2012 Report on Faculty Retention, Faculty Climate

& Student-Faculty Interactions in the College of Arts and Sciences

Prepared by the Student Task Force on Faculty Retention A Special Project of UNC Student Government

Committee Chair and Principal Investigator Zealan Hoover

Committee Members

Michelle Healey Will Lindsey Jon McCay

Rachel Myrick Michael T. Perfetti Mackenzie Thomas

Hudson Vincent

Faculty Advisor Dr. Ron Strauss

2

Executive Summary The Student Task Force on Faculty Retention was formed in 2011 with a mandate to study issues of concern to the faculty of UNC Chapel Hill in order to identify potential avenues for improving faculty retention. This report outlines key findings from our 2012 survey of faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences and provides policy recommendations based off that data. The survey indicates that the continued freeze on state employee salaries and the increased administrative responsibilities resulting from cuts to support staff are placing considerable strains on our faculty. As a result, our ability to retain our best faculty is reduced and the climate for faculty who remain is impaired. Nonetheless, there are a number of steps that the University’s leadership can take to mitigate these challenges. Recognizing that the state may not lift the salary freeze or increase the University’s budget, as an institution UNC Chapel Hill should continue to do everything possible to improve the overall teaching and research climate so as to preempt our faculty from seriously considering outside offers. Once they are at the point of seriously considering other schools our negotiating latitude diminishes considerably. However, by preventatively addressing factors that impair our faculty’s ability to flourish then we can maximize our retention capabilities. This report analyzes the faculty retention issues across five categories: peer universities and counter offers, the Department and the College, student-faculty interaction, the student role, and regulations. Key policy recommendations include:

Ø Actively build support for a robust sabbatical program within the College. Ø Review the equity of administrative responsibilities at the departmental level. Ø Consider an expansion of the faculty travel fund if the salary freeze is not raised. Ø Increase the recognition of our faculty on a departmental level. Ø Encourage greater student interaction with faculty members. Ø Continue to review and discuss the role of our fixed-term faculty.

Table of Contents

The  Issue  ............................................................................................................................................  3  

The Student Task Force on Faculty Retention  ...........................................................................  4  

The Survey  ..........................................................................................................................................  5  

Part I: Peer Universities & Counter offers  ..................................................................................  6  

Part II: The Department & College  ...........................................................................................  10  

Part III: Student-Faculty Interaction  ........................................................................................  14  

Part IV: The Student Role  ............................................................................................................  17  

Part V: Regulatory Burdens  ........................................................................................................  21  

3

The  Issue  

On May 26, 2011 Provost Carney updated the Board of Trustees on the University’s 2010-2011 faculty retention efforts. Although UNC Chapel Hill traditionally retains two-thirds of faculty who receive a competitive offer from another university, in 2010-2011 the University’s retention rate dropped to 37 percent. Across the campus, 110 counter offers were made and only 32 faculty members accepted them. Even more worrisome, the university lacked funds for a reasonable counter-offer seven times in 2009-2010 and thirteen times in 2010-2011. A statewide freeze on the salaries of public employees, which include university faculty and staff, has been in effect since June 30, 2009. Under that policy, the University has been able to provide raises to faculty who are promoted or awarded tenure, change jobs or take on greater responsibilities, receive a Distinguished Professorship, are awarded a preemptive counter offer from non-state funding sources, or receive a campus-based counter offer in response to an offer from an external entity. This statewide freeze has greatly impaired the University’s ability to maintain competitive salaries. At the same time that faculty salaries have been frozen, our faculty has been asked to do more with less. UNC Chapel Hill has absorbed a $231 aggregate reduction in state appropriations since 2008. Although the administration has worked diligently to shelter our academic core from crippling cuts, over the past three years UNC Chapel Hill has dropped from 35th to 59th in U.S. News and World Report’s ranking of faculty resources. Meanwhile, as support staff has been cut, faculty members have been asked to take on steadily greater administrative responsibilities. This has only added to the strain of the pay freeze and further aggravated retention numbers.

0%  10%  20%  30%  40%  50%  60%  70%  80%  

Reten%

on  Success  Rate  

Year  

Reten%on  Success  Rate  2003-­‐2011  

4

The Student Task Force on Faculty Retention

Binding Energy, n. 1. the energy required to break up a molecule, atom, or atomic nucleus completely into its constituent particles (Merriam-Webster). 2. the manifold benefits of Carolina that keep our faculty here (Provost Carney). In response to Provost Carney’s May 2011 presentation on faculty retention, then-Student Body Vice President Zealan Hoover formed the Student Task Force on Faculty Retention, a special project of the Cooper Administration. The Task Force was formed because Carolina’s students have a vested interest in the excellence of their faculty and because the student-faculty relationship has always been fundamental to the concept of a university. Although money may be the predominant issue affecting retention, the Student Task Force on Faculty Retention has been guided by the belief that it is not the only issue that concerns faculty members. Instead, the Task Force has taken the position that if we can improve the Carolina experience for our faculty then we can positively affect retention rates. Recognizing that the statewide pay freeze is at the heart of the retention challenge, the Student Task Force on Faculty Retention took a holistic approach to the faculty retention issue. As long as the University’s ability to provide standard pay raises and make competitive counteroffers is jeopardized then some of the best opportunities to retain faculty will be preventative in nature. Taking the approach that once a faculty member is actively considering external offers then our ability to retain them is seriously diminished, the Student Task Force looked for ways to increase what Provost Carney referred to as “Binding Energy” – the many factors that keep Carolina’s faculty here because it is a university where they love to live and work.

