INTRODUCTION
The William & Mary Faculty Survey, conducted by the Faculty Assembly approximately every three years, evaluates faculty attitudes and perceptions on various issues To improve data quality and reporting efficiency, the survey length was reduced for the 2015 iteration Key questions were chosen to provide timely insights on current campus issues, unique information not available elsewhere, and longitudinal data to identify trends over time Notably, this survey excluded climate-related questions, as these were addressed in a separate 2015 survey by Human Resources The results of the survey are accessible online Special thanks are extended to Professors Ron Rapoport, Megan Tschannen-Moran, Carl Hershner, and Cathy Forestell for their contributions to survey design, data analysis, and report writing, as well as to Professors Eric Chason and Christy Porter for their valuable feedback.
RESPONSE RATES
The 2015 Survey, conducted from November 16, 2015, to February 15, 2016, engaged 758 faculty members at William & Mary, with 318 responses received (123 females, 169 males, and 26 unspecified) Among the 317 respondents who disclosed their faculty status, 80% were Tenure-Eligible (TE) and 20% were Non-Tenure-Eligible (NTE) Table 1 illustrates the response rates of faculty across various academic areas and schools, revealing a range from 29% in the School of Marine Science/VIMS to 52% in the Arts.
In the 2015 faculty survey, response rates decreased across all areas and schools, except for the Law School, which experienced a modest increase from 38% in 2013 to 45% in 2015.
1 Because not every individual answered every question, the total number of respondents varies from one survey item to the next
In this report, "NTE" refers to all surveyed faculty members who do not hold a tenure position, while "TE" includes those eligible for tenure, regardless of their current status Although some data is available specifically for TE faculty, most information encompasses both faculty groups.
This report focuses on the College's schools, which include the Arts & Sciences, the Mason School of Business, the School of Education, the Law School, and the School of Marine Science/VIMS, covering diverse academic disciplines.
Sciences; Humanities (Area I), Social Sciences (Area II) and Natural Sciences (Area III)
Table 1 TE Response Rate for each Academic Area
School of Marine Science/ VIMS 29% 42% 49% 54% 48%
Note: Three people did not indicate their academic area or school
Table 2 illustrates the distribution of total Teaching Engagement (TE) and Non-Teaching Engagement (NTE) Survey responses across various academic areas Notably, the Arts & Sciences faculty contributed the majority of responses, accounting for 76% of TE and 60% of NTE Survey inputs.
Table 2 TE and NTE Percentage of Survey Respondents Originating from each Academic Area 4
Academic Area TE NTE TOTAL
School of Marine Sciences/ VIMS 6% 14 5% 3 5% 17
Note – One person from A&S Humanities did not indicate their status and 3 people (1TE and 2
NTEs) did not indicate their area or school
When analyzing survey results by academic area and status, the number of respondents may be limited, especially in professional schools, leading to each response representing multiple percentage points Due to these small sample sizes, results will not be reported separately.
In this report, we will analyze the responses from TE and NTE faculty, presenting both the actual number of responses and their corresponding percentages to offer a clearer perspective and context for the findings.
5 In some tables, not all percentages add up to 100% because of rounding
As in 2013, the percentages of respondents by academic rank reflect the percentages of the general
TE and NTE faculty at the College in each rank (Table 3 TE and Table 3 NTE)
2015 TE Faculty Survey Respondents by Academic Rank
2015 NTE Faculty Survey Respondents by Academic Rank and Category
Appointment Category Academic Rank Percentage n
Note: 2 people did not indicate their rank.
GENERAL SATISFACTION
The Survey assessed faculty satisfaction with their overall positions at the College and evaluated ten specific aspects of their employment Faculty members were given response options ranging from "very satisfied" to express their levels of contentment throughout the survey.
"satisfied," "neither satisfied nor dissatisfied", “dissatisfied”, and "very dissatisfied." 6
A OVERALL JOB SATISFACTION a Job satisfaction compared to previous surveys
Table 4 presents the results of the 2015 faculty satisfaction survey at the College, alongside historical data from surveys conducted between 1999 and 2013 The findings reveal that 74% of Tenured Faculty (TE) and 77% of Non-Tenured Faculty (NTE) reported being "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with their positions, reflecting an increase from 66% of TE and 68% of NTE in 2013.
