1 / 35

COACHE Presentation

COACHE Presentation. LUCINDA FINLEY Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs. Introduction to COACHE. What it is: COACHE (Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education): a research-based initiative to improve faculty recruitment, retention, and work/life quality

libba
Télécharger la présentation

COACHE Presentation

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. COACHE Presentation LUCINDA FINLEY Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

  2. Introduction to COACHE • What it is: COACHE (Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education): a research-based initiative to improve faculty recruitment, retention, and work/life quality • More than 150 universities and colleges

  3. Introduction to COACHE • Who and what: Tenure-track and Tenured faculty to assess career experiences in areas deemed critical to success and satisfaction (prior to 2012 – pre-tenure only; tenured faculty added in 2012) • Clarity and reasonableness of tenure processes and review • Workload and support for research and teaching • Integration and balance of work and home responsibilities • Climate, culture and collegiality on campus • Compensation and benefits • Global satisfaction

  4. Introduction to COACHE • How results are reported: • Survey questions use 5-point scale (1=low – 5=high) • Benchmarked against selected peer institutions – and against all comparable COACHE institutions • Comparisons by gender, race and disciplinary area • Identify effective and ineffective policies • Identify institutional strengths and improving trends

  5. Facts about UB’s Participation: 2010 pre-tenure faculty

  6. Facts about UB’s Participation 2006 Peer Group • Michigan State University • Ohio State University • Syracuse University • University of Kansas • University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill • 2012 Peer Group • SUNY- Stonybrook SUNY- Albany • Kansas UNC-Chapel Hill • Purdue 2010 Peer Group • University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign • University of Kansas • University of Iowa • University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill • University of Massachusetts - Amherst

  7. UB’s Areas of Strength 2006 Report: • No areas of strength identified • 2012 Report: • 10 Areas of strength identified 2010 Report • 19 areas of strength identified

  8. UB’s Areas of Strength • Tenure Practices • Clarity of tenure criteria – 2010 and 2012 • Clarity of tenure standards—2010 and 2012 • Upper limit on committee assignments 2010 • Tenure Expectations: Clarity 2010 and 2012 • Clarity of expectations: Scholar • Clarity of expectations: Advisor • Tenure Expectations: Reasonableness – 2010 and 2012 • Reasonableness of expectations: Scholar • Reasonableness of expectations: Advisor

  9. UB’s Areas of Strength • Nature of Work: Overall 2010 (not asked 2012) • Way you spend your time as a faculty member • Nature of Work: Research – 2010 and 2012 • Amount of time to conduct research • Expectations for finding external funding • Influence over focus of research • Nature of Work: Teaching 2010 (neutral in 2012) • Level of courses you teach • Upper limit on teaching obligations Nature of work: Service 2012

  10. UB’s Areas of Strength • Work and Home 2010 • Childcare • Spousal/partner hiring program • Colleagues make raising children and tenure-track compatible • Ability to balance between professional and personal time 2012: Personal and family policies; health and retirement benefits; facilities and work resources

  11. UB’s Areas of Strength • Climate, Culture, Collegiality 2010 • Informal mentoring • Compensation and Benefits 2010 • Compensation • 2012: Collaboration and Mentoring

  12. Benchmark Comparisons & Improving Trends • See handout

  13. Areas of Concern • 2006 Report • Cloudy and unreasonable tenure practice • Several ineffective policies and practices • Less-than-satisfying culture compared to peers • 2010 Report • Sense of ‘fit’ compared to peers • 2012 Report: • Departmental Collegiality • Departmental Engagement

  14. (Additional) Areas of Concern • Climate, Culture, Collegiality • Intellectual vitality of senior colleagues (2010 6th place among peers; 43rd percentile) • Interest senior faculty take in your professional development (2010 4th place among peers; 72nd percentile) • Amount of professional interaction with senior colleagues (2010 6th among peers; 43rd percentile)

  15. (Additional) Areas of Concern • Nature of Work • Quality of undergraduate students (6th among peers; 38th percentile) • Quality of graduate students (6th among peers; 26th percentile) • Quality of research support services (5th place among peers; 78th percentile)

  16. Best and Worst Aspects of Working at UB • Best Aspects 2010 • Academic Freedom • Cost of Living • Quality of Colleagues • Sense of ‘fit’* • Best Aspects 2012: • Quality of Colleagues • Cost of living • Academic freedom • Sense of fit • Worst Aspects 2010 • Quality of Graduate Students • Geographic Location • Quality of Undergraduates • Quality of Facilities • Spousal/Partner Hiring Program (or lack thereof) • Worst Aspects 2012: • Lack of support for research • Quality of facilities • Quality of graduate students • Geographic location

  17. Effective and Ineffective Policies 2010 • Important and Effective Policies • Upper limit on teaching obligations • Stop-the-clock for parental or other family reasons • Informal mentoring • Paid or unpaid research leave • Upper limit on committee assignments for TT faculty • Important but Ineffective Policies • Modified duties for parental or other family reasons • Spousal/partner hiring program • Tuition waivers • Childcare • Professional assistance in obtaining externally-funded grants

  18. Overall Global Satisfaction • How satisfied/dissatisfied are you with your department as a place to work? 2010 • 3.59; 5th in peer group and 48th percentile • Declined from 2006 survey (3.76) • How do you rate the institution as a place for junior faculty to work? 2010 • 3.81; 6th in peer group and 61st percentile • Improved from 2006 survey (3.63)

  19. Overall Global Satisfaction • If you could do it all over again, would you accept your current position? 2010 • 4.00; 6th in peer group and 53rd percentile • Same as 2006 survey • Assuming you achieve tenure, how long do you plan to remain at your institution? 2010 • 49%: For foreseeable future or rest of career • 35%: Haven’t thought that far ahead • 13%: No more than five years • Why? Prefer another academic institution 2012: 12% not more than 5; 28% more than 10; 45% don’t know

  20. Overall Global Satisfaction • Would you recommend your department to a faculty candidate? • 50%: Strongly recommend • 45%: Recommend with reservations • 5%: Would not recommend • Gender difference: 11% of women would not recommend

  21. Gender Differences No areas where women 10% or more satisfied than men in 2010; in 2012, men find mentoring w/i and w/o dept. significantly less important than women Women 10% or more dissatisfied than men 2010 (no “Large” difference in 2012): • Tenure practices 2010 (very slight differences in 2012): • Consistent messages about tenure from tenured colleagues (14% gap) • Tenure decisions based on performance (21% gap) • Upper limit on committee assignments (15% gap) • Expectations as departmental colleague (10% gap)

  22. Gender Differences 2010 Women 10% or more dissatisfied than men: • Nature of Work: Research • Amount of time to conduct research (12% gap) • Professional assistance in obtaining grants (12% gap)

  23. Gender Differences 2010 Women 10% or more dissatisfied than men: (some “moderate” differences in 2012) • Work and Home: • Modified duties for parental or other family reasons (15% gap) • Colleagues are respectful of efforts to balance work/home (11% gap)

  24. Gender Differences Women 10% or more dissatisfied than men: • Climate, Culture, Collegiality • Amount of professional interaction with tenured colleagues (10% gap) • How well you fit (11% gap) • On the whole, department is collegial (10% gap)

  25. Differences by Race/Ethnicity 2010 Faculty of color 10% or more satisfied than white faculty (no differences in 2012): • Tenure practices • Consistent messages from tenured colleagues (14% higher) • Written summary of performance reviews (11% higher) • Clarity of tenure expectations • As advisor to students (10% higher) • As campus citizen (11% higher) • As community member (10% higher)

  26. Difference by Race/Ethnicity 2010 Faculty of color 10% or more dissatisfied than white faculty (no difference in 2012): • Nature of Work: Research • Paid/unpaid research leave (14% gap) • Nature of Work: Teaching • Number of courses you teach (11% gap) • Discretion over course content (10% gap)

  27. Differences by Race/Ethnicity Faculty of color 10% or more dissatisfied than white faculty: • Work and Home • Elder care (10% gap) • Culture, Climate, Collegiality • Participation in governance of institution (14% gap) • Compensation • Salary and Benefits (14% gap): still a large difference in 2012 • Global Satisfaction • Would again choose to work at this institution (12% gap)

  28. Differences by Rank 2012 • Tenured Faculty moderately less satisfied with University and Decanal leadership; and with consistency of policy statements and actions • Associate Professors “large” satisfaction gap: Promotion – reasonableness of expectations; departmental culture not encouraging of promotion • Large Satisfaction gap with mentoring of Associate profs. • Assoc. Profs. – moderate satisfaction gaps: • Ability to balance research/teaching/service; grad ass’t support; lab or research space; salary and retirement benefits; clarity of promotion process, time frame and criteria

  29. Differences by Academic Discipline • 2010: Faculty in the humanities rated things lower overall, have more bottom-of-peer-group and bottom-quartile responses, and more polarization than other academic areas at UB!! • 2012: Areas that feel their department is less valued by President/Provost: Social Sciences, Education, Other Professions. Humanities now 3.5 on 5 scale

  30. Tenure Process and Criteria: UB Humanities vs. Other Disciplines and Other Universities Tenure Process is “Fairly Unclear”: 30% UB Humanities faculty Peer Institutions: 8% Comparable Institutions: 10% Tenure Criteria “Fairly Unclear”: 25% UB Humanities faculty Peers and Comparables: 11% UB Physical Sciences: 0% UB Biological Sciences: 0% Body of Evidence Considered for Tenure “Fairly or Very Unclear” 35% UB Humanities faculty 16% Peers and 15% Comparables 6% UB Physical Sciences 0% UB Biological Sciences

  31. Expectations as a Scholar “Fairly Unreasonable: 21% UB Humanities Faculty 12% Peers 9% Comparables 2% UB Physical Sciences 0% UB Biological Sciences Expectations as Colleague “Very or Fairly Unreasonable”: 28% UB Humanities Faculty 19% Peers 11% Comparables 6% UB Physical Sciences 0% UB Biological Sciences “Strongly Disagree” Tenure Decision Based on Performance Criteria: 20% UB Humanities Faculty 8% Peers 6% Comparables 6% UB Physical Sciences 8% UB Biological Sciences

  32. “Strongly Disagree” Senior Colleagues Give Consistent Messages about Tenure Requirements: 59% UB Humanities Faculty 30% Peers 31% Comparables 13% UB Physical Sciences 15% UB Biological Sciences “Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied” with Amount of time for research: 61% UB Humanities Faculty 40% Peers 49% Comparables 25% UB Physical Sciences 29% UB Biological Sciences “Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied with Intellectual Vitality of Senior Colleagues: 53% UB Humanities faculty 23% Peers 26% Comparables 7% UB Physical Sciences 21% UB Biological Sciences

  33. “Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied” with Department as a Place to Work: 30% UB Humanities 13 % peers and 13% comparables 14% UB Physical Sciences 14% UB Biological Sciences 11% of UB Humanities Faculty rate Institution as a “Bad” Place for Junior Faculty to Work 6% Peers 5 % Comparables 0% UB Physical and Biological Sciences 12% of UB Humanities Faculty Would not Recommend UB to Faculty Candidate 6% Peers and Comparables 0% UB Physical Sciences 0% UB Biological Sciences

  34. Discussion of Next Steps • Campus dissemination and further investigation • External dissemination • Policy improvement • Clear need for better family/work balance policies • Continue efforts to improve sponsored program services • Continue efforts to improve quality of undergraduate and graduate students • Focus on engagement by senior colleagues

More Related