1 / 23

2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Reappointment, Promotion & Tenure & Post-Tenure Review

2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Reappointment, Promotion & Tenure & Post-Tenure Review. Presentation for NC State Faculty Senate February 27, 2007 Nancy Whelchel, PhD Assistant Director for Survey Research University Planning and Analysis http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/survey/faculty/.

sheng
Download Presentation

2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Reappointment, Promotion & Tenure & Post-Tenure Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Reappointment, Promotion & Tenure&Post-Tenure Review Presentation for NC State Faculty Senate February 27, 2007 Nancy Whelchel, PhD Assistant Director for Survey Research University Planning and Analysis http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/survey/faculty/

  2. Survey Population & Response Rate • On campus tenure/non-tenure track faculty/lecturers (including dept heads, music, PE, FYC) • FTE .75 AY04-05 & AY05-06 • Final population = 1,625 (No sampling) • 69.7% response rate • No significant differences in response rates among subgroups

  3. Statement of Mutual Expectations • 10% faculty indicate no SME (not incl lecturers) • By Rank • 12% Full Profs • 7% Assoc Profs • 9% Assist Profs • 56% Lecturers • By Number of Years at NC State (not incl lecturers) • 12% >25 yrs • 14% 16-25 yrs • 10% 7-15 yrs • 8% < 7yrs • By College(not incl lectures) • 18% CHASS • 13% CED, COE, PAMS

  4. Statement of Mutual Expectations Among those w/ SMEs: • SMEs are consistent w/ • Department vision (90% agree) • Department standards for promotion (92% agree) (But junior faculty are less likely to think so…) • Annual Performance Review feedback IS based on SME (81% agree)

  5. Performance Reviews • Indication of no performance review • By Rank • 6% Full Profs • 7% Assoc Profs • 8% Assist Profs • 6% Lecturers • By Number of Years at NC State • 9% < 7yrs • 5% 7-15 yrs • 7% 16-25 yrs • 6% >25 yrs

  6. Performance Review & RPT • Faculty give positive ratings to: • Clarity of performance review standards and procedures(77% and 85%) • Clarity of RPT standards and procedures(80% and 83%) • Clarity of Academic Tenure Policy(69%) • Equity of RPT standards and procedures(77% and 85%)

  7. Performance Review & RPT • Procedures receive higher ratings than standards • Clarity receives higher ratings than equity • Very strong relationship between clarity of standards/procedures and perceptions of equity High understanding = high perception of equity

  8. Performance Review & RPT • Consistently lower ratings given by: • Those without an SME or performance review • Those who’ve not participated in RPT process • Assistant professors • Women Assoc Profs • Women (excluding lecturers) • Clarity of performance review standards • Understanding of RPT procedures • Equity of applying RPT standards • (no differences by race/ethnicity)

  9. Performance Review Feedback • Overall faculty give positive ratings to feedback from their performance review • Highest ratings to being appropriately based on SME(81% agree) • Lowest rating to helping to understand performance relative to peers(55.5% agree) • Relatively lower ratings given by • Assoc Profs • Female Assoc Profs • Male Full Profs

  10. Support & Rewards for 6 Realms of Faculty Responsibility • Overall faculty consistently more satisfied with rewards for each realm than with support/resources for the realm Gap is especially large for “Discovery of Knowledge” 9% ‘strongly agree’ sufficient resources are provided VS 33% ‘strongly agree’excellent performance is rewarded

  11. Support & Rewards for 6 Realms of Faculty Responsibility • Consistent differences in ratings by rank • Assist Profs consistently more positive than others about resources • Full Profs consistently least positive about resources and most positive about rewards • Gender or racial/ethnic differences are rare

  12. National comparisons on Tenure: COACHE Survey(Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education) • NC State rated in the top four among the 31 participating doctoral universities in the area of “tenure”

  13. COACHE Survey: Peer comparisons on tenure(Peers: Iowa State, Michigan State, Ohio State, Univ. Arizona, Univ. Minnesota) • NC State faculty gave significantly higher ratings than faculty at peer institutions to • Clarity of tenure process, criteria, and standards in department • Body of evidence considered in decision • Own tenure prospects • Clarity of expectations as scholar, teacher, advisor • Reasonableness of expectations as scholar, teacher, advisor, department colleague, service • NC State faculty had NO significantly lower ratings than peers on any tenure question

  14. COACHE Survey: Peer comparisons on tenure by race and gender • Significantly higher ratings than peers on most tenure items • NC State female faculty • NC State faculty of color

  15. HERI Faculty Survey(Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA) • HERI • 69% ‘strongly/somewhat agree’(4-yr public univ) “Criteria for advancement and promotion decisions are clear” • NC State • 80% ‘very/fairly well’ “How well do you understand your departments’ standards for RPT?” • 83% ‘very/fairly well’ “How well do you understand your departments’ procedures for RPT?”

  16. The stress of RPT… • Top 5 sources of “a great deal” or “some” stress: • Workload (73%) • Work/life balance (71%) • Research/publications demands (72%) • RPT (56%) • Committee work (50%) • RPT stress varies by • Rank • Gender • Rank * Gender

  17. Stress from RPT by rank * gender

  18. Relationship between attitudes about RPT and stress More positive evaluation of: • Clarity of performance evaluation standards & procedures • Clarity of RPT standards & procedures • Fairness of RPT standards & procedures • Resources & rewards for ‘discovery of knowledge’ Lower frequency of reported RPT stress (Especially for Assoc. Profs) (w/ no variation by race or gender)

  19. Giving/receiving help in understanding RPT process • Frequency varies by rank • Assistant professors (25% ‘seldom’/’never’) • Assoc professors (16%) • Full professors (12%) • (No gender or race/ethnicity differences when control for lecturers)

  20. Relationship between attitudes about RPT and giving/receiving help understanding RPT Assistant Profs’ positive evaluation of: • Clarity of performance evaluation standards & procedures • Clarity of RPT standards & procedures • Fairness of RPT standards & procedures • Resources & rewards for ‘discovery of knowledge’ Higher frequency of giving/receiving help understanding RPT process

  21. Post-Tenure Review: Experience and Awareness • Most tenured faculty now have experience with PTR • 72% Full Profs & 53% Assoc Profs had review • 68% Full Profs & 23% Assoc Profs served on review committee • Reporting “insufficient experience” to express an opinion on PTR questions: • 19% - 24% Assoc Profs • 60% - 70% Assist Profs

  22. Post-Tenure Review: Satisfaction • 70% of those with any PTR experience are either “satisfied” (57%) or “very satisfied” (13%) with the post-tenure review process • Satisfaction w/ clarity and fairness of standards and procedures varies by gender and rank • Men more satisfied than women • Full professors more satisfied than associate profs

  23. Using the results: Some suggestions • Celebrate – it’s going relatively well! (but remember there are areas to improve on…) • Clarify/strengthen SMEs & Annual Performance Reviews • Nuture junior faculty (clarity of standards/procedures is essential) • Get a better understanding of issues facing female Assoc Profs - - they are not happy with RPT! • Attempt to provide more resources for discovery of knowledge.

More Related