Left Navigation

Faculty Senate Home Agenda Faculty Senate Bylaws Committees General Faculty Items of Interest Mediation, Grievances & Hearings Meetings & Minutes Resolutions Senators

FACULTY SENATE MEETING
September 11, 2007

Regular Meeting No. 2 of the 54th Session

Present:  Chair Martin, Secretary Kellner, Past Chair Allen, Provost Nielsen, Parliamentarian Corbin; Senators Ambaras, Akroyd, Anson, Bernhard, Domingue, Dawes, Evans, Fauntleroy, Hanley-Bowdoin, Havner, Heitmann, Hudson, Levy, Lindbo, Lindsay, Moore, Murty, Overton, Ozturk, Raymond, Ristaino, Schweitzer, Shamey, Ting, Wessels, Williams

Excused:  Senators Robarge, Muddiman, Scotford

Absent:  Senators Fleisher, Genzer, Hergeth, Mulvey, Poling

Visitors:  P. J. Teal, Secretary of the University; Marcia Gumpertz, Assistant Vice Provost for Faculty and Staff Diversity; Lauren Gregg, Writer, News Services; Suzanne Weiner, Library Administration; Lee Fowler, Athletics Director; Amber Joyner, Student Senate – Chairman of Academics; Betsy Brown, Special Assistant to the Provost; Nancy Whelchel, Assistant Directory Survey Research – UPA; Patti Clayton, Director, Center for Excellence in Curricular Engagement; Erin Robinson, Assistant Directory, Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning; Barbi Honeycutt, Interim Director, Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning , Paul Khosla, Civil Engineering; Cheryl Brown, ACE Fellow, Office of the Provost; José Picart, Vice Provost for Diversity and AAA

1.  Call to Order
Chair James D. Martin called the second meeting of the fifty-fourth session of the North Carolina State University Faculty Senate to order at 3:00 p.m.

2.   Announcements
Chair Martin welcomed Senators and guests and made the following announcements:

Chair Martin recognized Past Chair Nina Allen with an engraved gavel. 

Chair Martin welcomed Senator Amassa Fauntleroy as a member of the Executive Committee to replace Senator Wayne Robarge who resigned. 

The General Faculty meeting will be October 3, at 3p.m. in the Erdahl-Cloyd Theater; the State of NC State Address will be on September 27, at 3p.m. in the Stewart Theater; the Budget Forum which is co-sponsored between the Faculty Senate and the Staff Senate will be held on October 8 at 3:30 p.m. in 2215 Williams Hall.

Summer school is being revised to come back to the colleges for administration.  It will no longer be run out of the McKimmon Center.  An advisory group has been assembled.  Phil Brown from PAMS and Harriette Griffin from the College of Management will represent the faculty.

The 2007-2008 NC State University Millennium Seminars Series kicks off Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. Acting U.S. Surgeon General Kenneth P. Moritsugu will present a seminar titled “3 Guides to Action for Underage Drinking.”  It will be held in the Stewart Theater.

The Graduate School Forum will take place on Friday, September 14 at 3 p.m. in the Nelson Hall auditorium. 

Remarks from the Chair
The topic we want to spend some time thinking about today with presentations by Betsy Brown and Marcia Gumpertz has to do with faculty retention, a complex issue with no simple solution and yet the importance of this has only been heightened, as the Chancellor noted last week when he said that in the next five years we have up to 400 faculty who will be eligible for retirement. We don’t just want to be replacing these people, we need to be growing and if our faculty numbers and quality are going to grow we don’t need only to be hiring people, we need to make sure we understand retention as well.

From the chemistry perspective we have to alter the thermodynamics of the system.  To change our ratio we have to alter the thermodynamics of the system in order to change our rate constant so I think equilibrium actually does have a lot to tell us about faculty retention.  It is pretty easy to warm things up and cool things down.

We do need to work at changing the system.  To begin to look at how we change the system we have to look at some data.  Marcia and Betsy are here today to help present some data about the system and then to help us walk through discussion about what we might do to change that equilibrium constant.  Too often when data is presented we tend to explain away data.  What I would like for us to do today is not so much try to explain away the data or even pass off the responsibility.  Let’s try to understand and not explain away the data.  Let’s recognize that this equilibrium constant having to do with retention starts with us.  It starts with us in the decision for promotion and tenure.  It starts with us before that in the hiring and mentoring of our faculty.  It starts with us in the cultures that we create in our departments.  We have significant responsibility when it comes to dealing with issues of retention.  So let’s not just look to the administration for policies and making sure things are in place because the responsibility does begin with us.  At the same time administration does have responsibility as well -- creating policies, making sure policies are maintained, making sure we have constructive personnel management and making sure we have constructive training of those who enact our personnel management.  So it is a complex set of responsibilities for all of us as a university if we are going to successfully deal with the retention issue, which I’d argue is extremely important even in the absence of the fact that we have four hundred faculty potentially going to retire in the next few years. 