5

The Survey

The Student Task Force on Faculty Retention spend the Fall 2011 semester researching the faculty retention issue by meeting with campus stakeholders, exploring retention efforts of peer universities, and hosting a faculty focus group. As a result, we were able to formulate a faculty survey that was disseminated to all 962+ faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences over a two-week period in February 2012. The survey (see Appendix 1 for full text) had fifteen questions covering issues of faculty retention, faculty climate, and student-faculty interaction. All questions were geared towards identifying actionable data.

Key Survey Statistics & Response Demographics Target Audience: Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences (962+) Response Rate: 352 surveys started; 317 completed. Primary Appointment within the College*

• Fine Arts and Humanities: 43% • Social and Behavioral Sciences: 30% • Natural Sciences and Mathematics: 27%

Years on the Faculty*

• Less than 5 years: 25% • 5-10 years: 25% • More than 10 years: 50%

Faculty Rank*

• Distinguished Professor: 16% • Full Professor: 22% • Associate Professor: 24% • Assistant Professor: 19% • Senior Lecturer: 6% • Lecturer: 13%

Gender Identity*

• Male: 50% • Female: 43% • Other/Blank: 7%

*Percentages represent the demographics of the survey respondents and not the demographics of the College of Arts and Sciences at large.

6

Part I: Peer Universities & Counter offers

Key Findings Ø Additional research time and internal opportunities for research funding are the

most important factors in retention discussions after a competitive counter offer. Ø Once faculty are actively considering other offers, the range of negotiating tools

available to UNC decreases. Ø Sabbaticals are a potentially powerful negotiating tool and their short supply is a

source of concern to many Carolina faculty members. Policy Recommendations

Ø Stakeholders at all levels should recognize that our best retention strategy is prevention and we should seek to identify and address faculty concerns early and so preempt faculty consideration of other universities.

Ø The University should actively build financial, administrative, and political support for a robust sabbatical program within and beyond the College of Arts and Sciences.

Source Data Data for Part I is drawn from Question 1, parts A and B. Those questions ask:

• 1a: Since joining the faculty of UNC, have you ever seriously considered an offer to teach at another university? [Response: Yes/No]

• 1b: If you were to receive a financially competitive offer to teach at another university, which of the following would be compelling reasons keeping you at UNC? [Response: Check all that apply]

The free responses to Question 5 were also reviewed and found to strongly reinforce the data from Question 1. Question 5 asked:

• Are there other actions taken by peer institutions to retain faculty that you feel are absent from UNC?

Image 1: Weighted representation of the responses to Question 5. Size indicates prevalence of use.

7

Offers and Counter offers Half of the faculty members responding to this survey have seriously considered an offer to teach at another university. When asked what would be a compelling reason to stay at UNC if they did receive a competitive counter offer, ninety percent selected “a competitive counter offer” as one of their replies (Table 1). Under the current budgetary restraints, neither competitive counter offers, nor increased benefits packages (third most frequently cited response), nor discounted tuition for dependents (fifth most frequently cited response) are necessarily feasible. However, the other responses outline ways additional funding could be allocated to the benefit of faculty morale, even if restrictions on the size of counter offers and overall pay and benefits remain unchanged. Table 1: Top 7 Reasons to Refuse a Competitive Offer Answer Table One: Question 1, Top 7 Responses

Response %

A competitive counter offer

304 90%

Increased opportunities for research sabbaticals

178 53%

Changes to your benefits package

152 45%

More time for personal research pursuits

125 37%

Opportunity for my children to attend UNC-CH for free/ discounted tuition rate

117 35%

Increased opportunities for internal research funding (NC TraCS)

90 27%

Additional TA assignments/resources

66 20%

8

Evaluating the Top Seven Responses (Table 1) When evaluating the seven most prevalent responses to Question 1B, there are four findings that we believe should be highlighted:

First, the second largest response (53 percent) was “Increased opportunities for research sabbaticals.” The strong interest faculty members have in this issue should be an incentive to identify ways to expand sabbatical options while continuing to educate outside stakeholders about their benefits to teaching and research.

