Transcript Introduction - Harvard University

Faculty Climate Survey
Highlights
Institutional Research &
Faculty Development and Diversity
March 2008
1
Faculty Climate Survey – Results

1,863 tenured, tenure-track, and non-ladder faculty from
all of Harvard’s Schools were invited to participate and
1,400 faculty responded (75%)

On average, the faculty are slightly more than “somewhat
satisfied” with being faculty members at Harvard
(4.16 on a 5-point scale, 5=“very satisfied”)

Women are significantly less satisfied than men
(3.90 vs. 4.27)

Tenure-track faculty are significantly less satisfied than
tenured faculty (3.93 vs. 4.31)
2
Response Rates and
Distribution of Respondents and Faculty
All Schools
Rank††
Gender
Number of
Respondents
Response
Rate
% of
Respondents†
% of
Population†
Tenured Faculty
697
77%
50%
49%
Tenure-Track Faculty
357
77%
26%
25%
Non-Ladder Faculty
345
70%
25%
26%
Women
414
78%
30%
29%
Men
986
74%
70%
71%
3
100%
<1%
<1%
Asian Faculty
123
69%
9%
10%
Black Faculty
41
73%
3%
3%
Hispanic Faculty
32
74%
2%
2%
Unknown Ethnicity
4
67%
<1%
<1%
1,197
76%
86%
85%
1,400
75%
100%
100%
American Indian/
Alaskan Native Faculty
Ethnicity
White Faculty
Total
† Percentages
may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
†† There is one respondent with an unknown rank.
3
The Survey Addresses Seven Topics

Satisfaction (e.g., satisfaction with the University,
School, staff and facilities)

Atmosphere (e.g., fit with department, respect from
colleagues and students, camaraderie and collegiality)

Workload (e.g., expectations and sources of stress)

Mentoring (e.g., effectiveness of mentoring)

Tenure (e.g., clarity of the tenure criteria and prospects )

Hiring and Retention (e.g., likelihood of leaving and
reasons for leaving)

Life Outside Harvard (e.g., work-life balance)
4
Satisfaction: Overall with Harvard
Satisfaction with Being a Faculty Member at Harvard University
(University Average = 4.16)
Average Satisfaction
5
4.6
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.1
4
3.8
3.8
SPH
(N=129)
HDS
(N=25)
3
2
1
HLS
(N=50)
HBS
(N=164)
KSG
(N=94)
GSD
(N=48)
FAS
(N=590)
HMS/
HSDM
(N=156)
GSE
(N=37)
1=very dissatisfied 2=somewhat dissatisfied 3=neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
4=somewhat satisfied 5=very satisfied
5
Satisfaction: Overall for Women and Men
Satisfaction with Being a Faculty Member at Harvard University
Average Satisfaction
5
4.6 4.6
4.5
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.2 4.2
3.8
4
4.2
3.9
4.0
4.2
4.0
4.0
3.6
3.6
3.5
3
2
1
W M
W M
W M
W M
W M
W M
W M
W M
W M
HLS
HBS
KSG
GSD
FAS
HMS/
HSDM
GSE
SPH
HDS
1=very dissatisfied 2=somewhat dissatisfied 3=neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
4=somewhat satisfied 5=very satisfied
6
Satisfaction: Overall by Rank
Satisfaction with Being a Faculty Member at Harvard University
5
4.8
4.7
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.3
Average Satisfaction
4.1
3.9
4
4.3
4.2
4.0 3.9
4.0 4.0
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.2
3.9
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.5
3.5
3
2
1
HLS*
HBS
KSG
GSD
FAS
Tenured
Tenure-Track
HMS/ HSDM
GSE
SPH
HDS
Non-Ladder
1=very dissatisfied 2=somewhat dissatisfied 3=neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
4=somewhat satisfied 5=very satisfied
7
* Tenure-track and non-ladder faculty are not reported for HLS because there are fewer than five respondents in each group.
Atmosphere: Fit with Department
Agreement with: “My department* is a good fit for me.”
5
Average Agreement
4.03
4
3.95
3.93
3.74
3.43
3.43
3
2
1
W
M
Tenured Faculty
W
M
Tenure-Track Faculty
W
M
Non-Ladder Faculty
1=strongly disagree 2=somewhat disagree 3=neither agree nor disagree
4=somewhat agree 5=strongly agree
* The unit of analysis is Department/Committee at FAS, Academic Unit at HBS, Department at GSD, HMS/HSDM, and
SPH, Area at HDS and KSG, and School at HLS and GSE.
8
Atmosphere: Gender and Rank Gaps
(Ladder Faculty)
Issues
Gender Gap
Rank Gap
1)
Opportunities to collaborate with faculty in one’s
primary department


2)
Having a voice in the decision-making that
affects the direction of one’s department


3)
Collegiality and supportiveness of one’s
department


4)
Amount of personal interaction with colleagues


5)
Opportunities to collaborate with Harvard faculty
outside one’s primary department


6)
Comfort in raising personal responsibilities
when scheduling department obligations


