Faculty Senate
Faculty Welfare Committee
State of the Faculty Report
November 2, 2007
Final Report
Committee
Members:
Anita
Davis, Chair anita.davis@usm.edu
Wendy
Bounds wendy.bounds@usm.edu
John
Hannon john.hannon@usm.edu
Mark
Klinedinst m.klinedinst@usm.edu
Tim
Rehner tim.rehner@usm.edu
Daniel
Tingstrom daniel.tingstrom@usm.edu
University
Data
During Spring
2007 the Faculty Welfare Committee, to assist the administration in
prioritization of faculty concerns during and following transition of
administrations, met with Dr. Joan Exline, Assistant to the President, Michelle
Arrington, Director of the Institutional Research Office, and Russ Willis,
Director of the Department of Human Resources to access and review data
relative to faculty welfare. Data sets reviewed included Employee Rosters FY
2002-2007 and Faculty Courses Fall 2006 – Spring 2007. An initial overview of data sets without
detailed analysis indicated general tendencies to (a) disparities in
compensation, (b) differences in Coast and
Upon general
review of faculty information, members of the Faculty Welfare Committee along
with Faculty Senate officers met with Dr. Bobby Middlebrooks, Interim Provost,
to discuss development and implementation of a yearly or ongoing process to
survey faculty concerns and satisfaction with their responsibilities and
University community. Several processes
were discussed and investigated including securing an online questionnaire
(Chuck Knight, Technology Operations Officer developed a sample) and hard-copy
processes. Survey questions were
developed based on an existing well-validated instrument, the Teacher Satisfaction
Survey (National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1987, http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED300462&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED300462)
Having expressed
concerns for confidentiality in University management of online information,
the committee decided to administer a hard copy survey that was printed and
organized by the Institutional Review Office in folders with instructions for
administration by departmental Faculty Senators and delivered to each college
through the Office of the Dean for distribution to each Departmental
Chair. An electronic copy was forwarded
to Dr. Pat Joachim,
a) Departmental administrators and/or their
staff remaining in the room used for conducting the survey
b) Departmental administrators failing to
deliver the survey to Senators for administration during the faculty meeting
c) Departments that do not schedule faculty
meetings at the beginning of the semester
d) Disbursement of departmental faculty over
multiple campuses, resulting in lack of access to participation in the survey
Resulting from
problems associated with questionnaire administration, many faculty members
communicated a reluctance to provide candid responses and many expressed
discomfort in addressing demographic questions that could reveal their identity
to their administrators.
While it is
apparent that survey reliability is diminished due to problems reported and
observed in questionnaire administration, aggregated results of the Faculty
Satisfaction Survey provide a good starting point for discussions of faculty
satisfaction and concerns that can inform both the Faculty Senate and
University administration in prioritization of efforts to improve campus
productivity and relations.
A total of 286
faculty members ( %) responded to surveys received prior to October 1, 2007
including responses from the
Satisfaction
Though concerns
and satisfaction levels vary between colleges and departments, overall
satisfaction is positive though clearly levels of trust can be improved (55.8%
satisfied or highly satisfied). The
Faculty members
were asked to rate from 1 (very low need) to 5 (very high need) the degree to
which they felt the need to review policies and procedures impacting
productivity (Table 1). Again, while
participation rates and reluctance to respond candidly may have skewed the
results, there are clearly areas of concern that need to be addressed.
Table
1: Ranking of faculty concerns based
on ratings per college
|
||||||||
|
|
COAL |
COB |
COEP |
COH |
COST |
UL |
|
Rank
|
|
Compensation |
1 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
Research |
2 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
2 |
|
Support |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
6 |
|
3.5 |
|
Benefits |
5 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
|
3.5 |
|
Responsibilities |
4 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
|
4 |
|
Service |
6 |
4 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
|
5 |
(1) Compensation
(annual raises, merit pay, salary, etc): Four of the six units reported
compensatory policies and practices as the highest need area (COAL, COH, COST,
UL) with COEP closely ranked as an area of high need. Only the
(2) Research
(available time, research support, professional development, travel support,
etc): Across all colleges with the exception of the College of Business,
concerns for professional support and development follow closely behind
compensation issues. Considering the
impact that conditions of compensation and professional support have on faculty
morale, it is remarkable that overall satisfaction levels are as high as
reported.
(3.5)
Programmatic support and development: One faculty member suggested, “We are
stuck in the post-SACS brain-dead mode.
We need new ideas that . . . meet the needs of each program.”
(3.5) Benefits
and family support services: Many comments bemoaned the present state of health
care policies afforded to faculty members and their families. Several specified that services provided by
the state system are the least supportive of any institution with which they
had been affiliated. While USM is part
of a state managed health care program, it seems important to conduct
discussions of benefits concerning University advocacy for improved support.
(4) Programmatic
responsibilities (teaching load, overload, course sharing, student advisement,
office hours, etc): As there were few
comments relative to teaching responsibilities, it may be that faculty members
are resolute to continued, and some may prefer, heavy teaching loads evidenced
in the 2006-07 teaching load spreadsheet provided by the Office of
Institutional Research. As a comprehensive research institution, it seems
counterproductive to embrace practices that impart heavy teaching loads that,
in turn, may have a negative impact on research productivity. This calls to question the overall mission of
the University.
(5) Service to
the department, college, university, and professional community (committee
assignments, accreditation documentation, etc): Ranking low or lowest in all of
the colleges, there were several comments regarding the lack of university or
unit level concern for faculty service.
One faculty submitted: “No one cares if you do it or not!”
As the
representative body of the faculty charged to give voice to all faculty
concerns, the Faculty Senate resolves that the University shall support
administration of the Faculty Satisfaction Survey, piloted by the Faculty
Welfare Committee during the Summer and Fall 2007 Semesters. The Faculty Satisfaction Survey serves two
primary purposes: it provides (a) a
common venue for all faculty to voluntarily express concerns with their
professional productivity and relations, and (2) a recurring measure of faculty
satisfaction or trust in their workplace environment, thereby assisting
university- and college-wide prioritization of needs considered by faculty to
be necessary for continual development and growth.
As the
University improves processes for collection and analysis of faculty
information, the University shall support an electronic process for
administration of the Faculty Satisfaction Survey to facilitate, streamline,
and assure consistency in response participation, and shall assure
confidentiality in reporting faculty information through communication of data
management practices to the Faculty Senate.
We, the Faculty
Senate, propose the following timeline for administration of Faculty
Satisfaction Survey:
(April)
Faculty Satisfaction survey available for voluntary online responses through
the password-protected University server system.
(May-June)
Institutional Research collects and aggregates responses
(August-September)
Faculty Welfare Committee with the Center for Research Support reviews and
conducts an analysis of responses
(September)
Faculty Satisfaction Survey report to Faculty Senate published on the FS
website for
(November)
Faculty Senate officers and Faculty Welfare Committee members meet with the
Provost and Vice President for Research and Economic Development to review
faculty satisfaction levels and associated concerns, developing a plan
procedures to address policies and practices in areas of need.