Second, the number of faculty indicating the importance of time for personal research pursuits (37 percent) is a likely reflection of the burden of increased administrative responsibilities secondary to staffing reductions. As Carolina continues to streamline its administration and support staffs, the stress that downsizing places on faculty should be a continuing consideration.

Third, internal research funding also continues to be a concern. While across-the-board pay increases or an increase to the counter offer cap may not be feasible absent a change in state policy, options like increasing the College of Arts and Sciences Travel Fund (see Section II) and developing a process through which remaining funds in Distinguished Chair research accounts can be considered for a rollover at the end of the fiscal year (see Section V) are examples of cost-efficient methods to increase research funding.

Fourth, twenty percent of respondents indicated that increased TA assignments could be an inducement to remain at UNC. In lieu of a net increase in graduate TA assignments, it is possible that this could be addressed in some departments through a more equitable distribution of existing TAs. This issue of resource equity is addressed in greater detail in Part II of this report. Another possibility is exploring expanded opportunities for undergraduates to serve as TAs for course credit as they currently do for our Intro Biology courses. Evaluating the Bottom Eight Responses (Table 2) When evaluating responses 8-15 (Question 1B) one significant surprise is that there are only a small number of faculty who expressed concern about their ability to move research projects into entrepreneurial opportunities. That option garnered the lowest response rate despite the recent emphases on similar programs through initiatives like Innovate@Carolina. There are several ways to interpret this data. Existing capacity may be seen as adequate, this may be more relevant to faculty outside of the College (BSPH, KFSB, etc.), or this may simply not be an issue of concern to the majority of faculty. Either way, the low response was noteworthy. Less surprising is that the options garnering the lowest response rate are predominantly non-monetary in nature. That fits with what we already knew anecdotally, which is that by the time faculty members are actively soliciting outside offers then the range of compelling counter offers decreases.

Only five (5) percent of faculty listed more time with graduate students as a factor that would compel them to turn down a competitive offer and even decreased departmental responsibilities dropped to nineteen (19) percent. However, the fact that these types of non-monetary factors decrease substantially in importance during counter offer negotiations does not mean they should be discounted. To the contrary, we believe that the best way to maintain our faculty is by ensuring that they are not actively searching or entertaining advances by other schools in the first place. That means working constantly to make Carolina a place

9

where they love to teach, live, and research. To that end, factors such as departmental responsibilities, research time, and student-faculty interactions take on greater significance.

Table 2: Reasons 8-15 to Refuse a Competitive Offer

Answer Table 2: Responses 8-15

Response %

Decreased departmental responsibilities

63 19%

Other

60 18% On-campus child-care availability

51 15%

More time with graduate students

31 9%

Opportunity to teach a special topic course

30 9%

More time with undergraduate students

18 5%

Increased access to UNC-CH sporting events tickets (Basketball, Soccer, Football, etc...)

16 5%

Greater ability to move research products into a business spin-off/entrepreneurial opportunity

7 2%

10

Part II: The Department & College

Key Findings Ø Faculty members have a strong desire to build greater social relationships within

their department. Ø Equity of responsibilities within the department appears to be a significant

concern on par with or exceeding concerns about overall compensation. Recommendations

Ø Department Chairs should be proactive about building intra-departmental community through low-budget social activities.

Ø The College of Arts and Sciences should conduct an audit of faculty workloads across a sample of 2-3 departments to test for equity of responsibilities.

Source Data Data for Part II is drawn from the open responses to Question 6, which asked:

• What are easy things that your department could do or has done to improve faculty satisfaction/climate?

Responses were coded for concerns identified across six categories: • Equity, defined as the fair distribution of benefits and responsibilities. • Compensation, defined as a reference to individual salary and benefits.* • Recognition, defined as a sense that important work and contributions are noted and/or

rewarded by department leadership • Workload, encompassing concerns about teaching, research, or administrative

responsibilities. • Research Support, encompassing concerns about research and conference funding,

leaves, and sabbaticals. • Climate, encompassing concerns about faculty cohesion, departmental leadership,

work environment, morale, and facilities. *Concerns about relative compensation were coded under equity.

218 faculty members elected to respond to Question 6. The following table indicates the number of responses coded under each of the six categories regarding the departmental contribution to faculty satisfaction/climate.** The table also includes the number of responses coded for “Other” and “Not Applicable.”

** Individual responses were coded across multiple categories when multiple suggestions and/or areas of concern were given. As a result, Table 3 sums to 268 even though the total number of respondents to Question 6 was only 218.

Climate 53 Research Support 32

Workload 29 Equity 25

Compensation 22 Recognition 15

Other 44 Not Applicable 48

Table 3: Question 6 Responses

11

Satisfaction versus Frustration In addition to the six thematic categories, responses were also coded for explicit expressions of satisfaction and frustration. To protect confidentiality, the departments referenced will not be identified. Seventeen (17) respondents explicitly expressed satisfaction with their department. Sample responses include:

• “The department is clearly doing what it can with limited resources to maintain a vibrant research environment.”

