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