Executive Summary
UTB Data Analysis
Faculty Satisfaction Survey
Rafael Otero, Senator from the School of Business, analyzed the UTB data provided by the UT System Faculty Advisory Council and presented his analysis to the Academic Senate at the December, 2003 meeting and to the faculty at the January 2004 meeting.
Dr. Otero divided the analysis into two parts. The first part analyzed responses that addressed UTB as an institution and compared UTB with other component institutions and the UT System as a whole. The second part analyzed responses to selected questions and compared those responses across the colleges and schools within UTB.
UTB as an
Institution
Section 3 of the survey asked faculty to respond to activities that faculty and the institution value. Comparisons to the Master’s 1 institutions and the UT System overall are provided when the UTB scores are much different*. In rank order, these activities were most valued by UTB faculty who responded to the survey:
1.
Teaching undergraduates (ranked higher*)
2.
Teaching graduates
3.
Professional growth
4.
Unpaid professional service (ranked higher*)
5.
Research/scholarship (ranked lower*)
When faculty perceptions of valued activities were compared to their perceptions of institutional valued activities, faculty perceived professional growth and unpaid professional service as more valuable than the institution valued them.
Section 4 asked faculty to rank their satisfaction with academic life. In rank order, these are the top five areas of satisfaction:
1. Autonomy in teaching (ranked lower*)
2. Autonomy in research (ranked lower*)
3. Intellectual stimulation from teaching undergraduates (ranked higher*)
4. Quality of leadership at UTB (ranked much higher*)
5. Importance of teaching placed by college/school (ranked higher*)
Faculty were least satisfied with release time for externally funded projects
followed by policies for graduate research assistants. Both areas were rated
much lower than the Master’s 1 institutions and the UT System overall. There
were very large differences in perceptions between how important an aspect of
academic life was to faculty and their satisfaction with that aspect in these
three areas:
1. My salary
2.
3. Release time for externally funded projects
Section 5 asked faculty to agree or disagree with aspects related to the university work environment. In rank order, these are the top five areas of most agreement:
1. Salary compression is a problem at UTB (ranked higher*)
2. Diversity of student body is important to educational process (ranked higher*)
3. Women are sufficiently represented in senior administrative positions (ranked much higher*)
4. If I had to do it over again, I will still accept a faculty position at UTB (ranked higher*)
5. Women are sufficiently represented in senior faculty positions. (ranked higher*)
Section 6 asked faculty to rank their satisfaction with internal resources for the university. Faculty were not satisfied with any of the items in the survey, which included assistants, funds, space, staff support, equipment and supplies. In rank order, these are the top five areas of most dissatisfaction:
1.
Graduate students to assist in research (ranked much lower*)
2. Teaching assistants (ranked lower*)
3. Institutional funds for research projects (ranked lower*)
4. Lab and research work spaces (ranked much lower*)
5. Institutional funds for research, conferences, and professional meetings (ranked lower*)
*
Comparisons to the Master’s 1 institutions and the UT System overall
Questions from sections 4 (Academic Life) and 5 (Work
Environment) of the Faculty Satisfaction Survey were selected for analysis. The
average for each selected question was computed by college or school and then
compared to the other colleges and schools. Differences among the colleges and schools
showed the
1. Satisfied with value given to teaching by UTB
a. Highest: Business
b. Lowest: Liberal Arts
2. Satisfied with importance my college/school places on teaching
a. Highest: Liberal Arts
b. Lowest: Business
3. Satisfied with value given to research by UTB
a. Highest: Health
b. Lowest: Liberal Arts & Education
4. Satisfied with value given to my research by my college/school
a. Highest: Liberal Arts
b. Lowest: Health
5. Satisfied with effectiveness of faculty governance
a. Highest: Education
b. Lowest: Business
6. Satisfied with fair treatment of female faculty at UTB
a. Highest: Education
b. Lowest: Business
7. Satisfied with fair treatment of racial/ethnic/minority faculty at UTB
a. Highest: Education
b. Lowest: Business
8. Satisfied with quality of college/school leadership
a. Highest: Education
b. Lowest: Business
9. Satisfied with quality of institutional level leadership
a. Highest: Education, Math, Science, Engr, & Liberal Arts
b. Lowest: Business
10. Satisfied with annual review of my job performance
a. Highest: Education
b. Lowest: Business
11. Annual reviews improve teaching and productivity of faculty
a. Highest: Education
b. Lowest: Business & Science, Math, Tech
12. Satisfied with opportunity for advancement in academic rank
a. Highest: Health
b. Lowest: Science, Math, Engr
13. Satisfied with my salary
a. All colleges & schools had low satisfaction average scores.
b. Highest: Health
c. Lowest: Science, Math, Engr
14. Satisfied with process for merit and salary adjustments
a. Highest: Health
b. Lowest: Education
15. Ethnic/racial discrimination is a problem in my college/school
a. All colleges & schools had low agreement average scores.
b. Highest: Business
c. Lowest: Liberal Arts
16. If I had to do it again, I would still accept a faculty position at UTB
a. Highest: Health
b. Lowest: Science, Math, Engr
Notes on the Data Analysis
SPSS was used to calculate the mean for each question in
the Faculty Satisfaction Survey. Standard SPSS procedures were used to prepare
the data for analysis. Missing values were assigned to question answers “does
not apply to me” and “don’t know” so the numbers corresponding to these choices
did not influence the averages. This analysis excluded all those holding
administrative positions of department chair and above so as to provide a
clearer picture of faculty concerns. The college or school choices were
adjusted to reflect UTB/TSC. Arts, humanities and social sciences were combined
to represent the
For UTB as an Institution:
After the averages were computed for each question, the questions that had mid-range values were eliminated. The remaining questions had values either in the high or low ranges. In section 3 the range was from 1 (valued not at all) to 4 (valued a great deal), thus questions with averages below 2 and above 3 were examined. In sections 4, 5, and 6, the values ranged from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly), thus questions with averages below 3 and above 5 were examined.
For
Specific questions were selected for comparison among the colleges and schools. The questions selected reflected specific campus concerns such as campus values, leadership, performance reviews, promotion, resources, and discrimination.
Respectfully submitted,
Ethel K. Cantu
President, Academic Senate