7)
Research/scholarship valued by colleagues


8)
Feeling respected by the faculty in one’s
department


9)
Feeling respected by the students

9
Workload: Reasonableness of Service
Expectations (Ladder Faculty)
Reasonableness of Service Expectations:
Mean Difference From “About Right”
(Ladder Faculty)
Points from "About Right"
1
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.3
Too High
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
About Right
0
-0.1
-0.1
Too Low
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
-1
Tenured
Faculty
TenureTrack
Faculty
Service to Department
Tenured
Faculty
TenureTrack
Faculty
Service to School
Tenured
Faculty
TenureTrack
Faculty
Service to University
10
Work Expectations: Committee Load
Average Number of Department, School and University
Committees in Previous Academic Year (Ladder Faculty)
Committees Served On
7
6
5.81
4.58
5
4
3.01
2.96
W
M
3
2
1
W
M
0
Tenured Faculty
Tenure-Track Faculty
11
Mentoring: Overall Effectiveness
Department’s Effectiveness in Overall Mentoring
of Junior Faculty*
Average Effectiveness
5
4
3.30
3.52
2.99
3
2.54
2
1
W
M
Tenured Faculty
W
M
Tenure-Track Faculty
1=very ineffective 2=somewhat ineffective 3=neither effective nor ineffective
4=somewhat effective 5=very effective
* The unit of analysis is Department/Committee at FAS, Academic Unit at HBS, Department at GSD, HMS/HSDM, and
SPH, Area at HDS and KSG, and School at HLS and GSE.
12
Mentoring: Types of Mentors
Percentage of Tenure-Track Faculty with
and without Mentors (Formal/Informal)
Formal
Mentor Only
(N=25), 8%
Neither Formal
nor Informal
(N=40), 12%
Both Formal
and Informal
(N=97), 30%
Informal
Mentor Only
(N=165), 50%
13
Tenure: Clarity of Criteria (Ladder Faculty)
Agreement with: “The criteria for tenure are clearly
communicated.”
Average Agreement
5
3.75
4
3.35
2.82
3
2.54
2
1
W
M
Tenured Faculty
W
M
Tenure-Track Faculty
1=strongly disagree 2=somewhat disagree 3=neither agree nor disagree
4=somewhat agree 5=strongly agree
14
Hiring and Retention:
Likelihood of Leaving in the Next 3 Years
Percentage of Faculty “Somewhat” or “Very Likely”
to Leave Harvard in the Next 3 Years
% of Respondents
100%
80%
56%
60%
40%
40%
20%
18%
20%
7%
0%
W
M
Tenured Faculty
W
M
Tenure-Track Faculty
W
10%
M
Non-Ladder Faculty
15
* Only non-ladder faculty who answered the question, “Given the opportunity, how likely would you be to renew your
contract?” are included in the graph. This includes only 143 non-ladder faculty respondents who have renewable contracts.
Hiring and Retention: Top 2 Reasons
Faculty Consider Leaving
% of Faculty Responding
“to a Great Extent”
Tenured Faculty:
Increase time to do research
26%
Find a more supportive work environment
24%
Tenure-Track Faculty:
Improve prospects for tenure
44%
Find a more supportive work environment
36%
Non-Ladder Faculty:
Move to a tenure-track position
41%
Enhance career in other ways
33%
16
Life Outside Harvard: Dual-career Issues

89% of faculty have a spouse or domestic partner

31% of the ladder faculty have spouses that currently
work in academia
 49% of these faculty report their spouses work at Harvard
while the other half are at other institutions
 51% of faculty with spouses at other institutions are in
commuting relationships. Of these faculty,
- 78% had problems finding appropriate local employment for
their spouses
- Only 6% received help finding local employment for their
spouses from their School
17
Life Outside Harvard: Dependent Care
Tenured
Faculty
Tenure-Track
Faculty
Non-Ladder
Faculty
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Number of Children (Mean)
1.36
2.02
1.12
1.01
1.31
1.87
Have at Least 1 Child (%)
72%
88%
60%
56%
74%
77%
Have at Least 1 Child Ages 0-4 (%)
5%
10%
43%
37%
12%
10%
Caring/Managing Care for Others (%)
23%
18%
8%
6%
28%
15%
18
Life Outside Harvard: Effect of Domestic
Responsibilities on Career
Agreement with: “My care giving and/or other domestic
responsibilities have had a negative impact on my career.”
Average Agreement
5.00
4.00
3.00
3.57
2.83
2.77
2.99
2.21
2.14
2.00
1.00
W
M
Tenured Faculty
W
M
Tenure-Track Faculty
W
M
Non-Ladder Faculty
1=strongly disagree 2=somewhat disagree 3=neither agree nor disagree
4=somewhat agree 5=strongly agree
19
Policy Recommendations and Next Steps
 Junior faculty:
 Connect mentoring to incentives for senior faculty as
mentoring is ill-defined, not measured and unevenly
supported
 Discuss the criteria for tenure and the possibility of tenure at
the associate level
 Understand better the dual-career issues for junior faculty
 Delve more deeply into workload issues and factors
driving perceptions of these issues
 Continue to invest in family-friendly policies including:
portable childcare scholarships, research enabling grants
and tuition benefit reform
 Examine and analyze qualitatively the minority faculty
experience (small population limits usefulness of
quantitative analysis)
20