
161
26
16%
79
49%
21
13%
20
12%
98%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
8
18
11%
20%
35
49%
12
17%
44
49%
9
10%
13
18%
7
8%
4
6%
11
12%
100%
Asst. Professor
Assoc. Professor
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
49% 49%
50%
25%
18%
12%
6%
20%
17%
8%
10%
Fairly
Unclear
Neither
11%
0%
Very unclear (1)
15
9%
Count
Column%
Very Unclear
Fairly Clear
Very Clear
Clarity of Departmental Service Expectations
Total Responses
161
72
89
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
3.50
4.00
1.18
3.42
4.00
1.08
3.57
4.00
1.25
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 18
My department RTP expectations for service are
Response Rate:
162
98%
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
Fairly reasonable
(4)
Neither reasonable
nor unreasonable
(3)
34
21%
67
41%
42
26%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
10
14%
24
27%
34
47%
33
37%
17
23%
25
28%
Asst. Professor
Assoc. Professor
75%
Percent of Respondents
Very reasonable
(5)
100%
47%
50%
37%
28%
25%
Fairly
unreasonable (2)
27%
23%
14%
15
9%
Count
Column%
8
11%
7
8%
11%
8%
5%
0%
Very unreasonable
(1)
0%
4
2%
Count
Column%
4
5%
0
0%
Total Responses
162
73
89
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
3.69
4.00
0.99
3.52
4.00
1.04
3.83
4.00
0.92
UNCW RTP Results
Very
Fairly
Unreasonable Unreasonable
Neither
Fairly
Reasonable
Very
Reasonable
Reasonableness of Departmental Service Expectations
11/4/2010
Page 19
Compared to other departments at UNCW, my departmental RTP expectations for service are
Much higher (5)
Somewhat higher
(4)
About the same
(3)
Somewhat lower
(2)
Much lower (1)
160
16
10%
97%
Count
Column%
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
9
7
12%
8%
100%
Asst. Professor
Assoc. Professor
75%
19
12%
43
27%
2
1%
0
0%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
6
8%
13
15%
14
19%
29
33%
2
3%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
42
58%
38
44%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
58%
50%
44%
33%
25%
19%
15%
12%
8%
3%
0%
80
50%
Count
Column%
Total Responses
160
73
87
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
3.61
3.00
0.83
3.71
3.00
0.97
3.55
3.00
0.74
UNCW RTP Results
0% 0%
0%
Much Higher
Don't know (0)
8%
Somewhat
Higher
Same
Somewhat
Lower
Much Lower
Don't Know
Departmental Expectation of Service Compared to
Others
11/4/2010
Page 20
To what extent does the University RTP process currently value these items in the tenure process?
Value
Not at Valued Somewhat
all slightly
valued
Research/
scholarly work
Applied Research
Teaching
contributions
Departmental
service
Service to UNCW
Service to the
community/region
Professional
reputation
Collegiality
Fit w/ department
mission
Assessment by
outside peers
Obtaining
grants/funding
Table Summary
UNCW RTP Results
Total
Highly Response
s
valued
1
1%
7
4%
8
5%
35
22%
34
21%
70
43%
119
73%
50
31%
162
5
3%
16
10%
52
32%
89
55%
162
16
10%
14
9%
62
39%
56
35%
59
37%
64
40%
23
14%
27
17%
160
23
14%
67
41%
56
35%
16
10%
162
29
18%
46
28%
50
31%
49
30%
61
38%
52
32%
20
13%
15
9%
160
29
18%
51
32%
60
38%
19
12%
159
58
36%
66
41%
35
22%
2
1%
161
13
8%
241
37
23%
497
56
35%
599
55
34%
435
161
162
161
162
1772
11/4/2010
Page 21
How appropriate is the value that the University RTP process has placed on these items?
Appropriateness of Value
Very
under
valued
Research/
scholarly work
Applied research
Teaching
contributions
Departmental
service
Service to UNCW
Service to the
community/region
Professional
reputation
Collegiality
Fit w/ department
mission
Assessment by
outside peers
Obtaining
grants/funding
Table Summary
UNCW RTP Results
Some
what
under
Valued
valued appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very
overvalued
Total
Responses
6
4%
15
9%
29
18%
54
34%
79
49%
70
44%
34
21%
13
8%
12
8%
8
5%
160
12
8%
34
21%
80
50%
23
14%
11
7%
160
26
16%
21
13%
43
27%
38
24%
74
47%
86
54%
13
8%
12
8%
3
2%
3
2%
159
31
19%
44
28%
70
44%
12
8%
3
2%
160
27
17%
24
15%
44
28%
45
28%
85
53%
70
44%
3
2%
15
9%
1
1%
4
3%
160
15
10%
40
25%
92
59%
6
4%
4
3%
157
31
20%
56
36%
64
41%
5
3%
1
1%
157
14
9%
222
34
22%
461
75
48%
845
22
14%
158
12
8%
62
157
11/4/2010
160
160
158
1748
Page 22
Assistant & Associate Professor Responses
University RTP Evaluation
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 23
The University RTP processes are
Very clear (5)
Fairly clear (4)
Neither clear nor
unclear (3)
Fairly unclear (2)
160
13
8%
88
55%
25
16%
24
15%
97%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
5
8
7%
9%
39
54%
49
56%
14
19%
11
13%
11
15%
13
15%
100%
Asst. Professor
Assoc. Professor
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
56%
54%
50%
25%
19%
15%15%
13%
8%
7%
4%
Very unclear (1)
10
6%
Count
Column%
3
4%
7
8%
9%
0%
Very Unclear Fairly Unclear
Neither
Fairly Clear
Very Clear
Clarity of University RTP Expectations
Total Responses
160
72
88
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
3.44
4.00
1.04
3.44
4.00
0.98
3.43
4.00
1.10
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 24
To what extent do you feel the University RTP processes used to evaluate your performance are reasonable?
