Transcript Document

2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey:
Extension, Engagement
& Economic Development
Extension Operations Council
Presentation
April 11, 2007
Nancy Whelchel, PhD
Assistant Director for Survey Research
University Planning and Analysis
http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/survey/faculty/
1
Overview

Survey background
 Participation in Extension, Engagement, & Economic
Development activities
– What activities?
– How often?
– By who?



Support and rewards for EEED
The pay-off: reputations and recommendations
Open-end comments
2
Survey objectives

Provide readily accessible, “centralized”
information

Collect relevant & actionable data
3
Survey development

Advisory committee
– UPA, Faculty Senate, FCTL, ODAAA, HR, OEO

Feedback from
– EOs, VP, Deans, Faculty Senate, Legal Affairs,
IRB

Pre-tests
– Tenure-track faculty, lecturers, department head
4
The questionnaire
Included 13 areas related to ‘well-being’
 @350 closed-end
 8 open-end

5
Survey topics













Image and vision
Leadership
Faculty-Administration relationships
Diversity/Multiculturalism
Working relationships
Faculty support & professional development (including
contracts/grants)
RPT
PTR
Pay & compensation
Campus infrastructure
Recreation/wellness
Work activities
Overall satisfaction
6
Survey population

On campus
– No off-campus Cooperative Extension Services
employees

Tenure/non-tenure track faculty/lecturers
(including dept heads, music, PE, FYC, extension, clinical,
research)

FTE .75 AY04-05 & AY05-06
 Final population = 1,625
 No sampling
7
Survey methods & response rate





Web-based
Available Sept. 6 – Oct. 10, 2006 (29 days)
69.7% response rate (1,132 of 1,625)
Margin of error +/- 0.9 percentage pts
No significant differences in response rate
between subgroups
8
Results & reports available online
(www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/survey/faculty)




Introduction, Research Methods, & Response Rates
Executive Summary (overall results)
Annotated Questionnaire
Tables of Results
– Academic profile (rank, tenure status, admin experience)
– Demographic profile (gender, race/ethnicity, citizenship, age,
# yrs at NCSU)
– College
• Overall results
• Tenure-track faculty only (coming soon)
• By academic and demographic profiles (coming soon)


Select presentations
Invitation for feedback
9
Update: Presentations

Council of the Status of Women (Jan. 18)
Association for Women Faculty (Jan. 24)
Research Operations Council (Feb. 15)
University Diversity Advisory Committee (Feb. 26)
Faculty Senate (Feb. 27)
Research and Graduate Studies Retreat (March 1)
Vice Provosts (April 9)
Extension, Engagement and Economic Development
Operations Council (April 11)
DELTA (April 13)
Human Resources (June 12)

BOT: Academic Affairs and Personnel Committee (Sept. 20)









10
Update: Ad Hoc Requests





Task Force on Post-Tenure Review
CHASS
EEED
ODAAA
Others…
11
The Six Realms of Faculty Responsibility
(plus administration)
39% of faculty spend time on EEED activities
Art/Lit
10
12
Tech/Mng Innov
Col/Dept Admin
34
EEED
39
80
Advising
Service
87
Research
87
Teaching
97
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percent of Faculty Engaging in Activity
90
100
12
EEED activities:
Percentage of EEED participants
engaging in…

Extension educational, non-credit programs 49%
 Service learning teaching and mentoring of students
28%
 Public service grants and contracts 26%
 Partnering w/ private sector in job and investment
creation 24%
 Economic development training and technical
assistance 20%

17% engage in 3 or more types of activities
13
Time spent on the Six Realms of Faculty
Responsibility (plus administration)*
Median percentage of total work time spent on EEED
activities = 9%
Advising
5
Tech/Mng Innov
5
Art/Lit
8
EEED
9
Col/Dept Admin
10
Service
10
Research
30
Teaching
35
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Median Percent of Time on Activity
*among those spending any time on activity
14
Percent of total work time spent on EEED
activities (cumulative)*
>90 1
*among those spending any time
on EEED
>85
2
>80
3
>75
4