I would be remissed today if I did not remember what today is.  Six years ago a tragedy struck.  A tragedy struck individuals, a tragedy struck our nation, and a tragedy struck the world.  This tragedy has been a complex one.  It has brought some people together.  It irreplicably ripped people apart both personally and politically.  There is nothing that anyone of us could say where we’d get broad or complete agreement from anyone else because how this event and the events that have transpired since affected each of us as differently.  Our perspective at least if not the entire world have changed some for the better and maybe some for the worse.  Sadly I discovered that some of these changes impact who we are here at NCSU. I was a little surprised as I was reviewing some of the data to find that 9/11 has impacted faculty retention.  I happened to be looking at the data coming out of one of the reports that you were given as Marcia reported it.  We look at the number of the percent of tenured track faculty who left NCSU as an Assistant Professor and she plotted it based on the years hired.  I saw a continuing trend upward for women who left whereas a roughly constant trend of men who left.  I was hired in 1994 and I knew that I was tenured in 2000.  I added a plus 6 because after six years is when we should have gone up for tenure or not and I discovered that in the year 2001 people got their tenure notices around May but decisions were made October and November of 2001 to give rise to the jump in both men and women.  Surprisingly the number of men has dropped down to normal and the number of women who have left continues to climb.  This does not tell us that these are people who were denied tenure.  We don’t know the reasons why this information is there.  I at least cannot look at this without a bit of pause to wonder what has happened even among our own culture.  Is this the culture of who we are and who we want to be? 

9/11 is a difficult time, a difficult idea, a difficult concept.  I would like to pause just briefly in a bit of reflection for those who have lost their lives as well as those who have lost their life since in situations related to that.  Let’s also spend some time thinking about what each of us can do here at NC State and in our greater world to have an impact to build that culture that we want, that we think should be as we change the equilibrium constant.  Pause for a moment of reflection.  Thank you.

3. Approval of the Minutes, Meeting No. 1, August 28, 2007
The motion passed unanimously to approve the minutes.

4. Remarks from the Provost
Announcement  
Provost Nielsen along with Vice Provost Picart, announced that a small group is planning a trip to Washington DC to receive the Institutional Role Model Award for Diversity, which recognizes good work that is being done as an institution in the area of diversity and specifically in the area of graduating minority graduate students from this institution. 

Remarks
Thanks to all of you who have embraced diversity in your programs and to our graduate school and diversity office for putting programs together to make that happen.

Two weeks ago Chair Martin said that he would like the Chancellor and me to talk about issues that are on our minds rather than always give happy updates about campus. I want to spend time doing that today.

Graduate Enrollment—What incentives we provide, what expectations we provide to drive our graduate enrollment.  As you know we have talked a lot about how relatively easy it is to change graduate enrollment.  Graduate enrollment depends primarily on you, your research capability in terms of grants and support of graduate students, your time and your willingness to take on graduate students, the expectations that you have written in your jobs for graduate education, your general acceptance of the idea that graduate education is an important mission for the university.  It is constantly on my mind.

Facilities versus Programs – We had our first meeting of the tuition task force this morning and talked a little about its tuition and review committee.  As you know we have an enrollment growth calculation and formula built into the annual budget process for the Legislature that says we project growth and enrollment.  They are going to deliver to us so many dollars to hire new teachers and provide more operating money and while we can argue about the formula and that they don’t have it quite right, but, in fact, there is a formula built in that delivers us more money for operating our academic programs.  It doesn’t provide a complimentary set of dollars for facilities that we need as those programs expand.  We are constantly in a situation where enrollment and program issues are operating on a small orbit that is controllable and capital issues are in this big orbit out here that is big and disconnected to our operations and trying to bring those things together in a way that doesn’t create some gaps.  We sort of planned buildings based on a plan of how buildings are going to roll out and we do enrollment growth based on year-to-year changes and growth.  I think that is a major challenge and a major issue, not one that you can collectively help the university with but one that certain groups of you who are involved in space issues can help us with.

Faculty Satisfaction—This is constantly on our mind--our ability to hire people when there is a great demand and to retain those that we want to retain when opportunities are out there for senior hires in lots of places.  It is a concern.  The second part of that faculty satisfaction that we have to grapple with and continue to grapple with is this question of being family friendly.  It is important to me and it isn’t obvious how to solve it.

Retaining and Improving our Information Technology Capability—We are going through some reformation relative to that and this concept of virtual computing is a very big item in our information technology world at NC State and beyond that and thinking through what that means and how it goes is important.