Not at all (0)
To some extent (1)
To a great extent
(2)
159
7
4%
112
70%
40
25%
96%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
1
6
1%
7%
55
77%
57
65%
15
21%
25
28%
100%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
Asst. Professor
Assoc. Professor
77%
75%
65%
50%
28%
21%
25%
1%
7%
0%
Not at all
To some extent
To a great extent
Reasonableness of University RTP Expectations
Total Responses
159
71
88
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
1.26
1.00
0.44
1.21
1.00
0.41
1.30
1.00
0.46
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 25
The University RTP committee's expectations are congruent with my departmental expectations.
Response Rate:
161
98%
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
Somewhat
disagree (2)
Neither disagree
nor agree (0)
Somewhat agree
(4)
5
3%
31
19%
24
15%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
3
4%
2
2%
13
18%
18
20%
7
10%
17
19%
Asst. Professor
Assoc. Professor
75%
Percent of Respondents
Strongly disagree
(1)
100%
50%
38%
29%
26%
25%
53
33%
27
38%
26
29%
3
4%
11
12%
19
26%
15
17%
161
72
89
3.39
4.00
1.19
3.30
4.00
1.15
3.46
4.00
1.23
Count
Column%
20%
18%
Don't know (0)
Total Responses
14
9%
34
21%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
17%
12%
10%
4%
Strongly agree (5)
19%
4%
2%
0%
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Don't
Know
University RTP Expectations Congruent with
Departmental Expectations
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 26
Which of the following roles do you feel the University RTP Committee should have?
Response Rate:
157
95%
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
Equal weight in the
decision (current
role)
No role: eliminate
from the tenure
process
Other
Total Responses
46
29%
93
59%
12
8%
6
4%
157
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
27
40%
36
53%
19
21%
57
64%
4
6%
8
9%
1
1%
5
6%
68
89
Asst. Professor
Assoc. Professor
Percent of Respondents
Review of due
process only (no
vote)
100%
75%
64%
53%
50%
40%
21%
25%
6%
9%
6%
1%
0%
Review of Due
Process Only
Equal Weight
(Current)
No Role:
Eliminate
Other
Role of University RTP Committee
Other Responses:
Ensure fair department decision with power to convert negative to positive (but not converse)
Not clear how to answer this
Not sure
Should generally abstain from the process unless there is evidence of injustice
There should be review and some vote but perhaps not equal to the departmental assessment
What role do they have now?
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 27
Open Ended Questions
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 28
Current practices that make it difficult for junior faculty to meet the University RTP's standard for tenure
Response Rate:
44
1. Service, service, service! Service is undervalued for tenure, yet the demands on junior faculty to perform service seem to be
increasing every year.
2. Assessment. Too much time is dedicated to reacting to the constant influx of assessment guidelines.
3. Collegiality. Unequal distribution of service. Colleagues who don't pull their weight.
Because we are understaffed in the office and have too few faculty in our department, it is very difficult for junior faculty to find time
for research. The demands of service are extremely unreasonable.
continued overvaluation of research with unrelenting standards for teaching as well as courseload and limited, if any graduate
student support makes it extremely difficult for faculty to meet Univ. standards for tenure.
departmental lack of clarity on process and expectations, especially related to "collegiality"
lack of clarity about specific university tenure requirements for scholarship
unclear submission processes (application instructions and materials)
need to consider broader concepts of scholarship to include scholarship of teaching, and evidence of commitment to University
Strategic goals (i.e. global citizenship, community engagement
evaluating teaching based on 1 question (question 16) is a weak method of evaluating teaching effectiveness.
Due to the teaching, advising and the service load research is increasingly difficult to accommodate and it is undervalued. It
becomes difficult to attend conferences which is very important for the development of a research scholar. One feels almost guilty
when away from the classroom even though it is very good for the University's reputation and for the researcher to get such
academic exposure and a inter/national platform to share one's scholarly work.
Exact expectation is not specified anywhere. I understand it is difficult and may be not even desirable. But as I consult with senior
colleagues, I find they have somewhat different levels of expectation on teaching/research/service.
FYI..the question about where faculty are in the RPT process is limited. Since I was forced to choose an option, my response is
inaccurate. My biggest gripe is having taken over a UNI class b/c an instructor left toward the end of the semester. I then distributed
SPOTS with her name on them and those "poor" scores were reflected on my SPOTS. That is unfair to me in the RPT process. I
felt undervalued as a faculty member when I tried to address this through the appropriate channels on campus. The outcome was
those scores stayed on my report and I was told this happens all the time and there is no policy on this issue.
Heavy teaching/advising load and push for service within department on committees and to the profession. Additionally, no
consistent focused mentoring for tenure process from time of hire.
I am a junior faculty member being asked to serve on 12 committees. Although I am verbally encouraged to pursue scholarship, I
am not given the time or opportunity to do so. The only grant support provided is in the form of links sent for grants to which to
apply, i.e., actual helps and support is not provided regarding grants.
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 29
I am confused by the use of "teaching institution" but then the holding of high expectations for research, grants and applied
research. Which is more important at UNCW: teaching or research? Either is acceptable to me, but knowing which is more
important may have helped me make decisions along the way.
I do not know this one as I do not deal with this much
I have no significant concerns with the RTP process thus far and consider it to be a relatively transparent process that has been
well-supported by my department.
If it is publish or perish, then say so. Don't sell we're inclusive or progressive in "our" thinking about scholarship, then when it time
for evaluation it is about how many publications.
In the few years that I have been at UNCW,I have attended several RTP sessions offered through CTE, etc. The expectations for
tenure expectations seem to be a moving target. One year, we were told that the committee does not look at narratives and
personal statements, then this year, it was most important. Similarly, the university community prides itself in valuing teaching, but
then in the same breath explains to tenure track faculty that you will not get tenure without publications--however, no one seems to
be able to clarify what is meant by publications--first author, or does it matter. It is frankly a very disappointing process. There needs
to be a standard so that faculty coming into the university know what the goal should be and not just guess every year.
