Faculty Satisfaction Survey 2011:First Findings

GLOBAL SATISFACTION RATINGS: University Wide (N=265)• Average Satisfaction ratings for 9 items in this Category

(General Satisfaction Excluded): Mean=4.53; SD=1.18GLOBAL RATINGS: AREA OF SATISFACTION Mean SD Z Percent reporting positive

satisfaction levels (5,6,7) TEACHING 5.67 1.33 + .97 84.4%

TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.12 1.68 + .50 70.6% SERVICE 4.92 1.70 + .33 64.9%

SCHOLARSHIP/RESEARCH 4.53 1.72 0 51.4% BENEFITS 4.34 1.78 - .16 51.2%

SCHOOL/COLLEGE ADMINISTRATION 4.22 1.94 - .26 50.0% UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION 4.13 1.83 - .34 46.6%

FACULTY GOVERNANCE 4.04 1.73 - .41 43.5% COMPENSATION 3.72 1.90 - .69 39.0%

GENERAL SATISFACTION 4.86 1.59 + .28 70.1%

1: Very dissatisfied 4: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 7: Very satisfied

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Faces Scale (Andrews & Withey, 1976)

Faculty Satisfaction Survey 2011:First Findings

The following slides show abbreviated tables that will be detailed more fully in the Faculty Satisfaction Survey Committee’s first report, which will be released to faculty and the Pace community in late February or early March.

While academic freedom and autonomy lead the top ten Teaching satisfaction items, multi-campus teaching issues round out the bottom of the list.

• Average Satisfaction ratings for all 38 items in this category: 4.89

Faculty Satisfaction Survey 2011:First Findings- Teaching

Top and Bottom Ten Satisfaction Items (out of 38) – Teaching High Satisfaction Mean Academic freedom 5.83 Autonomy in deciding what to teach 5.77 Library instruction for students (N=196) 5.60 Your office hour requirements 5.48 Class size and student-teacher ratio 5.48 Input into deciding your teaching schedule 5.45 Instructional technology support 5.41 Library resources 5.31 Support for internships 5.10 Support accommodating students with special needs 5.09 Low Satisfaction Mean Your office space 4.52 Support for teaching diversity/global learning 4.52 Support for dealing with violations of academic integrity (N=181) 4.43 Quality of room conditions 4.36 Support for dealing with students with behavioral issues 4.34 Teaching on multiple campuses (N=85) 4.26 Support for undergraduate research 4.23 Level of student competency 4.06 Multi-campus issues: Adequacy of office resources, personnel, and space (N=86) 3.93 Convenience /Cost of teaching on multiple campuses (N=86) 3.50

Usefulness of internal grants earn higher marks, while support for updating scholarly knowledge earned the lowest rating among the Research/Scholarship items.• Average Satisfaction ratings for all 17 items in this category: 4.08

Faculty Satisfaction Survey 2011:First Findings- Research/Scholarship

Top and Bottom Five Satisfaction Items (out of 17) – Research/Scholarship High Satisfaction Mean Usefulness of internal grants (e.g., Thinkfinity, Presidential, Kenan) 4.89 Library electronic holdings in your area of research/scholarship 4.54 Timely availability and access to information needed to pursue external grants 4.31 Access to resources to support grant application and pursuit of external funding 4.23 Scholarship/Research is fairly rewarded 4.17 Low Satisfaction Mean Opportunities for leadership development 3.87 Availability of faculty models who enhance your scholarly productivity/research 3.85 Adequacy of system and guidelines for evaluating scholarship/research productivity 3.77 Support for your department to participate in scholarly and professional activities 3.53 Support for updating scholarly knowledge not immediately related to publication 3.45

The satisfaction means of Service items ranged from a low of 2.86 for service to the community outside of Pace to a high of 5.55 for choosing the types of service to provide.• Average Satisfaction ratings for 9 items in this category: 4.42