6 In all tables “very satisfied” is combined with “satisfied” and “very dissatisfied” is combined with “dissatisfied.”
In the 2015 Faculty Survey, conducted in September 2016, it was noted that the satisfaction levels among NTE faculty were either very or moderately high, although these levels were somewhat lower compared to previous years, particularly for TE faculty from 2009 and earlier The survey also provided insights into overall job satisfaction categorized by academic rank.
Survey results indicated that a significant majority of TE faculty reported high levels of job satisfaction, with over two-thirds of respondents at each academic rank expressing they were "very satisfied" or "satisfied." Specifically, Full Professors demonstrated the highest satisfaction rate at 80%, while Assistant Professors showed the lowest at 67% In contrast, data for NTE faculty, categorized into Continuing and Specified-term appointments, revealed that more than 75% of NTEs also reported being "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with their positions at the College.
Table 5 TE Overall Satisfaction by Rank
On the whole, how satisfied are you with your position at the College?
Academic Rank Very Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied
7 Percentages for 2015 do not add up to 100 because 12% of TE and 10% of NTE faculty indicated that they were
“Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” with their position at the College
Table 4 TE and NTE Job Satisfaction Levels Over Time
On the whole, how satisfied are you with your position at the College?
Table 6 NTE Overall Satisfaction by Appointment Category
On the whole, how satisfied are you with your position at the College?
Academic Category Very Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very
Total 34% 43% 8% 13% 2% c Overall Job Satisfaction of Faculty by Academic School or Area
A comparative analysis of faculty responses from TE and NTE across various academic Schools and Areas revealed notable satisfaction levels Specifically, a significant majority of faculty in the Business School (82%), Law School (86%), and VIMS (82%) expressed satisfaction with their positions In contrast, only 69% of faculty in A&S Area I and III reported being very satisfied or satisfied with their roles.
Table 6 Overall Satisfaction by Academic School or Area
On the whole, how satisfied are you with your position at the College?
Satisfied Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very
Arts and Sciences Area I (Humanities) 15% 54% 9% 17% 5%
Arts and Sciences Area II (Social Sciences) 26% 51% 16% 7% 0%
Arts and Sciences Area III
School of Marine Science/VIMS 29% 53% 6% 12% 0%
B JOB SATISFACTION—TEN SELECTED ASPECTS OF EMPLOYMENT
The Survey aimed to assess faculty job satisfaction by evaluating their contentment with ten specific aspects of their work at the College Faculty members rated their satisfaction on a scale ranging from "very satisfied" to "very dissatisfied," with options for neutrality and non-applicability For analysis, responses were grouped into two categories: "Satisfied," combining those who were "very satisfied" or "satisfied," and "Dissatisfied," which included those who were "dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied." Due to the limited number of Non-Tenure-Eligible (NTE) faculty, their responses were merged with Tenure-Eligible (TE) data for most analyses, except regarding salary Faculty who found a question not applicable were excluded from the corresponding analyses.
Faculty satisfaction with internal summer research grants varied significantly across different departments Marine Science/VIMS exhibited a high level of dissatisfaction, while faculty in Areas I and II of Arts & Sciences were generally dissatisfied Conversely, faculty from the Education, Law, and Business schools reported strong satisfaction with both the availability of and support from these grants Notably, compared to 2013, satisfaction levels among faculty in the Education, Business, and Law schools have improved regarding the availability and support of internal summer research grants.
Figure 1 Job Satisfaction: Availability (number) of Internal Summer Research Grants for Faculty
A&S I A&S II A&S III EDU BUS LAW VIMS
Job Satisfaction: Level of Support for Internal Summer Research Grants for Faculty b Travel Support for Research Presentations at Conferences
A recent survey revealed significant dissatisfaction among faculty regarding travel support for research presentations at conferences, particularly within the School of Marine Sciences/VIMS, where only 14% expressed satisfaction compared to 57% who were dissatisfied Similarly, faculty in Area III of A&S showed a notable gap, with 26% satisfied and 42% dissatisfied In contrast, faculty from other schools and areas exhibited a more balanced distribution of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
A&S I A&S II A&S III EDUC BUS LAW VIMS
Figure 3 Job Satisfaction: Travel Support for Research Presentations at Conferences c Support for Teaching
The survey results indicate that faculty generally express satisfaction with the support provided for teaching and the development of their teaching skills However, faculty in the Marine Sciences/VIMS report lower satisfaction levels, with half indicating neutrality regarding their teaching support These findings align with the 2013 survey data, but a notable improvement in satisfaction is observed in the School of Business, where faculty reported greater support for teaching in 2015 compared to 2013.