It is difficult to appropriately answer some of the questions above. I attended an RTP information session and the overall message
was "follow departmental standards." As a result, I could say more about departmental standards then University standards.
It is not always clear what the standards for any given category are
Its seems like in my department research is highly valued, but there is an overtaxing on service, and limited teaching assistants to
help relieve the workload. For example, in the spring of 2010, I had planned on beginning a grant proposal, but was overburdened
with service obligations (there was at least 1 faculty meeting or committee every week that spring.) I felt like I didn't have time to do
all of the expected teaching and service and research and still live a healthy lifestyle. There need to be limits on service
expectations for research active junior faculty.
Junior faculty are given mixed messages regarding tenure. UNCW claims that teaching is given the highest priority in promotion
from assistant to associate. This does not appear to be the case. Senior faculty possess inconsistent expectations for scholarly
productivity and collegiality. My department's senior faculty's expectations also appear to be at odds with my department chair's
expectations.
Lack of clear guidelines/expectations for teaching/scholarship/service within the school.
lack of help with childcare
Limited financial resources to support junior faculty scholarship. Lack of a culture of meaningful collaboration across departments
My department's requirements for tenure seem to be different and in most cases greatly exceed those of the University committee.
My feeling is that research, teaching, and service are required for tenure, with the first two being heavily weighed. I believe
expectations for research are growing and while I'm in favor of this, increasing research without a decrease in teaching is
challenging. With current loads, we run the risk of professors only being mediocre at both because of required time commitments.
Not difficult at all now. Junior faculty members have received tenure with 3 publications and 3 years of limited teaching and service.
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 30
Requiring faculty who earned tenure elsewhere (by a more rigorous external process than UNCW's)and who have an established
professional reputation to start all over HERE is demoralizing, unprofessional, and, frankly, insulting.
Research expectations have increased, but a one course relief for being research active is not sufficient for creative high quality
research.
Responsibilities for program coordination, excessive committee work, heavy advising loads, and recruitment among junior faculty
(tenure track) interfere with achieving tenure and complicate the process of reaching tenure track goals.
somewhat unclear standard on research area: for example, how many peer-review journal publications are expected for a tenure
Standardized teaching evaluations are not reliable (esp in the case of online teaching).
The 3:3 teaching load is a load that applies differentially depending on department. If I teach 3:3 in my department that is
equivalent to approximately 130-140 students. 3:3 in FLL or English is more typically 75 students. 3:3 in other departments may be
higher. An assistant professor's teaching load impacts the research productivity negatively. Punishing non-productive faculty by
moving them to 4:4 might increase their student load - but probably does not in ways that lighten the teaching for juniors. Finally,
the feedback from the UNCW RPT during my reappointment was to "be more productive". Is that the standard response or is this
intended to be disheartening? I'd like to be absolutely clear when I am receiving a negative message from an entity that has the
power to terminate my employment.
The 3-3 teaching load creates a challenging atmosphere in maintaining a record of scholarship necessary to keep up research and
publishing standards. Though I am currently meeting this challenge, it would be nice to have had at least during the year before
coming up for tenure (for me, this academic year) to have a reduced teaching load in order to be more even productive on the
publishing part of RTP. Thank you for giving me the opportunity for this comment/suggestion.
The amount of service expectations from junior faculty should be minimal. The research expectations should be clear and good
support from the senior faculty reaching these expectations should be present. The major issue with these is that even though
different departments do not have equal number of faculty, in order to have access to resources same input from each department
is essential. This creates extra work for junior faculty of understaffed departments. In addition, technical majors like ours already
requires a lot more work in teaching due to lengthy lab and project hours.
The heavy reliance on SPOTs has the potential to hurt faculty members who demand high performance of their students.
Unfortunately, there is no obvious remedy.
Guidelines for expected publications and grant activity are ill-defined and vary from department from department which could cause
some consternation among junior faculty. My department was very clear in what was expected.
The height of the bar seems to fluctuate. Annual reviews do not provide employees with a clear rationale describing what
constitutes meeting or exceeding requirements. In some departments, everyone gets exceeds and others no one does which
makes the approach to tenure stressful. There is also a poor distribution of weight. Junior faculty are expected to complete more
service and any new course development at a much higher rate than their tenured colleagues despite high research expectations.
The lack of childcare at UNCW is a MAJOR issue.
The number of committees that we are asked to serve on and meetings we are asked to participate in makes it difficult to find
quality time to conduct research and write.
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 31
The possibility of turnover at the supervisory level (e.g. chair) makes an individual very vulnerable if expectations change. Also
important to make sure that if someone is hired with specific expectations (e.g. start a program, develop new entity, etc.) that that is
integrated into the entire review process so that University RTP can't use a different standard.
The unavailability of sabbaticals to junior faculty. This is a joke for a university that thinks it has any research mission at all.
The University standards are not defined and there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the criteria. The University committee
provides no guidance and does not follow the RTP guidelines in evaluating faculty based on the feedback they provide in their
letter.
There is no clear line that connects what the department and college expect and what the university RTP committee wants. The
University RTP committee has a different standard that is not fully known
There is no obvious communication or facilitation of department goals to the College RTP com. that is made clear to the Candidate
Too much advising, limited research resources, and strong emphasis on service expectations.
Unclear about its role in the process.
With an ever-increasing teaching load and the desire for scholarly/artistic work as well, the expectations for more meetings,
committees, assessment activities, Digital Measures, recruiting fairs on campus, etc. are becoming unmanageable for many of us.
We simply cannot do it all. In my opinion, the artistic work and the teaching really do have to come first.