• “My department is great and very supportive of teaching.” • “Attempts are constantly made to balance teaching loads and offer release for devoted

research time when possible.” Seventeen (17) respondents explicitly expressed frustration with their department, or with the College of Arts and Sciences more broadly. Examples include:

• “The department has not done a single thing to improve the climate. In fact, it has only done things to make it worse.”

• “My department can't do anything because it has no funding or support from the administration.”

• “With the budget cuts nothing would be easy. We’ve been cut below the bone.”

Climate Fifty-three (53) respondents identified faculty cohesion, departmental leadership, work environment, and facilities as areas of possible improvement. Fifteen (15) respondents specifically mentioned recognition as an area of potential improvement. These responses can best be interpreted as recommendations to: Develop a Culture of Respect and Inclusivity: Many respondents expressed a desire to have a more democratic culture in which younger faculty members could take on a greater role in recruiting and decision making, associate professors could be involved in tenure reviews, and fixed-term faculty could be more closely integrated into their department overall. Increase Communication and Transparency: The desire for greater transparency and communication is closely related to the issue of equity. A substantial minority of respondents expressed a desire for better communication regarding how decisions are made, what departmental policies are, and how responsibilities are distributed. Provide Opportunity for Faculty to Interact: ‘Increased opportunities for faculty interaction’ was the most frequently mentioned area for improvement. There is a strong desire to build a more cohesion on both a professional and personal level, with suggestions ranging from a faculty research symposia and department retreats to informal social events outside the normal working day. Two faculty members responded:

• “My department could do much more to establish social relations among our faculty.” • “My department does a poor job of welcoming new faculty. They should reach out to

new faculty, regardless of rank, to provide a sense of community.”

12

Recognize Faculty Contributions and Accomplishments: Responses coded for recognition expressed a desire to be noticed by the leadership for their efforts. In some instances, this was manifested as a request that their department be more proactive in nominating faculty for teaching awards. However, even more prevalent was a desire for more frequent recognition on an informal basis, which is closely linked to the concept of building a culture of respect. Sample responses include:

• “Give more praise of research and teaching efforts.” • “[Give] praise for what we do well. • “Recognize my international and national activities.”

Research Support

Concerns related to the support of research were the second most prevalent response coded in this section and were cited thirty-two (32) times. Commonly expressed sentiments were: Lack of Opportunities for Research Leave: A continuing theme is the importance of research leave and sabbaticals to our faculty. As one professor responded: “In 25 years of teaching I only had one semester on sabbatical.” Limited Financial Support for Conferences: A number of respondents expressed frustration that the $1,000 College of Arts and Sciences travel fund only covers the cost of approximately one conference per person per year. Research & Teaching Resources: A large percentage of faculty members do not feel that they have adequate resources to be effective professors or researchers, reflecting the impact of several years of sustained budget cuts. However, Figure 1 shows that the resource shortage is felt more acutely in research than teaching. 184 faculty respondents agree or strongly agree that their department provides them with the resources necessary to be an effective professor, but that number drops to 148 faculty respondents who when asked the same question about resources for research. Those numbers are mirrored on the negative side of the spectrum: 135 respondents did not agree that they had the adequate resources to be an effective professor and 169 respondents did not agree that they had the adequate resources to be an effective researcher. This implies that, although resources constraints are felt across the board, faculty feel the shortage more acutely in their research.

Equity Twenty five (25) respondents expressed concerns about the equity of workloads and compensation within their department. The majority of these concerns centered on the following two areas: Manipulation of the Pay Freeze: A number of respondents expressed frustration with their perception that some individuals manipulate the counter offer system to raise their salaries. A common sentiment was: “Simply let those faculty who actively solicit outside offers solely to bump up their UNC salary leave.” Many respondents expressed desire for greater transparency and discussion about relative salary levels and an explicit policy for counter offers and raises under the pay freeze. One respondent implored: “Give raises based on merit

13

rather than only respond to outside offers. Do not respond to outside offers from lesser departments and upset salary balance and breed resentment.” Unequal Distribution of Responsibilities: There was a widespread perception that departmental responsibilities and privileges are unevenly distributed. Specific issues mentioned were the allocation of teaching assistants, teaching duties, administrative roles, and salaries. Responses include:

• “It is important that the Department and the College not renew or tenure faculty that do not contribute to service and teaching.”

• “A number of faculty members are not asked to participate [in service or teaching] just because they are perceived as difficult to deal with.”

• “Share the workload in the department more evenly. Reward research productivity and either demand better productivity from low-producing faculty or give such faculty addition teaching or service requirements.”

Workload Workload was a concern cited twenty-nine (29) times. This most frequently manifested as a desire to limit administrative tasks seen as unnecessary in order to increase time for teaching and research. These concerns were closely correlated with concerns about equity; however, they also show a desire to reduce the burden of responsibilities including post-tenure reviews, unnecessary emails, and accounting tasks. In many cases, this was cited as a result of cuts to administrative and support staff.