10% of faculty spend at
least 50% of their time
on EEED.
Percent of Time
>70
5
>65
7
>60
8
>55
9
>50
10
>45
12
>40
14
>35
17
>30
18
>25


34% of faculty spend at
least 10% of their time
on EEED
48% of faculty spend
5% or less of their time
on EEED
22
>20
26
>15
30
>10
34
>5
52
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Percent of Faculty Spending At Least X% of Time on EEED
Activities
55
15
Time Spent on the Six Realms of Faculty
Responsibility (plus administration)*
Median number of hours per week engaged in EEED
activities = 4 hours
(Mean = 10 hours per week; stdev=11.6)
Advising
3
Tech/Mng Innov
3
Art/Lit
4
EEED
4
Service
5
Col/Dept Admin
6
Research
18
Teaching
21
0
5
10
15
20
25
Median Number of Hours Per Week on Activity
*among those spending any time on activity
16
Number of hours per week spent on
EEED activities*
32% of faculty spend more than 8 hours per week on
EEED activities
Hours Per Week
more than 24 hrs
14
17 to 24 hrs
8
9 to 16 hrs
10
4 to 8 hrs
20
Less than 4 hrs
48
0
10
20
30
40
50
Percent of Faculty
*among those spending any time on EEED
17
Percent of total work time spent on EEED
activities, by college

Most involved: CNR, CALS, CVM
 Less involved: PAMS, CHASS, COM
COT 0
48
CHASS 2
52
20
COE 3
29
PAMS 3
6
DESIGN
8
CVM
CNR
CALS
0%
68
16
COM
CED
78
81
19
75
42
12
50
39
19
49
34
25
47
36
33
38
25
42
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Time on EEED Activities
18
10% or more
Less than 10%
None
Percent of time on EEED (by gender,
rank, & tenure status)

TenureStat
Most involved: Tenured, Men
 Less involved: NTT, Women
NTT
TT - Not Tenured
8
14
10
TT - Tenured
Rank
Gender
34
16
Lecturer 3
Asst Prof
78
56
27
57
14
10
83
30
60
Assoc Prof
16
28
56
Full Prof
16
27
57
Male
15
28
57
Female
10
0%
22
20%
68
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent of Time on EEED Activities
19
10% or more
Less than 10%
None
Collaboration
Fac in
Other
Depts
Fac in
NonFac/ Other
NonNCSU Univ
Collaborates With:
Fac in
Dept
Faculty engaged in EEED activities are much more likely to
collaborate with others in their department, in other NC State
departments, from other universities, and external constituents.
No EEED
LT 10% EEED
49
32
19
63
GT 10% EEED
No EEED
29
76
33
24
LT 10% EEED
GT 10% EEED
39
No EEED
LT 10% EEED
34
39
GT 10% EEED
No EEED
40
22
LT 10% EEED
GT 10% EEED
37
24
30
36
12
30
23
37
44
30
16
57
37
39
60
0%
20%
2
42
57
13
7
26
40%
60%
24
14
80%
100%
Percent of Faculty (by time on EEED)
Reporting Collaborating with Others
20
Frequently
Sometimes
Seldom/Never
Collaboration
Among EEED participants, extent of collaboration varies
by college