Figure 4 Job Satisfaction: Support for Teaching (Faculty Development)
A&S I A&S II A&S III EDU BUS LAW VIMS
A&S I A&S II A&S III EDU BUS LAW VIMS
2015 Faculty Survey September 2016 page 11 d Classroom Space Appropriate for Teaching Needs
The fifth question assessed faculty satisfaction regarding the availability of suitable classroom space, revealing significant disparities across different areas and schools Faculty in the Arts and Sciences (A&S) are nearly evenly divided in their satisfaction levels, while the Schools of Education, Business, Law, and Marine Sciences/VIMS report high satisfaction rates, particularly in Education (100%) and Business (96%), both located in new facilities The dissatisfaction among A&S faculty likely stems from aging infrastructure and insufficient classroom availability on the main campus Notably, the Law School experienced a rise in satisfaction from 45% in 2013 to 76% in 2015, aligning more closely with its 2009 satisfaction rate of 88%.
Figure 5 Job Satisfaction: Classroom Space Appropriate for Teaching Needs e Secretarial/Office Support
Faculty across all Schools and Areas expressed overall satisfaction with the secretarial and office support provided, as indicated in Figure 6 In 2013, most faculty reported being more satisfied than dissatisfied with their office support, although this was not the case for TE faculty from the Business and Law schools Specifically, only 34% of Business faculty were satisfied, while 47% reported dissatisfaction, and in the Law school, satisfaction was at 36% compared to 45% who were dissatisfied.
2013 In 2015, TE and NTE faculty are more satisfied in the Business school (65%) and the Law School (70%)
A&S I A&S II A&S III EDU BUS LAW VIMS
Figure 6 Job Satisfaction: Secretarial/Office Support f Support for Spouses/Partners of Faculty Members
In a comparison of faculty satisfaction regarding support for spouses/partners between 2015 and 2013, responses showed less polarization in 2015 Notably, 26% of faculty found the question inapplicable, while nearly one-third expressed neutrality, stating they were "neither satisfied nor dissatisfied" with the support offered As illustrated in Figure 7, around one-third of faculty across various schools reported dissatisfaction with the support for their spouses/partners, whereas fewer than 25% expressed satisfaction.
Figure 7 Job Satisfaction: Support for Spouses/Partners of Faculty Members
A&S I A&S II A&S III EDU BUS LAW VIMS
A&S I A&S II A&S III EDU BUS LAW VIMS
2015 Faculty Survey September 2016 page 13 g Support for Faculty who are Caregivers
In a survey, 40% of faculty reported that the question regarding satisfaction with support for caregivers was not applicable to them Additionally, one-third of the faculty expressed indifference toward the support provided, highlighting a lack of engagement with this issue.
A significant portion of faculty members expressed neutrality regarding the support provided for caregivers among faculty, with responses evenly split between satisfaction and dissatisfaction Notably, the Education School exhibited the largest disparity in these sentiments, with 30% of respondents satisfied and only 4% dissatisfied with the support available for faculty caregivers.
Figure 8 Job Satisfaction: Support for Faculty who are Caregivers h Faculty Salaries in General
In this section, two key questions regarding salary were posed The first question focused on the overall satisfaction of respondents with the salaries at the College, while the second question, which will be explored in the following section, addressed respondents' satisfaction with their individual salaries.
Strong dissatisfaction characterized responses to the question about salaries in general in both 2009 and
RESEARCH AND GRANT SUPPORT
The survey section examined faculty members' grant support received in the past three years and their satisfaction with campus services in identifying funding sources and managing grants.
A Types of External Research Grants Awarded
Out of 316 faculty members surveyed, 191 reported receiving at least one grant from government, business/industry, or foundations in the past three years Notably, faculty in A&S Humanities excel in securing foundation grants, while a greater percentage of A&S Natural Science and Education faculty have received government grants Additionally, a substantial number of respondents from the School of Marine Sciences/VIMS reported obtaining both government and foundation grants, with a significant portion of their funding sourced from business and industry.