0  

20  

40  

60  

80  

100  

120  

140  

160  

Strongly  Agree  

Agree   Neither  Agree  nor  Disagree  

Disagree   Strongly  Disagree  

Figure  1:  Faculty  Resources  for  Teaching  &  Research  

My  department  provides  me  with  adequate  resources  to  be  an  effec%ve  professor  

My  department  provides  me  with  adequate  resources  to  be  an  effec%ve  researcher  

14

Part III: Student-Faculty Interaction

Key Findings Ø The vast majority of Carolina’s faculty enjoy engaging with students outside of

the classroom and are actively engaged with their students. Ø There is a strong perception that less importance is attached to student-faculty

interaction at the department and College levels. Recommendations

Ø Additional metrics of student-faculty interaction should be added to the Annual Report that faculty are asked to complete each year.

Ø Departments should recognize faculty who are engaged with their students outside of the classroom through both formal (i.e. teaching awards, annual reviews) and informal (verbal recognition, emails) methods of recognition.

Source Data Data from Part III is drawn from Questions 2, 3, and 4. Those questions asked faculty respondents the range of time they dedicate to interacting with students as well as the avenues for that interaction and also asked faculty respondents to rate their agreement with a series of statements. For the full text of the questions please see Appendix I. Time Commitment Most departments require that faculty schedule 2-4 hours per week as office hours. This survey found that the majority of respondents (54 percent) spend more than four hours per week working with students outside of the classroom while only eight (8) percent spend less than two hours per week doing so. Avenues of Interaction Survey responses indicate that our faculty members interact with students in myriad ways beyond the classroom. Question four specifically measured the types of contact faculty members have with undergraduate students. While almost all faculty are holding office hours, we also found that faculty are engaging with students in numerous ways across the university. The most frequently selected* avenues for faculty-student interaction were:

• Office hours – 92 percent • Undergraduate research advisor – 72 percent • Departmental functions – 71 percent • Student mentor – 50 percent

Figure  2:  Commitment  to  Student-­‐Faculty  Interac%on  

Less  than  2  hours  per  week  

2-­‐4  hours  per  week  

More  than  four  hours  per  week  

15

• Faculty advisor to a student group – 29 percent • Community service activities – 22 percent

*Faculty were asked to select all areas in which they interact with students.

Fifty (50) respondents listed “other” and provided a list of activities further revealing the number of formal roles (i.e. administrative positions) as well as informal interactions (i.e. mentorships and social opportunities) that facilitate further student-faculty contact. Specific areas mentioned as time consuming are writing letters of recommendation, mentoring students in various campus programs, and advising students on careers and graduate school. Valuing Interactions The survey results show that faculty overwhelmingly place high value on their interactions with both undergraduate and graduate students. When asked to respond to the statement “I value interactions with undergraduate students,” 227 faculty members strongly agreed and 86 faculty members agreed. Only 14 faculty members disagreed or indicated they neither agreed nor disagreed with that statement. The responses for the statement “I value interactions with graduate students” are almost identical. However, Figure 3 shows that faculty members’ own views regarding the value of student interaction differ from faculty members’ perceptions of their departments’ views on the issue. Survey results indicate that faculty members are less certain that their individual departments or the College of Arts and Sciences place a high value on student-faculty interaction. On the whole, faculty members hold a strong positive view of student-faculty interaction, but feel that departments and the College place less value upon this than they do.

0  

50  

100  

150  

200  

250  

Strongly  Agree  

Agree   Neither  Agree  nor  Disagree  

Disagree   Strongly  Disagree  

Figure  3:  Faculty  Percep%ons  of  Value  Associated  with  Student-­‐Faculty  Interac%on  

"I  value  interac%ons  with  undergraduate  students."  

"My  department  values  Student-­‐Faculty  Interac%on."  

"The  College  of  Arts  &  Sciences  values  Student-­‐Faculty  Interac%on."  

16

Interpreting “Neither Agree nor Disagree” as Slightly Negative Figure 2 and Figure 3 both include “Neither Agree nor Disagree” options. These responses should be a concern because questions such as “My department values Student-Faculty Interaction,” are ones on which we would hope that there would be agreement.