The Business of Academics—Where you stand depends on where you sit.  I now sit in the Provost’s chair and in that chair I see a lot of things.  When you sit in my chair the ugly things tend to take more and more of your time and more and more of your energy and creativity and money and capacity.  One of the things that concern me from the chair that I sit in is the idea of the business of academics.  We all got into this business because we liked the teaching. We like to do research and we like to read and we like to write and do those sorts of things, but the reality today is that we live and work in a large complex institution that is being held increasingly accountable by the world for the way we conduct ourselves.  It concerns me on a daily basis about how much attention we are paying to that.  Are we sincere about it?  Are we doing the right things?  Are we in jeopardy because of what we are doing or not doing?  I know this isn’t of any interest to you.  We just finished faculty orientation, about four days of orientation.  When you have four days of orientation stuff, what is your capacity to absorb it?  We received some feedback from a faculty member who was involved in this.  The faculty member wrote back and said, “I hope we never hire a faculty member who needs more than a couple of hours of orientation.”  It is a neat idea but what it denies is the reality that there is a whole set of things that go along with that that we have to be concerned about.  I have six of them just as I have been thinking about this over the last couple of months, things that I would call the business of academics.

One of the first ones is academic integrity—questions of how you deal with plagiarism?  How you deal with fairness in sharing the credit for work that you have done?  What do we do about intellectual property?  There is a whole series of things there that if you have ever been in a case where you have had to deal with this you really wish you had paid attention to it in the beginning. 

The second thing is personnel management.  Like it or not the vast majority of us are personnel managers.  If we have a grant we have people working for us and we have a responsibility to manage that personnel according to the principles of work in the United States and the laws that relate to that. 

The third thing is substantive compliance.  By substantive I mean things like how you are working with laboratory animals or human subjects.  How you are handling hazardous waste in your laboratory?

The fourth area is administrative compliance.  I put in that category a lot of things such as social security number protection and credit card number protection.  You have enough data on your keychain flash drive that could compromise the security of the United States of America.  There are administrative compliance systems that we all have to be a part of.

The fifth item is data security.  By that I mean the security of the data that you are collecting and using in your research programs.  How well do you back it up?  How secure are the servers that you buy and keep in your own laboratories because you didn’t want to use the central ones?

The sixth one I call campus safety but it really is a larger sense of campus community involved with campus safety and it is how aware and concern we are about the capacity of every individual here to learn, work, live in a way that is safe and welcoming and protected and keeps the ideas that we hold so dear.

Questions
Senator Dawes wanted to know if the TA salaries are comparable to others and those in peer institutions?

Provost Nielsen responded that they are not very good.

Senator Ozturk wanted to know about the research infrastructure.  He thinks that is the way to improve the graduate enrollment.

Provost Nielsen stated that the research infrastructure that makes him lose sleep is this question of facilities unrelated to enrollment growth.  In a research extensive university if our enrollment is going to grow that means our tenure-track faculty is going to grow.  Our tenure track faculty is here because this is a research extensive university and they are interested in teaching and research and we are interested in doing both of those things.  Unless we have the research infrastructure that allows us to hire and retain and may succeed our tenure track faculty we are not going to go where we want to go.

Senator Hudson:  When you talk about substantive compliance you mentioned animals.  Is there something specific that you are concerned about?

Provost Nielsen stated that whenever we use animals in research or teaching we are required to meet the federal standards for their use.  We have cases on occasion where people treated those animals poorly.  It’s something we need to think about and work about.

Senator Ristaino stated that she thinks there should be a request that goes into the legislature for repair and renovations and not just requests for premiere shining facilities.

Provost Nielsen stated that there is a repair and renovations budget that comes to the university every year.  This year we will receive a little more than $13M for repairs and renovations when there is a list of repairs and renovations that totals about $160M.  At $13M a year we barely keep up with the new things that come on the list.

Provost Nielsen stated that when a building gets renovated there is an increase in our base operations to cover routine operations and maintenance. 

5.  Retention of Tenure Track Assistant Professors  (Marcia Gumpertz)
There is a task force on women faculty that was convened in March and has been meeting all summer and will be meeting through the fall.  The data presented was generated from this task force.

Tenure Track Assistant Professors with Start Date from 1990-1999:

Where Are They Now?

september 11


A relative risk of 1.0 means that the probability (of leaving NCSU or of not being promoted) for women is the same as for men. A relative risk greater than one indicates that the risk is higher for women than men.

The relative risks are similar across years (Breslow-Day test for homogeneity).

Tenure Track Assistant Professors with Start Dates from 1990-1999

Proportion promoted to associate professor with tenure within 7 years at NCSU (spent 7 years or fewer as assistant professor; e.g., hired in 1991 and started as assoc professor in 1998. Does the proportion differ for men and women?