Faculty Satisfaction Survey 2011:First Findings- Service

Ranked by Descending Satisfaction – Service Mean Choosing the types of service you provide 5.55 Equitable distributions of service expectations within the university 5.22 Level of respect accorded to service 4.76 Service to your profession 4.59 Controlling the amount of service you provide 4.08 Extent to which service is recognized in the evaluation process 4.08 University recognition of service faculty provide 3.98 Amount of financial support for service 3.94 Service to community outside of Pace 2.86

These items deal with Salary, Benefits, Retirement and Working Environment issues. Although availability of childcare has the lowest rating, only 63 faculty responded to this

item. The next lowest-rated items deal with special compensation, while the item garnering highest reported levels of satisfaction is the convenience of the work pattern.

• Average Satisfaction ratings for all 25 items in this category: 3.89

Faculty Satisfaction Survey 2011:First Findings- Working Conditions

Top and Bottom Five Satisfaction Items (out of 25) –Working Conditions High Satisfaction Mean Convenience of your work pattern for your personal life situation 5.39 Adequacy of the technological support you receive (computer access, telephone access, IT support, etc.) to meet the requirements of your faculty role

5.27

Your departmental duties 5.13 Working conditions in your department 4.84 Tuition benefits available to you through the University (N=136) 4.72 Low Satisfaction Mean Faculty input into decision-making that determines the benefits 3.4 Faculty input into retirement plan negotiations 3.39 Overage compensation 3.21 Compensation for additional activities 3.21 Availability of child care services at Pace University (N=63) 2.06

These items deal with Department, School/College and University issues. Departmental items rank highest in satisfaction, while the lowest items concern the Board of Trustees and faculty

input into resource allocation. • Average Satisfaction ratings for all 44 items in this category: 4.01

Faculty Satisfaction Survey 2011:First Findings- Governance

Top and Bottom Ten Satisfaction Items (out of 44) – Governance High Satisfaction Mean Consideration of department needs in teaching assignments each semester 5.43 Collegiality among department members 5.26 Consideration of personal needs in teaching assignments each semester 5.25 Collegiality across departments 4.85 Fairness in making decisions that affect faculty in your department 4.83 Atmosphere where you feel comfortable in voicing differences without fear of retaliation from your department chair

4.82

Recognition of your contribution to the department and school 4.75 Department objectivity in making decisions that affect faculty 4.75 Department fairness in making decisions that affect OTHER departments (n=179) 4.73 Department transparency in making decisions that affect you 4.59 Low Satisfaction Mean Administration’s use of faculty committee outcomes 3.53 Amount of faculty input in determination of University direction 3.27 Equitable distribution of resources to schools and administrative units to achieve goals 3.24 University administrative decisions regarding program contraction/expansion 3.23 Academic and professional experience of the University Board of Trustees 3.23 Provision of formal criteria to judge and determine your associate dean's performance 3.22 Financial soundness of the University 3.18 Demographic composition of the University Board of Trustees (N=164) 3.17 Faculty input into resource allocation and utilization 3.15 The University Board of Trustees' level of involvement in University issues and decision making 3.12

Faculty Satisfaction Survey 2011• First report- University-wide, School/College, including a review of

qualitative data

• Analyses that have already been run and will be refined for future reports include Campus comparisons, Tenured vs. Non-Tenured,

Core-Teaching vs. non-Core-Teaching, Graduate vs. Undergraduate-Teaching

Faculty Satisfaction Survey Committee: John Byrne, Lubin School of Business, David Ekstrom, College of Health Professions, Lisa Fastenberg, Dyson College of Arts &

Sciences, Farrokh Hormozi, Dyson College of Arts & Sciences, Alvin Hwang, Lubin School of Business, Chu-Hua Kuei, Lubin School of Business, Susanne O'Callaghan,

Lubin School of Business, Belgacem Raggad, Seidenberg School of CSIS, John Stokes, Dyson College of Arts & Sciences, Joan Walker, School of Education, Marie Werner,

Dyson College of Arts & Sciences