Table 4: Interaction

Question

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

I have adequate time to meaningfully interact with Under(graduate) Students

54 (49) 155 (154) 51 (71) 58 (43) 7 (7)

My department values student-faculty interaction outside the classroom

69 144 75 31 5

My departmental responsibilities are over-burdening and prevent my ability to interact with undergraduate/graduate students

30 60 87 118 28

I have little interest in/do not value interacting with undergraduates outside of lecture/office hours

2 7 20 113 184

Barriers to Interaction Faculty members were asked to agree or disagree with a series of statements intended to identify the level of interest in student-faculty interaction as well as potential barriers to that interaction (Table 4). Significant findings are:

• There is overwhelming interest in interacting with undergraduates. • A majority of the survey’s respondents do feel they have adequate time to interact

with undergraduate students. However, thirty-six (36) percent did not agree. • A substantial minority of the faculty is overburdened to the extent that they are unable

to interact with students to the extent that they would like. It is important to recognize student-faculty interaction as one among several components that contribute to an appealing work environment. Departments should focus on facilitating such interactions with full support from the College. In light of the faculty’s positive view toward student interactions and the associated time commitment, obligations should be left to the discretion of faculty members. Efforts by individual departments or the College to obligate formal responsibilities for interaction may detract from benefits of those interactions. Initiatives that facilitate informal student-faculty interactions – such as luncheons, coffee gatherings, and discussion groups – may contribute more positively to an academic / work environment that is more likely to attract and retain faculty.

17

Part IV: The Student Role

Key Findings Ø Carolina’s faculty members already engage with their students beyond the

classroom and want to do more. Ø There is a widely held view among faculty that students view grades as more

important than intellectual development. Recommendations

Ø Student Government can support retention efforts by encouraging respectful and productive student engagement with faculty members, by sponsoring initiatives supportive of the intellectual climate of the university, and through continuing its support of undergraduate research.

Ø The Residence Housing Association (RHA) should work with the Department of Housing and Residential Education to improve Meals with Heels, a program that funds students to have a meal with a faculty member, so that it is user-friendly.

Image 2: Weighted representation of the responses to Question 7.

Size indicates prevalence of use. Source Data Data for Part IV is drawn from the responses to Question 7, which asked:

• What are easy things that students could do that would improve faculty satisfaction/climate? [Response: Open Response]

18

Response Faculty respondents were provided with an open response space and asked to list actions that students could take to improve faculty satisfaction and climate. 188 faculty members elected to respond to this question. Twenty-five of them expressly praised Carolina students. Highlighted responses include:

• “Just keep being the nice, idealistic, energetic and encouraging people that they consistently are.”

• “It's a pleasure to work with the students at UNC.” • “Our undergraduates are fantastic, and part of the reason why I still work here.” • “Continue their commitment to academic excellence and public engagement. The

undergraduates at UNC-CH are astonishingly gifted and working with them is an extraordinary privilege.”

Several respondents expressed a desire for students to reassess their opposition to tuition increases. Two responses indicative of that position are:

• “Understand that fighting tuition increases means more faculty retention problems and a less ‘valuable’ degree for them, as UNC is becoming known as a place of ‘brain drain.’”

• “UNC students are a huge part of what makes my job at UNC satisfying. I hope that they can understand the importance of tuition for paying for this world-class institution.”

Another theme that emerged in several answers was that retention is not the fault of students nor is it a problem that students should feel responsible for. Sample responses of that nature include:

• “That's not their job.” • “Not sure this is the job of students.” • “Students are not the problem. The administration and the departments are the

problem.” Nonetheless, of the 188 responses the vast majority expressed a number of ways that students could contribute to improving the teaching experience for faculty, students’ own learning experience, and the broader intellectual climate. These answers were coded for five themes: intellectual dedication, faculty engagement, grade negotiations, use of electronics, and other/none.

Intellectual Dedication

Faculty Engagement

Grade Negotiations

Respect Use of Electronics

Other/None

60 57 19 16 12 47

Intellectual Dedication The single biggest concern that faculty expressed in this section regarded overall student performance in the classroom that can best be summarized as caring about school. There were numerous calls for students to come to class prepared, put greater effort into their assignments, and generally show a dedication to their studies. However, the overarching concern was that students lacked a dedication to intellectualism within the university environment. One faculty member expressed this in a positive light saying, “Students could

19

show a genuine interest in learning, thinking, and exploring the subject matter. And, many already do.” However another faculty member expressed a frustration shared by many respondents, saying:

“Be more proactive about asking questions in class, coming to office hours, showing an active interest in course material in and out of class, practicing intellectual ambition--i.e., an active desire to learn more about a subject, to pursue something beyond what's expected on a test. In my observation, all these are very uncool for most Carolina students. Even seniors doing honors theses seem to be more interested in what this will do for their law school applications than in knowledge for its own sake. Sometimes students even seem astonished and bewildered by the idea that there might be more to education than getting good grades. And their most common critique is that courses and teachers are too demanding and not sufficiently entertaining, as if easy A’s and entertainment are all they are here for. I'm sorry to sound so harsh, and I truly love the students who show more than this, but that's honestly what it feels like, day in and day out.”