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 32
Current practices that make it difficult for faculty to meet University RTP's standard for promotion to professor
Response Rate:
32
- I think it is unfortunate that the collective spirit of UNCW has clearly moved toward "the desire to appear like a research-1"
institution. We are not R-1 but we try to act as such and extensive and/or sizable research publications carry the day in promotions.
Excellence in teaching may win awards but it is greatly discounted in the promotion process. I think that is unfortunate but I can live
with it.
- At my current career point I have pretty much decided against pursuing full professorship. I would like to know of other associates
who have also made this decision. I only know one or two who have made that decision (and have made it public).
- I have heard, from a reliable source that the top administration of the university considers long-term associate professors to be a
"problem" to be solved.
- uneven activities and expectations across departments. Although we are all on 9 months contracts, those of us in many
departments (particularly the sciences) work full time in the summer even without salary in order to reach our research
goals/expectations. This effort and expectation is not evenly distributed across all departments.
1) lack of clarity about criteria, 2) lack of a clear charge to the committee so that committees are fairly consistent in their standards
and process despite chair/configuration of a given year's committee, 3) no clear checklist process for the committee to follow with
each dossier--candidates should see this checklist too: share the rubric!, 4) clarification of what, if anything makes Professor
different from Tenure. Is it more of the same or is other things too? Are we holistic or is it just reputation/productivity as
researcher?
Applied research should have more value in a professional school. Similarly grants are not as valued as they should be.....
Cannot say as I do not currently know what they are.
Chair of the department has too much authority in the process. Funded research and publication standards are not clear enough to
be useful.
Definitive sense of entitlement that current full professors have exhibited in my unit. Why would I want to pursue acceptance into a
club that I have very little respect for?
Expectation for service in department is inconsistent with expectation for service at university level.
expectations
Expectations are unclear. Lack of transparency in the process.
Faculty are encouraged to do service. Some attempt to provide service as asked, others are resistant and do less service. In the
end, both groups are compared on their research productivity, with service carrying little or no weight. So, those who refuse service
are at an advantage in getting promoted to professor if they devote that extra time to research. This is not a huge issue, but it has
become pretty clear to me that learning how to say no to service is the way to fast-track to promotion to full.
Heavy teaching load and greater expectation of service at the Associate Professor level; limited funding for research, travel, and
administrative support; a lack of any meaningful faculty mentoring program; and a lack of respect or support for seeking grant funds-at least in my department.
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 33
If one is teaching and preparing new courses and existing courses in the core of the curriculum, while conducting applied research,
that leaves little time for publishing, which is required to obtain full professor now. Would be wise for RTP to consider the strengths
and records of each individual rather than trying to fit a University formula. Not all faculty do the same work or have the same
expectations. Once at Full, many don't do their jobs.
I'm not at all clear what the expectations are. I've been a full professor and am now an untenured associate. The only thing I can
respond to is what my experience is from previous universities; I don't have ANY information from UNCW
Is it lack of clarity of expectations in department, school, university. Or, is it lack of consistency.
It is unclear what the SPECIFIC expectations are regarding teaching, scholarship, service, and grantsmanship.
Lack of funding for research reassignment prior to tenure decisions
Many associate professors are called into substantial university service for extended periods. This interrupts their scholarly
research production, and in many cases severely inhibits promotion to full professor despite years of outstanding teaching and
dedication to service roles that the university asked them to perform.
None that I can think of.
People who come from other institutions are given mixed messages about promotion and tenure. This can be frustrating, especially
for those of us coming from higher ranked, research institutions. I was told that what I did before coming to UNCW was not valued-don't include it. However, I spent 12 years building a reputation as a scholar, grant writer, and professional within my discipline. I
could only note the things I had published prior to coming here on my application for tenure at UNCW. I hope I can add more to my
application for professor, however, I was told not to add much.
Requirements for scholarship.
SPOT scores ARE popularity contests. All journal ratings are subjective below top journal in field. Define national/international
recognition. Is it one time, sustained or what? Eliminate any administrative roadblocks in this promotion. Ex, if administrators in
academic affairs deny a number of promotions - eliminate their vote if found to be unfairly applied.
Standard is unknown; heavy service on all levels expected of associate professors; preferences given to assistant professors for
reduction in service expectations; constant computer work eats away at time that would be better spent elsewhere; administrative
duties that are not compensated by reduced teaching; search committees; writing of assessment plans without clear directions; lastminute deadlines from administrators; lack of clear leadership from administrators; no real sabbaticals; no mentoring.
the excessive service and committee work required by senior faculty; the numerous class observations required by all which often
become service to senior faculty who must observe countless untenured faculty and lecturers
The Guidelines for promotion to full professor are so vaguely stated in the faculty handbook. The abstract guideline statements
such as distinguished accomplishment in teaching, doesn't help guide practice and collect evidences for promotion application. As
part of the results due to unclarity, SPOTS score is overemphasized and misguide teaching practice.
The RPT committee typically does not have a clear idea of the "publishing" practices and expectations of creative fields, such as
theatre, film, studio arts, creative writing.
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 34
The SPOT instrument is the worst thing ever put in place at UNCW. The members of the committee that adopted the SPOT
instrument were assured by the administrator in charge that it would never be used to evaluate teaching effectiveness. Its purpose
would be solely for the professor's own use. Just the opposite has resulted. It is the only teaching evaluation tool that is used. It has
no
The University RTP standards appear to be reasonable.
Too little credit for anything other than research/scholarly work.
we need adequate peer and professional/external evaluation of teaching, we are using spots scores in an indefensible way and
someday we'll get sued
What is the standard? ??????????
With the competitive market of having one's article published in a peer reviewed journal it seems that not only should published
articles be recognized but any article that has been submitted for review/potential publication, even if not accepted for publication by
the time of tenure application. The word is one must have a minimum of three articles published in peer reviewed journals along
with meeting the expectations of teaching and service.
