2020-February-CU-BOT-Academic-Mission-Committee-presentation-faculty-data-and-climate

Ac a d e m ic Mis s io n Co m m it t e e Fe b ru a ry 20 20 AGENDA 9:45-9:50 Call to order and approval of minutes 9:50-10:05 Faculty climate is s ues 10:05-10:55 Overview of faculty s ucces s , turnover, s upport, and alliance/ partners hip impacts on thes e items 10:55-11:15 Executive s es s ion A s u m m a ry o f t h e 20 19 Clim a t e Su rve y – Fa c u lt y Re s p o n s e s ~ 157 Faculty respondents – tenure stream and non-tenure stream Question # (%) respondents agree/strongly agree Question # (%) respondents agree/strongly agree Had observed unfair/unjust promotion or tenure practices 22 (14%) More women than men observed Salary determinations are clear and fair 70 disagreed/strongly disagreed Diversity is valued Faculty of color disagreed and responded they felt scrutinized by majority peers Feel encouraged to have open/fair dialog on difficult topics 58 (38%) agreed/strongly agreed’ 47 (30%) were neutral Felt tenure process is clear 68 (45%) Felt /tenure promotion standards are applied equally within career rank 46 (30%) Felt tenure/promotion process is clear 56 (38%) Felt their scholarship was valued 92 (54%) Men felt more valued than women Felt valued by senior administration 73 (47%) agreed/strongly agreed, 54 (35%) were neutral Felt their teaching was valued 107 (45%) agreed/strongly agreed Two themes emerged from comments: Lack of support for faculty with children and opaque standards and expectations A s u m m a ry o f t h e 20 19 Clim a t e Su rve y – Fa c u lt y Re s p o n s e s ~ 157 Faculty respondents – tenure stream and non-tenure stream • 65 (41%) of faculty respondents said they had seriously considered leaving Clarkson Top 10 reasons those faculty who responded that they had seriously considered leaving the University (multiple selections possible) Reason # respondents (% of responses) Reason # respondents (% of responses) Departmental relationships 31 (47.7%) Campus climate 25 (38.5%) Lack of institutional resources 24 (36.9%) Limited opportunities for advancement 17 (26.2%) Recruited or offered a position elsewhere 17 (26.2%) Financial reasons 16 (24.6%) Interested in a position elsewhere 16 (24.6%) Stress 14 (21.5%) Relationship with direct supervisor/manager 11 (16.9%) Weather (13.8%) Reasons for staying included financial, familial, positive changes in work place dynamics, and good relationships in unit/with students This presentation focuses on the tenure stream faculty at Clarkson University with discussion of four key questions regarding faculty success How we ensure success of our diverse faculty? What are the root causes of faculty turnover? How we define, support, and merit faculty success? How does an alliance with another institution impact the academic mission? Februa ry 2020 How we ensure success of our diverse faculty? Assistant Professor Full Professor Associate Professor 50 40 Data for female – and under-represented minority (URM) faculty 30 20 10 -1 AY 18 -1 AY 17 -1 AY 16 -1 AY 15 -1 AY 14 -1 AY 13 AY 12 -1 Hiring, promotion, and retention polices and procedures and recent interventions to support faculty achievement Critical questions for discussion - are our policies and processes aligned to recruit and retain diverse talent? - what are some drivers of lack of representation of diverse faculty Female -identified faculty representation varies by rank at Clarkson and at AITU peers Full Professor 50 All Tenure Stream Faculty 40 60 Female Tenure Stream Faculty 30 40 20 20 10 -1 AY 18 -1 AY 17 -1 AY 16 -1 AY 15 -1 AY 14 AY 13 -1 AY 18 -1 AY 17 -1 AY 16 -1 AY 15 -1 AY 14 -1 AY 13 -1 AY 12 -1 0 -1 80 Associate Professor AY 12 Number of Faculty at Rank Assistant Professor Median % Female Asst Professor Median % Female Assoc Professors Median % Female Full Professors Clarkson University 37% 27% 16% Worcester Poly Institute 32% 34% 17% Rensselaer Poly Institute 32% 34% 15% Institution Declining representation of female -identified faculty at higher ranks suggests ‘stalling’ or departures of these faculty indicating a