Faculty Engagement A significant proportion of the faculty respondents (57) also expressed a desire for more students to engage with them inside and outside of the classroom. A number of these responses were cross-coded with ‘Intellectual Dedication’ however all responses coded for ‘Faculty Engagement’ expressed an explicit desire for greater student-faculty interaction. We believe this to be a significant finding because, amidst a dominant narrative that faculty are overburdened with teaching and administrative responsibilities, we have found that faculty members still value and want to interact with their students. Complementing the free responses questions, faculty respondents were also asked to reply to the statement: “I have little interest in/do not value interacting with undergraduates outside of lecture/office hours,” (Figure 4). The single biggest response category was ‘Strongly Disagree’ with 184 responses and the second largest response category was ‘Disagree’ with 113 responses, while the ‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly Agree’ categories were negligible. This further demonstrates the incredible dedication our faculty members have to the teaching mission of this university.

20

Respect, Grades & Electronics Although faculty members are clearly excited to engage with students, it is important to highlight three issues that significantly impair this relationship. First and most worrisome is the fact that sixteen (16) faculty members expressed the view that a minority of Carolina students does not treat them with respect. Faculty citing disrespect were a distinct minority (and most of them were clearly speaking about a small number of students) but that does not detract from our concern. Mutual respect between all members of our community is a cornerstone of the Carolina Way and where it is abrogated we should all respond appropriately. In addition to broader concerns about lack of respect, faculty respondents also frequently cited grade negotiation and electronics as problem areas. Twelve (12) faculty respondents explicitly cited frustration with students’ use of cell phones and laptops in class, while nineteen (19) respondents expressed frustration with students who dispute grades, seem to feel entitled to high grades, or only care about grades. Telling responses include:

o “Calm down about grades for goodness sake.” o “Worry less about the grade and enjoy the learning process.” o “STOP HAGGLING WITH INSTRUCTORS OVER GRADES.”

21

Part V: Regulatory Burdens

Key Findings • A number of faculty members feel overwhelmed with administrative responsibilities

that have increased as support staff has been cut. • There is substantial dissatisfaction with the reimbursement process for funded travel. • There is significant concern about the treatment of fixed-term faculty members.

Recommendations • The College of Arts and Sciences should work with Department Chairs and identify

administrative responsibilities that can be reduced. • The Office of Sponsored Research, the Institutional Review Board and the

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee should seek to streamline their application, review, and reimbursement processes.

• The Provost should continue to monitor campus-wide policies regarding terms of appointment for fixed-term faculty and continue to work with the Office of Faculty Governance to identify promising areas for reform.

Source Data Data for Part V is drawn from Question 8. That question states:

• The Academic Plan has convened a special committee tasked with identifying and addressing burdensome university regulations. Do you wish to suggest any areas, regulations, or requirements that the committee should investigate?

Response Faculty respondents were provided the opportunity to identify burdensome regulations and requirements so that a list can be provided to stakeholders for their review and to the Academic Plan Regulations Sub-Committee for action. Their responses have been grouped into the categories of administrative tasks; funding and reimbursements; IT/Tech; hiring, salary, and benefits; IRB/IACUC requirements; fixed-term faculty; and courses and curriculum.

Administrative Tasks • Fifteen faculty respondents expressed specific grievances related to administrative

responsibilities, with many several respondents expressing the view that there has been a substantial increase in administrative responsibilities in recent years as funding for support staff has been cut.

Funding & Reimbursement

• Fifteen respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the Office of Sponsored Research in particular and university budgeting more broadly. Their comments indicated frustration with the excessive paperwork required for small amounts of reimbursement

22

coupled with the loss of staff support to assist with that paperwork. In the words of one faculty member:

o “Basically, the entire budgeting system seems to have little respect and trust in faculty to use money wisely.”

o “We desperately need accounting support. Faculty need to take care of all our own paperwork related to travel, speaker events, and research projects. It is difficult to get accurate, up to date reports on funds remaining in our research funds. The lack of such support is hard on faculty morale. I do not want to spend time learning accounting. I want to do research and teach.”

IT/Tech Issues

• Ten faculty members expressed displeasure with network systems, including ConnectCarolina and TIM (the electronic timecard system). There is a sense that these systems are changed too often without appropriate testing or training and employ poorly designed user interfaces.

• One faculty member made the astute observation that there is no university support for writing computer programs that can be used to support teaching.

Hiring, Salary & Benefits

• Six respondents listed salary equity as a concern. Three of them were referencing the imbalance that can result from unfair use of the counter offer system, one expressed concern about gender inequities, and the fifth was referencing an issue specific to the Summer School.

• Three respondents registered concern with the hiring process and administrative rules that hinder flexibility. One specifically said: “the regulation that after an offer we can no longer entertain applications profoundly hampers our competitiveness.”

• Partner benefits were mentioned twice in this section.

Institutional Review Board & Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee • Six respondents reported frustration with the university’s IRB requirements. Specific

grievances included: o Requirement to contract with the UNC Hospital Pharmacy to conduct

behavioral pharmacology studies with human subjects. o Applicability of the application process to certain types of research in the

humanities and the social sciences. o One respondent asked why university budget staff only give credit to the

Principal Investigator on the IRB. • Four respondents listed the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)

and its requirements as a burdensome regulation that “obstructed” the research process.

Fixed-Term Faculty

• Five respondents expressed concern about the role of fixed-term faculty members that reflects an ongoing campus discussion about this issue coordinated by various stakeholders, including the faculty Committee on Fixed-Term Faculty. The comments

23

in the survey suggest that this is an area where our campus should continue to focus its attention. Excerpted responses include:

o “I am mostly concerned with the unfair labor practices that exist in having two separate pools of professional employees--contract vs. tenure track.”

o “I wish UNC would lead in this area instead of follow.” o “We teach the heaviest loads with courses with the most assignments without

any control over the syllabi and the rumors are that our teaching load is going to increase. Neither teaching load nor pay is equitable with other faculty, nor do the restrictions demonstrate respect/collegiality.”

• Three respondents mentioned the challenges of little to no job security or predictability as well as the paperwork burden related to being rehired each year.

Courses & Curriculum • Five faculty members expressed the sentiment that restrictions on the curriculum make

if difficult to plan courses while registrar restrictions make it difficult to add or remove courses.

• Two faculty members asked why they were required to inform the bookstore if they did not want to order books.

24

Appendix I: The Survey Question 1 of 8 1a: Since joining the faculty of UNC, have you ever seriously considered an offer to teach at another university? [Response: Yes/No] 1b: If you were to receive a financially competitive offer to teach at another university, which of the following would be compelling reasons keeping you at UNC? [Response: Check all that apply]

• A competitive counter-offer • Changes to your benefits package • Decreased departmental responsibilities • Opportunity to teach a special topic course • Additional TA assignments/resources • Increased opportunities for research sabbaticals • Increased opportunities for internal research funding (NC TraCS) • More time for personal research pursuits • More time with undergraduate students • More time with graduate students • Greater ability to move research products into a business spin-off/entrepreneurial

opportunity • Opportunity for my children to attend UNC-CH for free/ discounted tuition rate • On-campus child-care availability • Increased access to UNC-CH sporting events tickets (Basketball, Soccer, Football,

etc...) • Other (fill in the blank)

Question 2 of 8: Please rate your agreement with the following statements: [Response Scale: strongly agree, somewhat agree, neutral, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree]

• I value interactions with undergraduate students • I value interactions with graduate students • Interacting with students is important • My department values Student-Faculty interaction • The College of Arts & Sciences values Student-Faculty interaction

Question 3 of 8: Which of the following types of contact do you have with students outside of the classroom? [Response: Check all that apply]

• Faculty advisor to a student group. • Undergraduate Research Advisor (Honors Thesis or Independent Research) • Student mentor • Office hours • Meetings with Graduate student/post-doctoral trainees

25

• Community involvement activities (e.g: Habitat for Humanity, Dance Marathon, etc...) • Departmental functions (poster sessions, Undergraduate/Graduate student recruitment,

etc...) • None • Other (Open Response)

What level of time commitment is typically involved? [Response: Single Answer]

• Less than 2 hours per week • 2-4 hours per week • More than four hours per week

Question 4 of 8: Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements: [Response Scale: strongly agree, somewhat agree, neutral, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree]

• I have adequate time to meaningfully interact with Undergraduate Students • I have adequate time to meaningfully interact with Graduate Students • My department provides me with adequate resources to be an effective professor • My department provides me with adequate resources to be an effective researcher • My department values student-faculty interaction outside the classroom • My departmental responsibilities are over-burdening and prevent my ability to interact

with undergraduate/graduate students • I believe that most Undergraduates lack the training necessary to allow for in-depth

conversation on a specific lecture topic/subject • I have little interest in/do not value interacting with undergraduates outside of

lecture/office hours

Question 5 of 8: Are there other actions taken by peer institutions to retain faculty that you feel are absent from UNC? [Response: Yes/No/If yes, please specify via open response] Question 6 of 8: What are easy things that your department could do or has done to improve faculty satisfaction/climate? [Response: Open Response] Question 7 of 8: What are easy things that students could do that would improve faculty satisfaction/climate? [Response: Open Response] Question 8 of 8: The Academic Plan has convened a special committee tasked with identifying and addressing burdensome university regulations. Do you wish to suggest any areas, regulations, or requirements that the committee should investigate?

26

[Response: Optional Open Response] Demographic Questions: [Response: Single Answer] A: how many... Years with faculty

• Less than 5 • 5-10 • More than 10

B: In which division is your primary appointment within College of Arts and Sciences

• Fine Arts and Humanities • Social and Behavior Sciences • Natural Sciences and Mathematics

C: Gender Identity

• Male • Female • Other • Choose to leave blank

D: Rank

• Assistant Professor • Associate Professor • Full Professor • Distinguished Professor • Lecturer • Senior Lecturer • Master Lecturer

Thank You. Please use this space to leave additional thoughts. [Response: Optional Free Response]