90% or more collaborate ‘frequently’ or ‘sometimes’ with other
faculty in department
– CALS, COT, CVM, CED, COE, CNR, CHASS, PAMS
80% or more collaborate with faculty in other NC State
departments
– CALS, COT, COE, CNR
80% or more collaborate with faculty from other universities
– CALS, CED, CNR
80% or more collaborate with non-university external
constituents
– CALS, COT, COM, CNR
21
Support and rewards for innovative EEED
activities
86% of faculty agree (29% ‘strongly’) that the university
supports efforts to be innovative in EEED.
70% of faculty agree (17% ‘strongly’) that the university
rewards efforts to be innovative in EEED.
69% of faculty agree that the university BOTH supports
and rewards efforts to be innovative in EEED.
22
Support and rewards for innovative EEED
activities
Most likely to “strongly agree” that the
University…
supports innovation:
rewards innovation:
Design (46%), CALS (38%),
CNR (38%)
Full Profs (31%)
(Does NOT vary by EEED
participation)
COT (26%), CVM (20%)
Assistant Profs (19%), Full
Profs (18%)
(Does NOT vary by EEED
participation)
23
Resources to support faculty success with
EEED
Favorable ratings for University providing support for
EEED are very similar to opinions about support for
other areas of responsibility:
66% “strongly agree” (10%) or “agree” (56%)
More likely to give favorable rating:
Assistant Profs (74%)
COT (86%), CED (72%)
Non-EEED participants (71% vs 61% EEED participants)
24
Rewards for excellent performance in
EEED
Favorable ratings for University rewarding excellent
performance in EEED are similar to opinions about
rewards for other areas of responsibility (except
‘discovery of knowledge’…):
71% “strongly agree” (16%) or “agree” (54%)
More likely to give favorable rating:
Full professors (78%)
CALS (87%), CVM (81%)
(No difference by EEED participation)
25
National reputation of department
Ratings for extension & engagement are similar to or
better than for other department activities (60% rate
as above average)
Ratings for economic development are lower than for
other department activities (47% rate as above
average)
“Very strong” ratings:
• Extension & engagement 23%
• Undergraduate education 22%
• Research & scholarly activities 21%
• Graduate education 20%
• Contributions to economic development 11%
• Technological & managerial innovation 10%
26
National reputation of department
42% of all faculty believe their department has a
“very strong” or “strong” national reputation
for
BOTH
extension and engagement
AND
economic development.
(5% rate both ext/engage & econ dev as “weak” or “very weak.”)
27
National reputation of department
Opinions vary by college

Reputation for extension & engagement
Most likely to say “very strong”:
CNR (51%)
CALS (46%)
COT (41%)

Reputation for contribution to economic development
Most likely to say “very strong”
CNR (23%)
CALS (18%)
COT (14%)
28
Resources & rewards =
strong national reputation
Among EEED participants, perceptions that the department has
a strong national reputation for extension and engagement
increase with an increase in satisfaction with university
resources and rewards for EEED activities.
Univ Supports Univ Rewards
EEED
EEED

disagree
47
41
agree
81
17
65
disagree
26
76
agree
0%
12
20%
9
21
40%
60%
2
80%
3
100%
National Reputation of Dept for Ext/Eng
Strong
Average
Weak
29
Resources & rewards =
strong national reputation
Among EEED participants, perceptions that the department has
a strong national reputation for economic development
increase with an increase in satisfaction with university
resources and rewards for EEED activities.
Univ Supports Univ Rewards
EEED
EEED

disagree
35
35
agree
disagree
61
32
52
31
58
agree
0%
31
20%
6
17
33
40%
60%
80%
9
100%
National Reputation of Dept for Econ Dev
Strong
Average
Weak
30
Resource & rewards =
recommendations
Univ Supports Univ Rewards
EEED
EEED
Among EEED participants, the likelihood of recommending the
department as a good place to work increases with an
increase in satisfaction with university resources and rewards
for EEED activities.
disagree
16
47
agree
37
45
disagree
47
27
agree
45
28
42
0%
8
20%
49
40%
60%
9
80%
100%
"Would Recommend Department as a Good Place to Work"
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
31
EEED-related open-end comments

Biggest concerns being a faculty member at NC
State/Suggestions for improvements (@ 40 comments):
– Value of EEED (e.g., mission of University, within dept)
– Support for EEED activities (e.g., funding, staff)
– Recognition/rewards for EEED activities (e.g., RPT process)
“Service is no longer valued. I would never recommend either
teaching or extension to a young faculty member as the
message we get is that grants pubs are all that count.”
32
EEED-related open-end comments

Most positive aspect of being an NC State faculty
member (@ 25 comments):
– Being a part of the land grant tradition
– Flexibility to pursue extension activities
– Value of/support for land grant tradition
“Outside the university environment, many of the regular
people of North Carolina look to us for answers and for
leadership. Helping these folks through extension education
and service activities brings personal pleasure.”
33