potential policy, procedure, or cultural barrier to success February 2020 Minority faculty representation varies by rank at Clarkson and at AITU peers 59 61 65 60 58 50 40 30 20 10 25 122 125 117 130 133 128 Clarkson University- Tenured 20 15 10 AY 12 AY 13 13 AY 14 14 AY 15 15 AY 16 16 AY 17 17 AY 18 18 -1 AY 12 AY 13 13 AY 14 14 AY 15 15 AY 16 16 AY 17 17 AY 18 18 -1 Percent in Category Clarkson University- On Track (pre-tenure) total in rank = 118 Percent in Category total in rank = 52 49 60 Non-Resident URM Asian Unknown ON TRACK FACULTY Clarkson URM Median, 8% WPI URM Median, 6% RPI URM Median, 4% TENURED FACULTY Clarkson URM Faculty Median, 16% WPI URM Median, 22% RPI URM Median, 16% Clarkson University similar in diversity to AITU peers with less than 10% under-represented minority faculty Similar to female -identified faculty, ethnic/racial diversity is lost at higher ranks February 2020 A culture of inclusion and continuous process improvement enhances diversity and success of all faculty Hiring Past Practice Not following best practices February 2020 Onboarding Being ready for the offer Promotion Clarity and Equity in Review Policies Retention Retention planning and policies Faculty Achievement programs and support Salary and start-up are just part of the story Discussion Critical questions for discussion - are our policies and processes aligned to recruit and retain diverse talent? - what are some drivers of lack of representation of diverse faculty? February 2020 10 What are the root causes of faculty turnover? Data for Pre- and Post-Tenure faculty turnover by School Drivers of turnover and national/peer trends and connection to teaching, research, and service expectations and support Critical questions for discussion - how our review and workload policies support retention? - faculty have what they need to be successful? Turnover of On Track faculty includes persistence of existing faculty, addition of new faculty, and loss of existing faculty # Add/Loss On Track Asian # Add/Loss On Track Non-Resident # Add/Loss On Track Female-Identified # Add/Loss On Track URM Institution Median Annual % Change in On Track Faculty Median Annual % Change in On Track FemaleIdentified Faculty Median Annual % Change in On Track URM Faculty Median Annual % Change in On Track Asian Faculty Median Annual % Change in On Track NonResident Faculty Clarkson University + 0.03% + 10% - 23% + 25% +5% WPI +1% 0% 0% 0% 0% RPI +1% -1% 0% 0% 0% % change in faculty Total # faculty added/lost compared to prior year +4 -5 -2 On Track Faculty at Clarkson University 25 20 0 -5 -5 -10 -10 -1 AY 18 -1 AY 17 -1 AY 16 -1 AY 15 -1 AY 14 AY 13 -1 February 2020 10 10 15 15 Gain +2 # of faculty in category 20 + 10 Loss % change in # Faculty from previous year 25 -3 Low total # of faculty in loss/gain category drives higher % of turnover values Turnover driven by voluntary and involuntary separation from the institution Loss of non-resident faculty largely driven by the conversion of residency to U.S 12 While drivers of faculty separation from the University vary, some common themes exist Example Faculty Loss Drivers February 2020 13 Involuntary separations are rare Campus climate and workplace culture have an influence on faculty considering leaving the institution Between AY 11-12 and AY17-18 there were tenure denials, deaths, and 11 retirements Between AY11-12 and AY17-18 39 pre-tenure and 15 tenured faculty voluntarily left Clarkson • • Reh School Lewis School Pre-Tenure Voluntary Departures # Faculty 2.5 Tenured Voluntary Departures 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 -1 AY 17 -1 AY 16 -1 AY 15 -1 AY 14 -1 AY 13 -1 AY 12 -1 AY 11 -1 AY 17 -1 AY 16 -1 AY 15 -1 AY 14 -1 AY 13 -1 AY 12 -1 AY 11 0.0 # Faculty School of Arts & Sciences Coulter School The 2019 climate survey revealed campus climate and departmental relationships were major drivers of explorations to leave Clarkson February 2020 14 Limited data suggest reasons for leaving are complex but, in some cases, identifiable Worcester Polytechnic Institute Clarkson University 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 