Additionally, there seems to be mixed messages as to whether publications and other accomplishments that a faculty member may
have achieved pre-UNCW will even be looked at or considered by the RTP committee. There should be consistency between
departments and the university in the process faculty interested in "transferring" tenure status should follow if they want to negotiate
their tenure in the hiring process.
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 35
Assistant & Associate Professor Responses
Practices That Enhance Tenure
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 36
Extent that the following practices enhance the ability of a faculty member to get tenure and/or promotion
Extent Practices Assist in Tenure
Not at
all
To a
moderate
extent
14
9%
30
19%
35
22%
81
51%
160
7
4%
23
14%
38
24%
92
58%
160
7
4%
43
27%
32
20%
77
48%
159
7
4%
16
10%
29
19%
41
26%
39
25%
42
26%
81
52%
61
38%
156
6
4%
57
19
12%
185
44
28%
230
91
57%
483
160
Research leave/
reassignment
Reduced teaching
load
Resources for
professional
meetings
Reasonable start-up
funds
Having a mentor
Receiving regular
feedback
Table Summary
Percent of Respondents
Total
To a great Response
extent
s
To
some
extent
160
955
100%
Not at all
To some extent
To a moderate extent
75%
To a great extent
58%
51%
50%
57%
52%
48%
38%
22%
19%
25%
9%
27%
20%
24%
14%
4%
25%
19%
4%
4%
28%
26%26%
10%
12%
4%
0%
Research leave
Reduced teaching load
Resources for
professional meetings
Reasonable start-up
funds
Having a mentor
Receiving regular
feedback
Practices that Enhance Ability to Obtain Tenure/Promotion
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 37
Tenured faculty in my department have given consistent messages about the requirements for tenure.
Response Rate:
160
97%
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
Somewhat
disagree (2)
Neither disagree
nor agree (3)
Somewhat agree
(4)
Strongly agree (5)
29
18%
Column%
33
21%
Column%
25
16%
53
33%
20
13%
Count
Count
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
13
18%
16
18%
16
23%
17
19%
10
14%
15
17%
24
34%
29
33%
8
11%
12
13%
Total Responses
160
71
89
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
3.01
3.00
1.33
2.97
3.00
1.33
3.04
3.00
1.34
UNCW RTP Results
Percent of Respondents
Strongly disagree
(1)
100%
Asst. Professor
Assoc. Professor
75%
50%
34% 33%
25%
18% 18%
23%
19%
17%
14%
13%
11%
0%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Department Tenured Faculty Give Consistent
Messages about Tenure Process
11/4/2010
Page 38
Tenured faculty outside my department have given consistent messages about the requirements for tenure.
Response Rate:
157
95%
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
Somewhat
disagree (2)
Neither disagree
nor agree (3)
28
18%
Column%
35
22%
Column%
67
43%
Count
Count
Count
Column%
12
17%
16
19%
19
27%
16
19%
27
38%
40
47%
Asst. Professor
Assoc. Professor
Percent of Respondents
Strongly disagree
(1)
100%
75%
47%
50%
38%
27%
25%
17%
Somewhat agree
(4)
21
13%
Count
Column%
11
15%
19%
19%
15%
12%
10
12%
3%
5%
0%
Strongly agree (5)
6
4%
Count
Column%
2
3%
4
5%
Total Responses
157
71
86
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
2.63
3.00
1.05
2.61
3.00
1.03
2.65
3.00
1.06
UNCW RTP Results
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Tenured Faculty Outside Department Give Consistent
Messages about Tenure Process
11/4/2010
Page 39
Administrators outside my department have given consistent messages about the requirements for tenure.
Response Rate:
157
95%
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
Somewhat
disagree (2)
Neither disagree
nor agree (3)
35
22%
Column%
29
18%
Column%
70
45%
Count
Count
Count
Column%
13
19%
22
25%
15
21%
14
16%
31
44%
39
45%
Asst. Professor
Assoc.
Professor
Percent of Respondents
Strongly disagree
(1)
100%
75%
50%
25%
44%
25%
19%
45%
21%
16%
10% 9%
Somewhat agree
(4)
Strongly agree (5)
15
10%
8
5%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
7
10%
8
9%
4
6%
4
5%
Total Responses
157
70
87
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
2.57
3.00
1.09
2.63
3.00
1.08
2.52
3.00
1.11
UNCW RTP Results
6% 5%
0%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Administrators Outside Department Give Consistent
Messages about Tenure Process
11/4/2010
Page 40
Assistant & Associate Professor Responses
Process of RTP
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 41
Who explained to you how the process of promotion and tenure review works at UNCW? (Check ALL that apply.)
Dean or Director
Department head
Your mentor
Other faculty
No one
Other
Total Responses
160
31
19%
124
78%
57
36%
97
61%
12
8%
7
4%
328
97%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Count
Column%
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
12
19
8%
11%
54
35%
70
40%
29
19%
28
16%
49
32%
48
28%
7
5%
5
3%
3
2%
4
2%
154
174
100%
Asst. Professor
Assoc. Professor
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
50%
40%
35%
32%
28%
25%
19%
16%
11%
8%
5%
3%
2% 2%
0%
Dean/Director Department
Head
Mentor
Other Faculty
No One
Other
Who Explained Tenure & Promotion Process
(check all that apply)
Other Responses:
CFL
CTE
CTE Workshop was helpful to understand the University process
I had no mentor. Could have used one.
I mostly figured it out for myself, along with departmental annual reviews and sought opinions from colleagues
Read the faculty handbook
RTP workshop (August 2010)
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 42
Assistant & Associate Professor Responses
Role of Elements in the RTP Process
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 43
Indicate the role each of the following elements should have in the tenure process.