Women are significantly less likely than men to be promoted with tenure in 7 years (CMH test, p-value=.069).

The estimated relative risk of no promotion for women compared to men is 1.37; that is, women’s estimated risk is 37% higher than men’s, after taking college into account.

Total sample size=414. The odds ratios for women to men are similar across colleges (p-value-.39, Breslow-Day test for homogeneity).

Number Promoted/Total

Percent

College

Women

Men

Women

Men

CALS

18/23

64/79

78

81

CED

6/8

6/12

75

50

CHASS

19/34

32/46

56

70

CNR

1/2

12/14

50

86

COE

4/7

43/52

57

83

COM

8/13

12/16

62

75

CVM

10/12

17/24

83

71

Design

2/4

7/8

50

88

PAMS

3/6

33/45

50

73

Textiles

0/1

6/8

0

75

When do Losses Occur? The attrition among women during the first two years and during year 7 is higher than among men. Forty five percent of tenure track assistant professors who left after one or two years were female, as compared with 25% of tenure track assistant professors who stayed at NCSU more than 6 years.

September 11, 2007

Looked at another way, 8% of women stayed only one or two years; whereas only 4% of men left NCSU that soon after starting as assistant professors. Among tenure track assistant professors who started from 1990 to 2003, 9% of women and 3% of men stayed two years or less. Nine percent of women left in year 7, compared with 5% of men.

Distribution among departments. Seven departments lost 3 or more faculty who started as assistant professor from 1990 to 1999 between years 3 and 6. One department lost 3 faculty in their first 2 years and one department lost 3 faculty in year 7.

 Report on COACHE Survey of Tenure-Track Faculty (Betsy Brown)
The COACHE Survey was administered nationally by a collaborative of universities lead by the headquarters where the main researchers worked at Harvard Graduate School of Education.  NC State participated in this survey along with all the other UNC campuses that award tenure.  Within the number of institutions that were involved in the year that the survey was administered at NC State there were 31 universities including NC State. 

The purposes were to further enlighten academic leaders about the experience and concerns of tenure track junior faculty and to provide data that led to informed discussions that appropriate actions to improve the quality of work life for junior faculty.  The real purpose initially was to figure out what are the great academic work places and what can we learn from them.

February 25, 2007

Background:NC State participated in the COACHE Survey (Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education) along with other UNC campuses which award tenure (all but NC School of the Arts).  The survey was administered November 2005-January 2006. 

The principal purposes of the COACHE survey are

The COACHE survey is organized around five themes:

I.          Tenure

II.         Nature of Work

III.       Policies and Practices

IV.       Climate, Culture, and Collegiality

V.        Global Satisfaction 

Eligibility: To be eligible to participate in the survey, faculty needed to meet the following criteria:

Peer Institutions: Each participating COACHE institution chose five “peers” among participating institutions with which to compare their own results.  NC State’s peers were

Response Rates: A total of 8,308 full-time pre-tenure faculty members at 51 colleges and universities (including 31 doctoral universities) received the COACHE survey and 4,866 responded, for an overall response rate of 59%.  The response rate for NC State’s peers was 57%.  Among eligible NC State faculty, the response rate overall was 63% (with 150 of 238 eligible faculty responding), compared to a response rate of 67.9% for NC State’s Faculty Well-Being Survey (FWBS).  Response rates for specific NC State populations are listed below.

Response Rates:

COACHE         59%

Peers                57%

FWBS              69.7%

NC State          63%                

NC State Rates:

                        Overall             Male     Female             White   F of Color

Response rate   63%                 61%     61%                 62%     65%

Eligible  238                   148       90                     173       65

Respondents     150                   90         60                     108       42

%                                             60%     40%                 72%     28%                

Survey Results:

This report summarizes NC State faculty’s responses on each theme of the survey compared to faculty at peer institutions, as well as differences between male and female faculty and white faculty and faculty of color. In addition, differences between responses by NC State female faculty and faculty of color compared to their counterparts at peer institutions are included for some items.  Additional reports provided by COACHE, including survey results by academic area, are available for further study.

The following definitions have been used in reporting statistically significant differences:

A. Overview of survey results compared to peer institutions:

I. Tenure

NC State faculty responses were higher than those at peer institutions on most items related to tenure; there were no items on which NC State faculty responses were lower than those at peer institutions.  In fact, NC State rated among the top four among 31 doctoral universities in the 2005-6 survey on the tenure dimension.  Responses by NC State faculty of color were higher than those of white faculty on a number of items related to tenure.

