The (2009) Contingent Faculty Survey: A Discussion of Implications

1. Sue Doe, English Ginger Guardiola, History Natalie Barnes, Art Karen Kaminski, School of Education View survey results and Provost’s Task Force report at http://contingentcaucus.wordpress.com The (2009) Contingent Faculty Survey: A Discussion of Implications

2. Introduction/Background Special and Temporary Faculty (STF) as % of Total Faculty: 32% (484/1517) • 57% are women STF as % of Total Employees at CSU: 8% • Tenure-Track Faculty: 17% • Administrative Professionals: 22% • Research Associates: 15% • State Classified Staff: 33% • Remainder: Post Docs, Others: 5%

3. CHANGE OVER DECADE 10-Year (2000-2010) Change in % of University Employees who are Special & Temporary Faculty • +225% in CLA • +113% in CAS (Ag) • +38% in Business OVERALL: 83% • +35% in CVMBS • +19% in CAHS 10-Year History of Full-time Students by College, Increases in only 4 colleges while all others show losses. (Note overlap with college increases to STF.) • Business: +29% • Liberal Arts: +17% • CAHS: +6% • CNS: +3%

4. % of Undergraduate Credit Hours Taught by Faculty Type: • Tenure-Track: 44% • STF: 36% • GTAs: 12% • Others: 8%

5. SALARY *Salary—CLA Only; it varies greatly across campus: Approximately a 35% Wage Gap between Special Appointment (Full-time) and Tenure-Track Entry Level Assistant Professor:avg: $55,844 Special Appointment (Full time): avg: $33,000 (Range: $32,000 - $38,000?) *This is an educated guess and represents CLA only. Tenure-track average faculty salaries are published in the FACT BOOK but STF salaries are not. Wage gaps vary widely from college to college.

6. Key Findings Top 5 Job Satisfaction Factors with those being met in red • Being fairly treated • Intellectual stimulation • Feeling valued as a professional • Exercise of academic freedom • Contact with students

7. Being Fairly Treated

8. Being Intellectually Stimulated

9. Feeling Valued as a Professional

10. Exercising Academic Freedom

11. Student Contact

12. Dissatisfactions • Feeling valued as a professional • Being fairly treated • Salary • Representation to faculty governance • only 11% of respondents believe they are adequately represented by Faculty Council • 50% believe they are welcome at departmental meetings but only 36% believe their opinions matter or that they are included in decision-making

13. LOYALTY The clearest, most consistent response to the survey surrounded the level of agreement to the following statement, Q #108: “I am glad to be a member of the CSU community.” 80% of respondents reported high or very high support of this statement. Many respondents added in the narrative box: “I just want to be appreciated in return.”

14. Bi-modal data sets suggest satisfaction in some colleges but not in others • Reward and remuneration • Promotion and recognition opportunities • Contact with colleagues • Access to professional development • Invitation and involvement in departmental activities & governance • Rehire/reapplication processes

15. Focusing On Your College • Materials for your review: • Copy of report • Survey questions • Aggregate data • Disaggregated data for your college • Session Worksheet

16. Question: How does your college compare to the university as a whole in the following areas: • STF satisfaction levels on top five factors for university as a whole • Areas of greatest dissatisfaction • Success with reward, recognition, compensation • Success with promotion opportunities • Success with professional development opportunities • Success with reapplication, reappointment, or rehire methods • Success with collegiality • Success with governance opportunities

17. Or Choose Your Own Adventure All survey analysis that has occurred so far is very tentative. You are invited to look at other results from this survey, as your needs and interests propel you.

18. Key Findings From Disaggregated Data • CLA higher level of dissatisfaction overall (all 4 identified areas); highest discrepancy was in salary • In all the indicators of satisfaction, CLA was lower than the university averages with the exception of contact with students • CNS (Natural Sci) biggest difference is on indicator of being valued as a professional (NS did just extremely satisfied) • CNS is higher overall as far as satisfaction in comparison to general university • W-CNR (Natural Res) Satisfaction factors, generally feel these are all important; intellectual stimulation, contact with students and academic freedom are being met. • W-CNR--Data suggest biggest concerns are about how they’re being treated by colleagues

19. Recommendations/Questions • Same survey with tenured faculty • Count number of AUCC courses and associated students vsnumbers of students as a whole (particularly important for CLA – i.e. CVMBS students are taking advantage of AUCC in CLA and other colleges. However the contingent faculty issues are not the same because of the make-up of the college and where the $ comes from • More descriptive questions regarding: contact with students; academic freedom • Ask question about salary ranges to get more specific information • Document how are other schools are dealing with the contingent faculty issues (i.e. senior lecturer at CU, rolling appointments at U of Wyoming, etc.). [As this was done in 2006, we would only need to update the information.] • Questions with a high percentage of not sure or not applicable should be carefully reviewed – how many respondents really know what’s being asked (i.e. faculty governance) – is this something that could be addressed at a caucus meeting? • Reading group needed to look at the university faculty book, codes, etc. • Everyone needs to know these features ofyourposition: classification of your position; appointment type; academic rank; position title • What title SHOULD be used when referring to ‘our’ group? Contingent; adjunct; special; etc. There are different applications depending on the audience (students vs administration)