Requir
ed
73
46%
Narrative
External reviewers
Work completed
prior to UNCW
Electronic
portfolio/document
SPOT scores
Regional
Engagement
Percent of Respondents
Table Summary
Role of Elements
Option Eliminate/
Total
al Do not add Responses
63
24
160
39%
15%
32
20%
96
60%
31
19%
159
67
42%
74
47%
18
11%
159
68
43%
79
50%
68
43%
52
33%
24
15%
28
18%
160
38
24%
357
101
63%
454
21
13%
146
160
159
957
100%
75%
50%
Required
Optional
Eliminate
63%
60%
46%
42%
39%
25%
50%
47%
43%
43%
33%
15%
20%
19%
15%
11%
18%
24%
13%
0%
Narrative
External Reviewers
Work prior to UNCW
Electronic Portfolio
SPOT scores
Regional Engagement
Role of Elements in Tenure Process
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 44
What role should regional engagement have in the tenure and promotion process?
Response Rate:
160
97%
Rank
Assistant Associate
Professor Professor
100%
Asst. Professor
Include within
existing categories
(scholarly
productivity &
service)
Separate category
An optional
component to the
tenure and
promotion process
Other
Total Responses
53
33%
Column%
12
8%
Column%
Count
Count
23
32%
30
34%
4
6%
8
9%
Percent of Respondents
Assoc. Professor
75%
62%
48%
50%
32%
34%
25%
6%
87
54%
Column%
8
5%
Column%
160
Count
Count
44
62%
43
48%
0
0%
8
9%
71
89
9%
9%
0%
0%
Include in
Existing
Categories
Create Separate
Category
Optional
Component
Other
Role of Regional Engagement in the Tenure Process
Other Responses:
Can't be included within the existing categories and still be optional? I don't think this question is clear
Eliminate
Folded into Service
None
None
Not included
Regional engagement should be under service
Should not be considered
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 45
Full Professor Responses
Department RTP Evaluation
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 46
Response Rate:
102
100%
Very Clear
Fairly Clear
Neither clear nor
unclear
Fairly Unclear
Very Unclear
Total Responses
32
50
31%
49%
10
5
5
102
10%
5%
5%
Percent of Respondents
As a reviewer, my departmental RTP expectations that I use to rate faculty are
100%
75%
49%
50%
31%
25%
10%
5%
5%
Fairly Unclear
Very Unclear
0%
Very Clear
Fairly Clear
Neither clear
nor unclear
Clarity of Departmental Expectations Used to Rate Faculty
As a reviewer, my departmental RTP expectations that I use to rate faculty are
Response Rate:
102
100%
Very reasonable
(1)
Somewhat
reasonable (2)
Neither reasonable
nor unreasonable
(3)
Somewhat
unreasonable (4)
Very unreasonable
(5)
Total Responses
65
64%
25
25%
9
9%
3
3%
0
102
0%
UNCW RTP Results
75%
64%
50%
25%
25%
9%
3%
0%
0%
Very reasonable
(1)
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
Percent of Respondents
100%
1.51
1.00
0.78
Somewhat
reasonable (2)
Neither
Somewhat
Very
reasonable nor unreasonable (4) unreasonable (5)
unreasonable (3)
Reasonableness of Departmental Expectations Used to Rate Faculty
11/4/2010
Page 47
Full Professor Responses
University RTP Evaluation
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 48
Response Rate:
99
97%
Not at all
To some extent
To a great extent
Total Responses
3
51
45
99
3%
52%
45%
Percent of Respondents
As a reviewer, to what extent do you feel the University RTP criteria to evaluate faculty are appropriate?
100%
75%
52%
45%
50%
25%
3%
0%
Not at all
To some extent
To a great extent
Appropriateness of University RTP Criteria Used to Evaluate Faculty
As a reviewer, the University RTP processes are
100
98%
Very clear (5)
Fairly clear (4)
Neither clear nor
unclear (3)
Fairly unclear (2)
Very unclear (1)
Total Responses
16
60
16%
60%
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
14
4
6
100
14%
4%
6%
3.76
4.00
0.98
100%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
60%
50%
25%
16%
14%
4%
6%
0%
Very clear (5)
Fairly clear (4) Neither clear nor Fairly unclear (2) Very unclear (1)
unclear (3)
Clarity of University RTP Processes to Evaluate Faculty
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 49
Full Professor Responses
Process of RTP
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 50
In your perception as a reviewer, to what extent does the University RTP process currently value these items in
Value
Not at Valued Somewhat
all slightly
valued
Research/
scholarly work
Applied Research
Teaching
contributions
Dept .service
Service to UNCW
Service to the
community/region
Professional
reputation
Collegiality
Fit w/ department
mission
Assessment by
peers outside
UNCW
Obtaining
grants/funding
Table Summary
UNCW RTP Results
Total
Highly Response
s
valued
0
0%
2
2%
5
5%
16
16%
21
21%
57
58%
76
75%
24
24%
102
0
0%
12
12%
10
10%
5
5%
43
42%
45
44%
26
25%
39
38%
39
38%
71
70%
8
8%
8
8%
102
14
14%
50
49%
31
30%
7
7%
102
14
14%
38
37%
22
22%
30
29%
51
50%
30
29%
14
14%
4
4%
101
23
23%
35
35%
28
28%
15
15%
101
26
26%
44
44%
26
26%
5
5%
101
3
3%
142
23
23%
318
45
45%
393
30
30%
262
101
99
102
102
102
1115
11/4/2010
Page 51
Question Type:
102
100%
Choose one
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat valued
Highly valued
Total Responses
0
5
21
76
102
0%
5%
21%
75%
75%
75%
50%
25%
21%
0%
5%
Not at all
Valued
slightly
0%
Somewhat Highly valued
valued
Value Research/Scholarly Work
Applied Research
Response Rate:
99
97%
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat valued
Highly valued
Total Responses
2
16
57
24
99
2%
16%
58%
24%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
Percent of
Respondents
100%
Research/scholarly work
100%
75%
58%
50%
24%
16%
25%
2%
0%
Not at all
Valued slightly Somewhat
valued
Highly valued
Value Applied Research
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat valued
Highly valued
Total Responses
102
0
5
26
71
102
100%
0%
5%
25%
70%
Percent of Respondents
Teaching contributions
Response Rate:
100%
70%
75%
50%
25%
25%
0%
5%
0%
Not at all
Valued slightly Somewhat
valued
Highly valued
Value Teaching Contributions
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 52
Response Rate:
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat valued
Highly valued
Total Responses
102
12
43
39
8
102
100%
12%
42%
38%
8%
Percent of Respondents
Departmental service
100%
75%
42%
50%
25%
38%
12%
8%
0%
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat
valued
Highly valued
Value Departmental Service
Response Rate:
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat valued
Highly valued
Total Responses
102
100%
10
45
39
8
102
10%
44%
38%
8%
Percent of Respondents
Service to UNCW
100%
75%
44%
50%
25%
38%
10%
8%
0%
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat
valued
Highly valued
Value Service to UNCW
Response Rate:
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat valued
Highly valued
Total Responses
102
100%
14
50
31
7
102
14%
49%
30%
7%
Percent of Respondents
Service to the community/region
100%
75%
49%
50%
25%
30%
14%
7%
0%
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat
valued
Highly valued
Value Service to the Community/Region
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 53
Professional reputation
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat valued
Highly valued
Total Responses
101
14
22
51
14
101
100%
99%
14%
22%
50%
14%
Percent of
Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
50%
50%
25%
14%
22%
14%
0%
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat
valued
Highly valued
Collegiality
Response Rate:
102
100%
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat valued
38
30
30
37%
29%
29%
Highly valued
Total Responses
4
102
4%
Percent of Respondents
Value Professional Reputation
100%
75%
50%
37%
29%
29%
25%
4%
0%
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat
valued
Highly valued
Value Collegiality
Response Rate:
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat valued
Highly valued
Total Responses
101
99%
23
35
28
15
101
23%
35%
28%
15%
Percent of Respondents
Fit with the department's mission
100%
75%
50%
25%
35%
28%
23%
15%
0%
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat
valued
Highly valued
Answers
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 54
Assessment by your peers outside of UNCW
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat valued
Highly valued
Total Responses
101
99%
26
44
26
5
101
26%
44%
26%
5%
100%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
44%
50%
26%
26%
25%
5%
0%
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat
valued
Highly valued
Value Outside Peer Assessment
Obtaining grants/funding
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat valued
Highly valued
Total Responses
100%
101
99%
3
23
45
30
101
3%
23%
45%
30%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
45%
50%
30%
23%
25%
3%
0%
Not at all
Valued slightly
Somewhat
valued
Highly valued
Value Obtaining Grants/Funding
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 55
Based on your rating above, how appropriate is the value that the University RTP process has placed on these
items?
Appropriateness of Value
Somew
Very
hat
Valued
under under appropriate Somewhat Very over
valued valued
ly overvalued
valued
Research/
scholarly work
Applied research
Teaching
contributions
Departmental
service
Service to UNCW
Service to
community/region
Professional
reputation
Collegiality
Fit w/ dept mission
Assessment by
outside peers
Obtaining
grants/funding
Table Summary
UNCW RTP Results
Total
Responses
6
6%
8
8%
13
13%
34
35%
70
69%
39
40%
11
11%
14
14%
2
2%
3
3%
102
3
3%
26
26%
59
58%
8
8%
5
5%
101
8
8%
8
8%
39
39%
35
34%
50
50%
52
51%
3
3%
6
6%
1
1%
1
1%
101
12
12%
36
35%
47
46%
5
5%
2
2%
102
9
9%
19
19%
32
33%
34
34%
51
52%
39
39%
5
5%
9
9%
1
1%
0
0%
98
9
9%
31
31%
54
55%
3
3%
2
2%
99
15
15%
32
32%
43
43%
8
8%
1
1%
99
5
5%
102
17
17%
329
52
53%
556
16
16%
88
8
8%
26
11/4/2010
98
102
101
98
1101
Page 56
Research/scholarly work
Very undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very overvalued
Total Responses
102
100%
6
6%
13
13%
70
69%
11
2
102
11%
2%
100%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
69%
50%
25%
13%
11%
6%
2%
0%
Very
undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very
overvalued
Appropriateness of Value on Research/Scholarly Work
Applied research
Very undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very overvalued
Total Responses
98
96%
8
8%
34
35%
39
40%
14
3
98
14%
3%
100%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
50%
35%
40%
25%
14%
8%
3%
0%
Very
undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very
overvalued
Appropriateness of Value on Applied Research
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 57
Teaching contributions
Very undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very overvalued
Total Responses
100%
101
99%
3
3%
26
26%
59
58%
8
5
101
8%
5%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
58%
50%
26%
25%
3%
8%
5%
Somewhat
overvalued
Very
overvalued
0%
Very
undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Appropriateness of Value on Teaching Contributions
Departmental service
Very undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very overvalued
Total Responses
101
99%
8
8%
39
39%
50
50%
3
1
101
3%
1%
100%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
50%
50%
39%
25%
8%
3%
1%
Somewhat
overvalued
Very
overvalued
0%
Very
undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Appropriateness of Value on Departmental Service
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 58
Service to UNCW
Very undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very overvalued
Total Responses
100%
102
100%
8
8%
35
34%
52
51%
6
1
102
6%
1%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
51%
50%
34%
25%
8%
6%
1%
0%
Very
undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very
overvalued
Appropriateness of Value on Service to UNCW
Service to the community/region
Response Rate:
102
100%
Very undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very overvalued