II. Nature of Work

The survey asked about respondent’s satisfaction with a number of areas related to the nature of their work as faculty members.  NC State faculty responses on most items in this section were not significantly different from those at peer institutions.  NC State faculty were more satisfied than peers with what is expected of them as researchers, although male faculty were less satisfied on several items related to research than female faculty.

III. Policies and Practices

This section includes an analysis of the gap between policies and practices that NC State faculty rated as important to them and their rating of the effectiveness of these policies and practices at NC State. The items for which such an effectiveness gap was most often reported were

NC State ratings were lower than those of peer institutions on compensation and on several items related to support for having and raising children. Male and female faculty responses differed significantly on some items in this section of the survey.

IV. Climate, Culture, and Collegiality

The survey asked about respondents’ level of satisfaction or agreement with a number of items related to the climate, culture and collegiality of their workplace. NC State faculty responses were not significantly different from those of peer institutions on most items in this section, although NC State faculty members were less satisfied than peers with their interaction with junior colleagues, the intellectual vitality of senior colleagues, and a feeling of unity and cohesion among the faculty in their college. Male NC State faculty were more satisfied than female faculty with a feeling of unity and cohesion among the faculty in their college, while NC State faculty of color were more satisfied than white faculty with the feeling of unity and cohesion in their department.

V. Global Satisfaction. 

Respondents were asked to choose from a list the two best and two worst aspects about working at their institution as opposed to a comparable institution.  They were also asked about several aspects of their satisfaction with NC State as a workplace. 

NC State faculty cited the following as the best things about working at NC State:

They cited the following as the worst aspects about working at NC State:

NC State faculty were less satisfied with the institution as a place to work than their peers.  However, 65% of faculty expect to remain at NC State either for rest of my career (14%) or for foreseeable future (51%), responses which are higher than comparable responses at four of NC State’s five peers.  NC State faculty were less likely than peers to report that if they had it to do over again they would accept their current position. Forty percent of NC State faculty would strongly recommend their department as a place to work for tenure-track faculty, although most others would recommend it with reservations.  NC State received a lower overall rating as a workplace than peer institutions, although over 70% of NC State faculty rated the institution as a “great” or “good” place to work.

B. Detailed report of survey results compared to peer institutions:

I. Tenure:

(Survey items 19-23, 24 a-f, 25 a-f, 26-27)

Overall Results: NC State faculty responded significantly higher than faculty at peer institutions on a number of survey items related to tenure, including the following:

There were no differences between responses of NC State and peer faculty on the following items:

There were no questions related to tenure on which NC State faculty’s responses were significantly lower than those of faculty at peer institutions.

Gender Differences

At NC State, there were no significant differences based on gender for any of the survey items related to tenure.  Female faculty at NC State rated most items in this section higher than did female faculty at peer institutions.

Racial Differences:

NC State faculty of color (a group which was not broken down by specific racial or ethnic categories to protect the anonymity of respondents) responded significantly higher on several items related to tenure:

NC State faculty of color consistently rated items in this section higher than did faculty of color at peer institutions.

II. Nature of Work:

(Survey items 28, 29 a-g, 30 a-d, 31-32, 33 a-d)

Overall Results:

NC State faculty were more satisfied than faculty at peer institutions on one survey item in this section: what is expected of them as researchers.

There were no significant differences in the satisfaction of NC State faculty members and faculty at peer institutions with the following items:

NC State faculty were less satisfied than peers on the following items:

Gender Differences:

Among NC State faculty, males were significantly more satisfied than females on the following items:

However, females at NC State gave higher ratings than female faculty at peer institutions for satisfaction with the level of courses, number of students, and quality of undergraduate students, as well as the expectations for their work as researchers and the quality of research and computing services.

Racial Differences:

There were no significant racial differences between white faculty and faculty of color at NC State on items in this section.  However, NC State faculty of color gave higher ratings than faculty of color at peer institutions on the way they spend their time, expectations for their work as researchers, and amount of research funding they are expected to find.

III. Policies and Practices

(Survey items 34 a-b, 35 a-d, 36-37)


Gap Analysis:

The survey attempted to identify the “effectiveness gap” between policies and practices that faculty rated as important to their success and their rating of the effectiveness of these policies and procedures at their institutions. From a list of 16 common policies and practices, below are those items which respondents identified as “Very important” or “Somewhat important” to their success but as “Very ineffective” or “Somewhat ineffective” at NC State.

Items most frequently rated by NC State faculty as important to their success, but ineffective at NC State:

Overall:

1. Childcare
2. Spousal/partner hiring program
3. Professional assistance in obtaining externally funded grants

Males:

1. Professional assistance in obtaining externally funded grants
2. Spousal/partner hiring program
3. Financial assistance with housing
3. Childcare

Females:

1. Childcare
2. Paid or unpaid research leave during the probationary period
3. Spousal/partner hiring program

White faculty:

1. Professional assistance in obtaining externally funded grants
2. Childcare
3. Spousal/partner hiring program

Faculty of color:

1. Childcare
2. Spousal/partner hiring program
3. Financial assistance with housing

Overall Results:

There were no questions related to policies and practices on which NC State faculty’s responses were higher than those of faculty at peer institutions.

NC State faculty members were less satisfied than peers on the following items:

There was no difference between NC State faculty members’ and peers’ satisfaction on the following items:

Gender Differences:

Male NC State faculty were significantly more satisfied than female faculty on the following items:

Female faculty members were significantly more satisfied than were male faculty with their compensation. 

Racial Differences:

There were no significant differences in responses between faculty of color and white faculty in satisfaction with NC State policies and practices.  However, faculty of color at NC State were more satisfied than peers with what the department does to make having and raising children and what the institution does to make raising children compatible with being on the tenure-track.

IV. Climate, Culture, and Collegiality

(Survey items 38 a-c, 39 a-d, 40-41, 42 a-b, 43)

Overall Results:

NC State faculty were more satisfied or more likely to agree than peers on the following items:

There were no differences in satisfaction or agreement between NC State faculty and peers on the following items:

NC State faculty members were less satisfied or less likely to agree than peers on the following items:

Gender Differences:

Male NC State faculty were significantly more satisfied than female faculty with a feeling of unity and cohesion among the faculty in their college.  However, NC State female faculty were more satisfied than female faculty at peer institutions with the interest senior faculty take in their professional development, amount of professional interaction they have with junior colleagues, and feeling that their department treats junior faculty fairly compared to one another.

Racial Differences:

NC State faculty of color were significantly more satisfied than white faculty that there is a feeling of unity and cohesion among the faculty in their department.  They also gave higher ratings than faculty of color at peer institutions for the fairness of supervisors’ evaluation of their work, interest senior faculty take in their professional development, opportunities to collaborate with senior colleagues, amount of personal interaction with senior colleagues, amount of personal interaction with junior colleagues, feeling of “fit,” unity and cohesion in their college, and feeling that their department treats junior faculty fairly compared to one another.

V. Global Satisfaction

(Survey items 44 a-b, 45 a-b, 46 a-b, 47-50)

The survey asked respondents to select from a list the best and worst aspects of working at their institution.

Best and Worst Aspects about Working at NC State:

Overall:

Best:                                                     Worst:
1. Geographic location                          1. Compensation
2. Support of colleagues                       2. Lack of support for research
3. My sense of "fit" here                        3. Quality of facilities
4. Quality of colleagues                          4. My lack of "fit" here

4.  Quality of graduate students

4.  Too much service/too many assignments

Male:

Best:                                                     Worst:
1. Geographic location                           1. Compensation
2. My sense of "fit" here                        2. Lack of support for research
3. Quality of colleagues                         3. Quality of facilities
4. Cost of living                                     4. Quality of graduate students

Female:

Best:                                                     Worst:
1. Support of colleagues                         1.  Quality of facilities
2. Geographic location                           2. Too much service/too many assignments
3. Teaching load                                    3. Compensation
4. Opportunities to                                 4. Lack of support for research
collaborate with colleagues                     4. Childcare policies/practices (or lack thereof)

White faculty:

Best:                                                     Worst:
1. Geographic location                           1. Lack of support for research
2. Support of colleagues                         2. Quality of facilities
3. My sense of "fit" here                        3. Compensation
4. Quality of colleagues                          4. My lack of "fit" here

Faculty of Color:

Best:                                                     Worst:
1. Geographic location                           1. Compensation
2. Support of colleagues                         2. Childcare policies/practices (or lack thereof)
3. Teaching load                                    3. Quality of graduate students
4. Opportunities to                                 4. Lack of diversity       
collaborate with colleagues  
4. Cost of living

Satisfaction with department and institution:
There were no significant differences between NC State faculty and faculty at peer institutions on their satisfaction with their department as a place to work, but NC State faculty were less satisfied with the institution as a place to work.  There were no significant gender or racial differences in NC State faculty's satisfaction with their department or their institution as a place to work.

Chief Academic Officer:
Forty-six percent of NC State faculty identified the Provost as the chief academic officer (CAO) compared to smaller percentages who identified the chancellor, dean, or president as the CAO or who said they did not know.  There were no differences between NC State and peer faculty reporting that the chief academic officer at their institution seems to care about the quality of life for junior faculty.  There were no  significant gender or race differences on this question, although faculty of color rated the CAO higher than faculty of color at peer institutions as caring about the quality of life for junior faculty.

Satisfaction with institution as a workplace:
The survey included several questions designed to measure respondents’ perceptions of their institution as a place to work:

Assuming you achieve tenure, how long do you plan to remain at your institution? For the rest of my career (RC); For the foreseeable future (FF); For no more than 5 years after earning tenure (5Y); I haven’t thought that far ahead (DK). 

Overall, 65% of faculty expected to remain at NC State either “for the rest of my career” (14%) or “for the foreseeable future” (51%).  This total was higher than four of five NC State peers.  Expectations for remaining at NC State “for the rest of my career” or “for the foreseeable future” for subgroups of faculty were as follows:

Males:                          69% (18% and 51%)

Females:                       61% (8% and 53%)

White Faculty:               71% (17% and 54%)

Faculty of Color:            53% (8% and 45%)

NC State faculty of color’s ratings on this item were higher than those of faculty of color at peer institutions.

Compared to faculty at peer institutions, NC State faculty were less likely than peers to report that if they had it to do over again, they would accept their current position.  There were no significant gender or racial differences in responses to this question.

Over 40% of overall respondents from NC State would strongly recommend their department to a candidate for a tenure-track position.  Most others would recommend it with reservations, while less than 10% would not recommend their department as a workplace. There were no significant gender or racial differences in junior faculty's recommendations of their department as a workplace, although more than 50% of faculty of color would strongly recommend their department.

Compared to faculty at peer institutions, NC State faculty gave a lower rating to their institution as a place for junior faculty to work.  There were no significant gender or racial differences on rating NC State as a place for junior faculty to work.

Suggestions for Further Action:

COACHE researchers have made the following suggestions for further action, “to derive the greatest impact and value” from the survey results:

Contacts:

Dr. Cathy A. Trower
The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE)
Harvard Graduate School of Education
8 Story Street, 5th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02138
Email: coache@gse.harvard.edu
http://www.coache.org
Phone: 617-496-9344
Fax: 617-496-9350

Dr. Betsy E. Brown
Special Assistant to the Provost
North Carolina State University
206 Ricks Hall
Campus Box 7112
Raleigh NC 27695-7112
Phone: 919-513-7741
Fax: 919-515-6835
betsy_brown@ncsu.edu

Dr. Nancy Whelchel
Assistant Director for Survey Research
University Planning and Analysis
North Carolina State University
Campus Box 7002
Raleigh, NC  27695-7002
Phone: 919-515-4184
nancy_whelchel@ncsu.edu
BEB/February 25, 2007

Discussion

Secretary Kellner:  As an expert on this, what did you notice?  What surprised you?  What should we pay attention to? 

Gumpertz stated that the main point in the numbers she presented is the number that leave overall.  This was useful to achieve where it is that people are leaving if they are Assistant Professors. 

It is important  to see when people leave; most people, if they are going to leave while Assistant Professor, it is during years three to six.  The finding that more women leave during the first two years and in the seventh year helps to figure out when some intervention might be useful for the women since that is when it’s a differential time of leaving for women compared to men. 

Ristaino:  Were you able to break down the percentage of women that do leave from three to six?  Are there more women leaving in certain colleges or departments or is there a trend over time?

Gumpertz stated that she did not look at a trend over time.  The numbers are for faculty from 1990-1999 and she found that there were seven departments that lost three or more faculty between years three and six and all others lost zero, one, or two.  There was one department that lost three faculty in their first two years and there was one department that lost three faculty in year seven.  There are a lot of departments that don’t lose anyone. 

Senator Levy wanted to know if faculty fare any better or worse than other professions.

Brown stated that in K12 education, 50% of the new teachers leave within the first five years.

Senator Hanley-Bowdoin stated that she thinks asking about retention might be too late.  If you look at the list of colleges, four of the five colleges that are below 50% retention of women have very low levels of female recruitment.  If you have few women in a college you don’t have the same atmosphere as in a college where women are becoming a larger fraction of the total faculty.  The issue becomes one of why aren’t we recruiting more women in some of these disciplines in the first place, because if we were, a lot of these issues would become less of a problem because women wouldn’t be in such a minority.

Gumpertz stated that she thinks the big picture is about retention for Assistant Professors and making the climate and environment in the department such that people will stay.

Gumpertz stated, last spring I introduced a question about whether NC State would benefit by having a change in the tenure clock extension policy for people who take family leave to have a baby or for family medical situations and I have had a blog for faculty comments that has been running since April.  There are approximately forty comments on the blog now and what I am hoping is that this body will discuss this issue and then I am hoping to be able to start drafting a new policy in October.   Most of the comments have been very positive.  There have been comments that have addressed some issues about what would happen if they don’t want to take the extension.

The second thing I want to tell you about is the task force on women faculty.  It has been running since April and we are meeting every two weeks.  It includes faculty department heads, deans, and administrators.  We have done a lot of analyzing the demographic data and the Faculty Well-Being Survey data. 

Our charge is to develop proposals for actions that NCSU can implement to increase the number of women faculty in areas where they are underrepresented and to ensure climate and working environment that is attractive and welcoming to female candidates and current faculty. 

Faculty Development Working Group

Brown stated that the Provost established this group back in the spring to look at all aspects of faculty development on campus.   We are trying to look at some key questions.  There are some questions that were posed to the committee by the Provost and we have elaborated a little bit. There are very specific questions about different aspects of faculty development.  These are our guiding questions.

We are looking at what do we mean by faculty development at NC State?  What are its purposes and goals? 

What types of faculty (programs, resources and activities) are currently available to NC State faculty? 

Are current programs effectively addressing the needs of the institutions and the needs of a diverse faculty in all realms of faculty responsibility?  If not what additional activities or actions are needed?

What organizational structure would we recommend for faculty development purposes at NC State?

How will we know when we have achieved our faculty development goals?  What will faculty development look like at NC State when these goals are achieved?

We are hoping to have an initial report by the end of the semester.  We have been working from a book called, “Creating The Future of Faculty Development”.  We have developed the guiding questions.  We have surveyed the faculty development providers that we could identify on campus and asked them some questions about what they were doing.  We have reviewed the mission and strategic plan very carefully.  We have looked at the Faculty Well-Being Survey numbers and written comments on the professional development session and also the COACHE data and talked a lot among ourselves. 

The following statement is our working statement about faculty development.

Through faculty development NC State enables continuous faculty success and work toward excellence in all realms of faculty responsibilities. 

Brown stated that they might have some draft recommendations by the end of the semester.  We are not at a point where we can tell you what we are going to come up with but we can tell you what we are doing right now.

Senator Ozturk: Do you have the numbers to their expectancy? 

Senator Heitmann:  In going through some of the numbers you talked about NC State was being rated fairly highly in the list of thirty one universities.  As you went through this did you consistently find universities in that list that rated near the top with satisfaction pretty much across the board?

Brown stated that COACHE has not made public individual institutions ratings.  That was one of the battles in the planning.  We do know that different institutions are ranked in the very top on different things.  

Senator Anson:  Do we have any direct questions that faculty are asked when they leave?

Brown stated that she has seen them from other places and they tend to correlate in her mind the reasons with those best and worse things about working at the institution. 

Gumpertz stated that there is a report of exit interviews from 2002-2006 and it can be found on the OEO website.  Included are a number of personal issues, spousal hiring issues, etc.

Provost Nielsen stated that the data tells us that there is a problem here and now we need to find out why that difference occurred. 

Secretary Kellner stated that he thinks Senators Anson and Ozturk brought up interesting points about the fact that perhaps we shouldn’t take retention as an unalloyed good.  It can say things about the standard.  It can refuse to say things about individual advancement of faculty.  I have found myself from time to time in department meetings surrounded by people who had never taught anywhere else and I have not found that to be a very positive thing for the institution.  People have many reasons for moving and while faculty satisfaction is always an important thing, retention is a double-edge sword when looked upon in isolation by that word “retention.”

Senator Ristaino wants to know the reasons for less retention of women faculty. 

Gumpertz state that there were all sorts of reasons ranging from retirements, took another job somewhere, family reasons or spousal hire somewhere else.  Forty percent of the people who left were excluded and some of them were verbal interviews and some survey type responses. 

Chair Martin stated that according to the data presented by Gumpertz there is a 37% probability that women have a less likely chance of being retained than men.  “I for one cannot accept that that is a quality issue and that becomes an issue that requires a lot more serious attention.” 

Senator Hanley-Bowdoin stated that the other thing is, what is happening with mid-career faculty who have already tenured and are going elsewhere.  In that case the institutional investment in those people is even higher because they are now at a point where they should be at the peak of their careers and if we lose them mid-career we have lost even more than if we’ve lost a junior faculty member and everything today is focused on up to this through the tenure process and I think maybe we need to look beyond that as well.

Chair Martin stated that he would argue for two points; that we don’t want to lose the high performing people but even when we talked about issues like post tenure review while I am not sure I completely believe in the term dead wood, when we are talking about mid-career folks we need to ask the question, “What causes dead wood” because if and as that exists we lose as an institution when dead wood is created so what are the mechanisms that can either reinvigorate or prevent that from happening.  Those are both mid-career issues.

Chair Martin thanked Brown and Gumpertz for their presentations.

6. Old Business
Council on Athletics
Senator Edwin Lindsay was elected by acclamation to serve as the Faculty Senate liaison on the Athletics Council.

7.  Adjournment
A motion passed to adjourn the meeting at 5 p.m
Footer Nav