Table 12 Research Grants grouped by Area or School Academic Area
Have you received funding for your work from the following agencies?
Government Business/Industry Foundation Total
School of Marine Sciences/ VIMS 94 16 41 7 71 12 17
B Satisfaction with Support received from Administrative Offices in Managing External
A total of 191 respondents reported receiving at least one grant in the past three years and were asked about their satisfaction with the support from the Office of Sponsored Projects, Human Resources, and Accounts Payable in managing their grants Table 13 presents the responses categorized by areas and schools for faculty who collaborated with these offices However, due to the limited number of respondents from the School of Law and the School of Business, their results are challenging to interpret.
The level of satisfaction with the Office of Sponsored Projects (OSP) varies significantly among different schools, with the School of Marine Sciences/VIMS (65%), A&S Natural Sciences (48%), and A&S Social Sciences (49%) showing relative satisfaction, while the professional schools express notable dissatisfaction However, due to the limited number of faculty from professional schools engaging with OSP, these findings should be approached with caution.
Satisfaction levels for Human Resources were notably low, with less than 20% of faculty in the Areas of A&S and the School of Marine Sciences/VIMS expressing contentment More than half of the faculty reported dissatisfaction with the office's support in managing grants, indicating a significant need for improvement in this area.
A recent survey on Accounts Payable revealed that respondents generally express more dissatisfaction than satisfaction with the support provided by this office Notably, the School of Marine Sciences/VIMS stands out, with 41% of participants reporting satisfaction While some respondents from the Law School also indicated satisfaction, the small sample size limits the reliability of these results.
Table 13 Research and Grant Support: Satisfaction with Administrative Support provided for Grants grouped by Area or School
In the past 3 years, how satisfied have you been with the support you have received from the following offices in preparing and managing your grants?
The Office of Sponsored Projects
School of Marine Sciences/ VIMS
School of Marine Sciences/ VIMS
School of Marine Sciences/ VIMS 41% 35% 12% 17
COLLEGE GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
Table 14 presents a comparison of faculty satisfaction with central administration between 2013 and 2015, highlighting a decline in satisfaction levels Notably, there is a new focus on support for graduate and professional programs in the 2015 survey Overall, faculty reported decreased satisfaction regarding the establishment of budget priorities compared to 2013.
In 2013, satisfaction rates regarding teaching effectiveness (TE) and non-teaching effectiveness (NTE) were 32% and 32%, respectively By 2015, these rates declined to 22% for TE and slightly improved to 24% for NTE Communication with faculty saw a decrease in satisfaction from 49% for TE and 48% for NTE in 2013 to 40% for TE and a significant drop to 24% for NTE in 2015 Additionally, faculty involvement in administrative searches reflected a satisfaction rate of 52% for TE and 40% for NTE in 2013.
Between 2013 and 2015, faculty satisfaction regarding compensation and salary significantly improved, with satisfaction among tenured faculty (TE) rising from 25% to 51% and non-tenured faculty (NTE) increasing from 18% to 29% This positive trend is likely linked to the administration's implementation of the William & Mary Promise, which led to salary increases during this period Additionally, support for teaching also saw an uptick, particularly for NTEs, whose satisfaction jumped from 39% in 2013 to 62% in 2015.
A comparison of faculty responses from TE and NTE in the 2015 survey showed similar satisfaction levels regarding the central administration's representation of the College (NTE 36% vs TE 38%) and support for teaching (NTE 60% vs TE 62%) Both groups also reflected comparable satisfaction in establishing budget priorities (NTE 24% vs TE 22%) and shared governance roles (NTE 36% vs TE 37%) However, while satisfaction with research support was equal (NTE 29% vs TE 29%), TE faculty reported higher dissatisfaction (NTE 17% vs TE 41%) NTE faculty were more satisfied with the administration's consultation on policy (NTE 34% vs TE 26%) and support for graduate programs (NTE 32% vs TE 24%) In contrast, fewer NTE faculty expressed satisfaction in most areas, particularly in faculty compensation (NTE 29% vs TE 51%) Regarding communication, NTE faculty reported lower satisfaction (NTE 24% vs TE 40%), yet fewer NTE faculty expressed dissatisfaction (NTE 29% vs TE 34%).