Total Responses
12
12%
36
35%
47
46%
5
2
102
5%
2%
Percent of Respondents
100%
75%
46%
50%
35%
25%
12%
5%
2%
Somewhat
overvalued
Very
overvalued
0%
Very
undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Appropriateness of Value on Service to the Community/Region
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 59
Professional reputation
Very undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very overvalued
Total Responses
100%
98
96%
9
9%
32
33%
51
52%
5
1
98
5%
1%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
52%
50%
33%
25%
9%
5%
1%
0%
Very
undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very
overvalued
Appropriateness of Value on Professional Reputation
Collegiality
101
99%
Very undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very overvalued
Total Responses
19
19%
34
34%
39
39%
9
0
101
9%
0%
Percent of Respondents
100%
Response Rate:
75%
50%
34%
25%
39%
19%
9%
0%
0%
Very
undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very
overvalued
Appropriateness of Value on Collegiality
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 60
Fit with the department's mission
Very undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very overvalued
Total Responses
99
97%
9
9%
31
31%
54
55%
3
2
99
3%
2%
100%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
55%
50%
31%
25%
9%
3%
2%
Somewhat
overvalued
Very
overvalued
0%
Very
undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Appropriateness of Value on Fit with Department's Mission
Assessment by your peers outside of UNCW
99
97%
Very undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very overvalued
Total Responses
15
15%
32
32%
43
43%
8
1
99
8%
1%
100%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
43%
50%
32%
25%
15%
8%
1%
0%
Very
undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very
overvalued
Appropriateness of Value on Assessment by Outside Peers
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 61
Obtaining grants/funding
Very undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very overvalued
Total Responses
100%
98
96%
5
5%
17
17%
52
53%
16
8
98
16%
8%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
53%
50%
25%
17%
16%
8%
5%
0%
Very
undervalued
Somewhat
undervalued
Valued
appropriately
Somewhat
overvalued
Very
overvalued
Appropriateness of Value on Obtaining Grants/Funding
I give consistent messages about the expectations for RTP to faculty in my department that are going through
the process.
Strongly disagree
(1)
Somewhat
disagree (2)
Neither disagree
nor agree (3)
Somewhat agree
(4)
Strongly agree (5)
Total Responses
Statistics
Mean
Median
Standard Deviation
UNCW RTP Results
100
98%
3
3%
5
5%
12
12%
17
63
100
17%
63%
100%
Percent of Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
63%
50%
25%
12%
3%
5%
Strongly
disagree (1)
Somewhat
disagree (2)
17%
0%
4.32
5.00
1.06
Neither
disagree nor
agree (3)
Somewhat
agree (4)
Strongly agree
(5)
Gives Consistent Messages about RTP Expectations in Department
11/4/2010
Page 62
Full Professor Responses
Role of Elements in the RTP Process
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 63
Indicate the role each of the following elements should have in the tenure process.
Narrative
Requir
ed
60
59%
External reviewers
Work completed
prior to coming to
UNCW
Electronic
portfolio/document
ation
SPOT scores
Regional
Engagement
Table Summary
UNCW RTP Results
Role of Elements
Option Eliminate/
Total
al Do not add Responses
29
12
101
29%
12%
38
38%
53
53%
9
9%
100
47
47%
44
44%
8
8%
99
44
45%
62
63%
45
46%
15
15%
8
8%
21
21%
97
32
33%
283
56
57%
242
10
10%
68
98
98
593
11/4/2010
Page 64
Response Rate:
Required
Optional
Eliminate/ Do not
add
Total Responses
101
60
29
12
101
99%
59%
29%
12%
Percent of Respondents
Narrative
100%
75%
59%
50%
29%
25%
12%
0%
Required
Optional
Eliminate/ Do not add
Role of Narrative in Tenure Process
External reviewers
Response Rate:
Required
Optional
Eliminate/ Do not
add
Total Responses
100
98%
38
53
38%
53%
9
100
9%
Percent of
Respondents
100%
75%
50%
53%
38%
25%
9%
0%
Required
Optional
Eliminate/ Do not add
Role of External Reviewers in Tenure Process
Work completed prior to coming to UNCW
99
97%
Required
Optional
Eliminate/ Do not
add
Total Responses
47
44
47%
44%
8
99
8%
100%
Percent of
Respondents
Response Rate:
75%
50%
47%
44%
25%
8%
0%
Required
Optional
Eliminate/ Do not add
Role of Work Completed Prior to UNCW in Tenure Process
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 65
Response Rate:
97
95%
Required
Optional
Eliminate/ Do not
add
Total Responses
44
45
45%
46%
8
97
8%
Percent of Respondents
Electronic portfolio/documentation
100%
75%
50%
46%
45%
25%
8%
0%
Required
Optional
Eliminate/ Do not add
SPOT scores
Response Rate:
98
96%
Required
Optional
Eliminate/ Do not
add
Total Responses
62
15
63%
15%
21
98
21%
Percent of Respondents
Role of Electronic Portfolio in Tenure Process
100%
75%
63%
50%
25%
21%
15%
0%
Required
Optional
Eliminate/ Do not add
Regional Engagement
Response Rate:
Required
Optional
Eliminate/ Do not
add
Total Responses
98
96%
32
56
33%
57%
10
98
10%
Percent of Respondents
Role of SPOTS in the Tenure Process
100%
75%
50%
57%
33%
25%
10%
0%
Required
Optional
Eliminate/ Do not add
Role of Regional Engagement in the Tenure Process
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 66
What role should regional engagement have in the tenure and promotion process?
Response Rate:
100
98%
An optional
component to the
tenure &
promotion process
Other
Total Responses
33
14
42
11
100
33%
14%
42%
11%
Percent of Respondents
100%
Include within
existing categories
(scholarly
productivity &
service)
Separate category
75%
50%
42%
33%
25%
14%
11%
0%
Include within
existing categories
(scholarly
productivity &
service)
Separate category
An optional
component to the
tenure & promotion
process
Other
Role of Regional Engagement in the Tenure Process
UNCW RTP Results
11/4/2010
Page 67