VII. Faculty Voice on Campus
Topics in this section include 1) faculty perceptions of their ability to influence decision-making in their unit, 2) perceptions regarding characteristics of their unit head, including the extent to which he or she includes the faculty in decision-making, and finally 3) perceptions of the University Senate.
Influencing
One’s Unit (Q 20)
Click to view snapshot
results of (Q
20)
The survey included a series of questions regarding the influence faculty believed they have or could have upon their unit. A quarter or less believed that they have the ability to “somewhat” or “substantially” influence class sizes (15%), faculty course loads (19%), resource allocation (20%), and the annual merit pay increases they receive (25%). Although a clear minority felt they were unable to influence those decisions, 40% to 60% believed that they could influence the following: teaching schedules (40%), selection of the next unit head (50%), strategic planning (52%), the overall climate of their unit (60%), and the subjects that they teach (60%).
|
In addition, at least two thirds believed that they could influence the securing of the facilities or equipment that they need for their work (66%), unit curriculum decisions (71%), and the selection of new faculty members (74%) and graduate students (77%). (See Table 26) |
Click
on image to view larger. |
)
Differences by School
One’s perceived ability to influence teaching-related issues varies substantially by school, and a few patterns did emerge. Faculty in Science and Liberal Arts are the least likely to believe they could influence decisions regarding course loads (just 12% and 13% respectively), while faculty in Veterinary Medicine (33%) were the most likely to believe so. Influencing class sizes was perceived to be the most unlikely in Management and Engineering (just 3% and 7% respectively thought they could influence this in any significant way) and the most likely in Education and the Libraries (29% and 30% respectively).
Perceptions about the ability to influence one’s teaching schedule fall generally into two groups. Less than 30% of faculty in the following schools believe they could have “some” or “substantial” influence over this area: Veterinary Medicine (16%), Health Sciences (23%), Agriculture (23%), Engineering (25%), and Consumer and Family Sciences (27%). On the other hand, at least 60% of faculty in these schools believed they could influence their teaching schedules: Liberal Arts (60%), Management (66%), the Libraries (67%), and Education (74%).
Similar to the responses regarding determining one’s teaching schedule, faculty from Health Sciences (39%) and Veterinary Medicine (39%) were the least likely to believe they could influence what subjects they taught. Liberal Arts (69%), Library (69%), and Education (77%) faculty, on the other hand, were the most likely to believe they could influence this area as well.
The final question regarding teaching focused on the ability to influence unit curriculum decisions. Here again, faculty in Veterinary Medicine were the least likely to believe they could influence this area (61%), while fully 91% of faculty in Technology believed they could do so.
Compared to teaching-related issues, faculty across the schools share slightly more similar views regarding their ability to influence personnel decisions. Most schools hovered around the average of 74% who believed they could influence the selection of new faculty members. The noteworthy exceptions are CFS, where fully 83% believed they could influence this hiring decision, and Education, where only 60% believed they could do so. The ability to influence the selection of the next unit head did result in a much wider range of perceptions. Again, fewer than average Education faculty, along with those from Management and Veterinary Medicine, believed that they could influence this decision (31%, 36%, and 40% respectively). This stands in marked contrast to the Libraries (60%), Technology (62%), and CFS (74%), where a majority believed they could influence this decision.
Faculty again shared similar views concerning their ability to influence the selection of new graduate students, although Health Sciences faculty were less likely than average (63%) and Education faculty were more likely than average (89%) to perceive that they could influence these decisions.
Faculty in the Libraries were the most likely to believe they could influence both annual merit pay increases and resource allocation decisions (53% believe they could do so in each case). Conversely, Engineering faculty were the least likely to believe they could influence merit pay increases (16%) and Liberal Arts faculty were the least likely to believe they could influence resource allocation decisions (12%).
Finally, three other areas of influence were explored – strategic planning, securing facilities and equipment for one’s work, and affecting the overall climate of one’s unit. In terms of strategic planning, a higher than average percentage of Consumer and Family Sciences (71%) and Libraries faculty (73%) believed they influence these decisions, while fewer than average from Management (36%) believed they could do so. The perceived ability to secure facilities and equipment for their work was highest again among Library faculty (76%) as well as those in Agriculture (79%) and was lowest among those in Education (34%) and Liberal Arts (52%). In terms of the ability to affect the overall climate of one’s unit, Consumer and Family Sciences (83%), Library (82%) and Technology (70%) faculty perceived a higher than average ability to do so, while those in Management felt the least empowered to affect this area (48%).
Generally, Library faculty, as well as CFS faculty to a lesser extent, believe that they can influence these thirteen areas more than their colleagues in other schools. Management faculty, on the other hand, feel that they have less influence than average in several of these areas.
Differences by Rank
For each of these thirteen questions, assistant professors were the least likely and full professors were the most likely to believe they could influence the decision. Cases where the difference between these two ranks in their perceived ability to influence these decisions is at least fifteen percentage points include: the ability to influence curriculum decisions, the selection of the next unit head, the selection of new faculty members, strategic planning, the securing of facilities and equipment needed for their work, the overall climate of the unit, faculty course loads, and resource allocation.
Differences by Gender
On questions where differences between genders exist, females perceive that they could exert less influence than males in shaping the issue. However, recognizing that perceptions of influence are highly correlated with rank and that 53% of males are full professors compared to 22% of females, this finding is not necessarily meaningful. When responses are examined by gender, controlling for rank, one finds a somewhat different pattern. In terms of influencing unit curriculum decisions, selection of the next unit head, new faculty members, and new graduate students, and determining the subjects they will teach, assistant and associate female professors perceived less ability to influence these issues than their male counterparts. However, female full professors were more likely than male full professors to perceive that they have the ability to influence these decisions. With regard to the issue of influencing the securing of facilities/equipment for their work, females in all three ranks felt less influence than males and female assistant and associate professors felt less able to shape the overall climate than males. Finally, female assistant professors felt less able to influence resource allocation decisions than did males at this rank.
Overall then, females in the lower ranks perceive that they have less ability to influence many of these areas than do their male colleagues, but female full professors, in five areas, perceive that they have more ability to influence the decisions than do male full professors.
Differences by Race
Asian Americans feel less able to influence the following areas compared to underrepresented minorities and Caucasians: curricular decisions (66% vs. 77% of underrepresented minorities and 72% of Caucasians), annual merit pay increases (13% vs. 27% and 26% respectively), the selection of new faculty (68% vs. 76% and 75%), and strategic planning (38% vs. 59% and 53%). They, along with underrepresented minorities, also feel less able than Caucasians to influence their unit’s climate (45% of Asian Americans and 50% of underrepresented minorities vs. 60% of Caucasians).
Underrepresented minorities also feel less able to influence the securing of facilities and equipment for their work than do Asian Americans and Caucasians (62% vs. 71% and 66% respectively), but they feel more able to influence class sizes than their peers (29% vs. 20% and 14% respectively).
Finally, Caucasians are more likely than Asian Americans and underrepresented minorities to feel that they could influence the selection of their next unit head (51% vs. 40% for the other two groups) but less likely than the others to perceive an ability to influence their teaching schedule (39% vs. 47% of Asian Americans and 48% of underrepresented minorities) or the subjects that they teach (59% vs. 74% and 76% respectively).
Compared to gender differences, differences by race are not as easily explained by rank distributions, because Asian Americans and Caucasians have equal proportions at the full professor rank, and although underrepresented minorities are more likely to be assistant professors than individuals from the other two groups, they, for the most part, do not perceive that they have less influence than their colleagues with regard to these issues.