Table 14 NTE & TE Satisfaction with the Record (over the past three years) of the
How satisfied are you with the record of the Central administration in the following areas:
Satisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Representation to External
Support for graduate and professional programs 32% 14% 24% 26%
Support for Faculty Role in
Nearly half of the faculty expressed satisfaction with the central administration, with 51% of non-tenure eligible (NTE) faculty reporting satisfaction compared to their tenure-eligible (TE) counterparts.
42%) In Figure 11, rates of satisfaction are depicted for each Area and School While the faculty in
Faculty satisfaction with administration varies across departments, with A&S showing a near equal split between satisfaction and dissatisfaction In contrast, the Education School and School of Marine Sciences/VIMS demonstrate a higher level of satisfaction, while the Business and Law schools report strong approval of the administration.
This section examined faculty perceptions of fairness in the merit evaluation process within their department or school, as well as the clarity of performance standards for tenure and promotion Faculty members had the option to respond with "strongly agree" or "agree."
In the analysis, responses were categorized into groups: "strongly agree" and "agree" were combined, as were "strongly disagree" and "disagree." The following graphs present combined data from NTE and TE responses, while the accompanying tables differentiate faculty by rank for TE faculty and by appointment category for NTE faculty.
While most faculty members express satisfaction with the merit evaluation process, notable exceptions exist Specifically, Area I reports lower satisfaction levels compared to other areas and schools In the Law School, only 28% of faculty believe they were fairly evaluated, contrasting sharply with the 48% who disagree with this assessment.
A&S I A&S II A&S III EDU BUS LAW VIMS
Figure 13 Faculty Evaluation: Fair Evaluation during the Merit Process
B Performance Standards Clear for Tenure
Faculty members largely concurred that the performance standards for tenure were clearly defined, with a strong consensus among those in the Business School and the School for Marine.
In a comparison of faculty perspectives, a greater percentage from the Education School (45%) agreed that performance standards for tenure were clear, while only 27% disagreed In contrast, the Law School faculty showed a different trend, with only 33% agreeing and 48% disagreeing with the clarity of tenure performance standards.
Figure 14 Faculty Evaluation: Performance Standards Clear for Tenure
A&S I A&S II A&S III EDU BUS LAW VIMS
A&S I A&S II A&S III EDU BUS LAW VIMS
C Performance Standards are Clear for Promotion
Faculty opinions on performance standards for promotion were generally positive, with a notable agreement on clarity In the School of Education, responses were nearly evenly split, with 43% in agreement and 35% in disagreement Conversely, the Law School showed a significant majority of faculty dissent, with 62% disagreeing and only 28% agreeing with the clarity of the performance standards.
Figure 15 Faculty Evaluation: Performance Standards Clear for Promotion
D Faculty Evaluation: Responses grouped by Academic Rank and Appointment Category
A majority of faculty express satisfaction with the merit evaluation process; however, 20%-33% report dissatisfaction Among tenure-eligible faculty, while over half agree that performance standards for tenure are clear, Assistant Professors (56%) show less agreement compared to Associate (67%) and Full Professors (72%) Notably, about a quarter of tenure-eligible professors find these standards unclear Regarding promotion standards, only 58% of Associate Professors agree they are clear, contrasted with 70% of Full Professors, and over a quarter of Associate Professors also feel these standards lack clarity Specified-term non-tenure eligible (NTE) faculty are less certain, with many unsure due to their short-term plans at William & Mary Overall, less than half of NTE professors believe the promotion standards are clear, and nearly half of continuing NTEs find them unclear.
A&S I A&S II A&S III EDU BUS LAW VIMS
Table 15 NTE & TE Faculty Evaluation grouped by Academic Rank or Appointment Category
Performance Standards are clear for Tenure
Performance Standards are clear for Promotion
Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree
E Faculty Evaluation: Responses Grouped by Gender
A study assessing faculty perceptions of merit evaluations, tenure, and promotion standards revealed minimal gender differences between female (n = 123) and male (n = 168) respondents Approximately 60% of both genders felt they were fairly evaluated in the merit process While a higher percentage of males agreed that tenure performance standards were clear, similar proportions of both genders acknowledged clarity in promotion standards Notably, despite comparable levels of agreement, a greater number of females expressed disagreement regarding the fairness of merit evaluations and the clarity of performance standards.
Table 16 Faculty Evaluation grouped by Gender
Performance Standards are clear for Tenure
Performance Standards are clear for Promotion
Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree