COACHE Presentation

COACHE Presentation

LUCINDA FINLEYVice 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• More than 150 universities and

colleges

Introduction to COACHEWho 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

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 institutionsComparisons by gender, race and disciplinary area Identify effective and ineffective policies Identify institutional strengths and improving trends

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

Overall Male FemaleWhite, non-

Hispanic

Faculty of Color

population 214 121 93 143 71responders 117 68 49 80 37response rate 55% 56% 53% 56% 52%population 1561 916 645 1038 523responders 920 510 410 650 270response rate 59% 56% 64% 63% 52%population 14673 8315 6358 10189 4413responders 8409 4492 3917 6027 2382response rate 57% 54% 62% 59% 54%

UB

All selected peersAll comparables*

University at Buffalo

overall tenuredpre-

tenure full assoc men women whitefaculty of color

University at Buffalo

population 979 731 248 427 329 673 306 722 257responder

s 404 272 132 156 120 248 156 311 93

response rate

41% 37% 53% 37% 36%37% 51% 43% 36%

Selected peers

population 5645 4503 1142 2709 1821 3926 1719 4425 1220responder

s 2614 2074 540 1222 861 1701 913 2144 470response

rate 46% 46% 47% 45% 47%43% 53% 48% 39%

All

population 27660 19888 7772 10618 971117710 9950

21332 6269

responders

13634 9661 3973 5117 46898151 5483

10897 2725

response rate

49% 49% 51% 48% 48%46% 55% 51% 43%

Facts about UB’s Participation

2006 Peer GroupMichigan State UniversityOhio State UniversitySyracuse UniversityUniversity of KansasUniversity of North Carolina – Chapel Hill

2012 Peer GroupSUNY- Stonybrook SUNY- AlbanyKansas UNC-Chapel HillPurdue

2010 Peer GroupUniversity of Illinois - Urbana-ChampaignUniversity of KansasUniversity of IowaUniversity of North Carolina – Chapel HillUniversity of Massachusetts - Amherst

UB’s Areas of Strength

2006 Report:No areas of strength identified

2012 Report:10 Areas of strength identified

2010 Report19 areas of strength identified

UB’s Areas of StrengthTenure 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

UB’s Areas of StrengthNature 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 obligationsNature of work: Service 2012

UB’s Areas of StrengthWork and Home 2010

• Childcare• Spousal/partner hiring program• Colleagues make raising children and tenure-track

compatible• Ability to balance between professional and

personal time2012: Personal and family policies; health and

retirement benefits; facilities and work resources

UB’s Areas of Strength

Climate, Culture, Collegiality 2010• Informal mentoring

Compensation and Benefits 2010• Compensation

• 2012: Collaboration and Mentoring

Benchmark Comparisons & Improving Trends

See handout

Areas of Concern

2006 ReportCloudy and unreasonable tenure practiceSeveral ineffective policies and practicesLess-than-satisfying culture compared to peers

2010 ReportSense of ‘fit’ compared to peers

2012 Report:Departmental Collegiality Departmental Engagement

(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)

(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)

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

Effective and Ineffective Policies 2010Important 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

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)

Overall Global SatisfactionIf 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 institution2012: 12% not more than 5; 28% more than 10; 45% don’t

know

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

Gender DifferencesNo 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)

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)

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)

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)

Differences by Race/Ethnicity2010 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)

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)

Differences by Race/EthnicityFaculty 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

2012Global Satisfaction

• Would again choose to work at this institution (12% gap)

Differences by Rank 2012Tenured 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 promotionLarge 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

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

Tenure Process and Criteria: UB Humanities vs. Other Disciplines and Other Universities

Tenure Process is “Fairly Unclear”: 30% UB Humanities facultyPeer Institutions: 8%Comparable Institutions: 10%

Tenure Criteria “Fairly Unclear”: 25% UB Humanities facultyPeers and Comparables: 11%UB Physical Sciences: 0%UB Biological Sciences: 0%

Body of Evidence Considered for Tenure “Fairly or Very Unclear”35% UB Humanities faculty16% Peers and 15% Comparables6% UB Physical Sciences0% UB Biological Sciences

Expectations as a Scholar “Fairly Unreasonable:21% UB Humanities Faculty12% Peers9% Comparables2% UB Physical Sciences0% UB Biological Sciences

Expectations as Colleague “Very or Fairly Unreasonable”:

28% UB Humanities Faculty19% Peers11% Comparables6% UB Physical Sciences0% UB Biological Sciences

“Strongly Disagree” Tenure Decision Based on Performance Criteria:


“Strongly Disagree” Senior Colleagues Give Consistent Messages about Tenure Requirements:


“Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied” with Amount of time for research:61% UB Humanities Faculty40% Peers49% Comparables25% UB Physical Sciences29% UB Biological Sciences

“Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied with Intellectual Vitality of Senior Colleagues:53% UB Humanities faculty23% Peers26% Comparables7% UB Physical Sciences21% UB Biological Sciences

“Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied” with Department as a Place to Work:30% UB Humanities13 % peers and 13% comparables14% UB Physical Sciences14% UB Biological Sciences

11% of UB Humanities Faculty rate Institution as a “Bad” Place for Junior Faculty to Work

6% Peers5 % Comparables0% UB Physical and Biological Sciences

12% of UB Humanities Faculty Would not Recommend UB to Faculty Candidate6% Peers and Comparables0% UB Physical Sciences 0% UB Biological Sciences

Discussion of Next Steps

Campus dissemination and further investigationExternal disseminationPolicy 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

Documents

COACHE Presentation