180000 Mean Salary at Rank in U.S Dollars RIO & Targeted Assoc Hires February 2020 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 18 19 AY 18 - AY 17 - 16 17 AY 16 - AY 15 - 14 15 AY 14 - AY 13 - 13 18 17 16 15 14 19 AY 18 - AY 17 - AY 16 - AY 15 - AY 14 - AY 13 - 13 AY 12 - All Full Prof Non-Religious, PhD-granting, Private Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 180000 Mean Salary at Rank in U.S Dollars 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 19 AY 18 - 18 AY 17 - 17 AY 16 - 16 AY 15 - 15 AY 14 - 14 AY 13 - AY 12 - 18 19 AY 18 - 17 16 15 AY 17 - AY 16 - AY 15 - AY 14 - 14 AY 13 - 13 13 0 AY 12 - Mean Salary at Rank in U.S Dollars At Clarkson: Some salary differences can also be accounted for by number at rank within a relatively higher paid discipline (e.g., business) compared to a lower paid discipline (e.g., humanities) 140000 All Assoc Prof All Asst Prof 180000 No gender differences were found within the aggregate data 160000 0 AY 12 - Between Institutions: There are significant differences (p < 0.05) in salaries between institutions with these differences including variance in number of individuals and differences in seniority within rank Mean Salary at Rank in U.S Dollars 180000 15 Support for faculty effort is crucial to recruiting and retaining excellent faculty Support for research includes not only start-up but internal financial and staff support and training Teaching support includes technologies as well as training Support for service includes community-engagement support and support for professional activities School Rank Average (2018-2019) Coulter School Assistant Professor $232,000 +/- $59,093 Coulter School Full Professor $466,667 +/- $57,735 Reh School Assistant Professor $35,000 +/- $21,213 Reh School Full Professor $25,000 (+ endowment funds) Arts & Sciences Assistant Professor – Sciences $274,000 +/- $78,178 Arts & Sciences Assistant Professor – Non-Sciences $36,000 +/- $10,985 Arts & Sciences Associate Professor – Sciences $560,000 Arts & Sciences Associate Professor –Non- Sciences $20,000 February 2020 16 Support for and recognition of faculty effort is crucial Recognition of faculty excellence is fostered by review processes that recognize individual and collective contributions to our mission and values 12 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 -1 AY 13 -1 AY 14 -1 AY 15 -1 AY 16 -1 AY 17 -1 AY 18 -1 AY 12 AY 12 -1 AY 13 -1 AY 14 -1 AY 15 -1 AY 16 -1 AY 17 -1 AY 18 -1 0.0 February 2020 Lewis 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 -1 AY 13 -1 AY 14 -1 AY 15 -1 AY 16 -1 AY 17 -1 AY 18 -1 Proposals Submitted 13 Reh New Grant Dollars Awared 2.5 14 Publications Coulter AY 12 Arts&Sciences 17 Support for and recognition of faculty effort is crucial Recognition of faculty excellence is fostered by review processes that recognize individual and collective contributions to our mission and values Nat'l Arts & Sciences Nat'l Engineering Nat'l Business Nat'l Health Sciences 20 15 Students taught per faculty member teaching for each School shows that Clarkson’s mean teaching capacity is met with the exception of the Lewis School whose programs are faculty limited Data for faculty include ALL teaching faculty not just tenure track faculty 10 Arts & Sciences February 2020 Fa ll 20 18 Fa ll 20 16 Fa ll 20 14 Fa ll 20 12 Fa ll 20 06 FTE Students Taught per FTE Faculty Teaching Data from Delaware Study reports 25 CU Arts & Sciences CU Coulter CU Reh CU Lewis % of National 93% FTE Student / FTE Faculty Coulter Reh Lewis 95% 92% 67% 18 Support for and recognition of faculty effort is crucial Faculty often leave institutions to pursue career development opportunities including promotions as well as moving to institutions with different foci (more or less research intensive) Sector of post-Clarkson employment 60 40 20 AY 12 -1 AY 13 -1 AY 14 -1 AY 15 -1 AY 16 -1 AY 17 -1 AY 18 -1 80 60 40 20 100 80 60 40 20 AY 12 -1 AY 13 -1 AY 14 -1 AY 15 -1 AY 16 -1 AY 17 -1 AY 18 -1 80 100 Pre-Tenure Departures (total) Post-Tenure Departures (total) Prim Undergrad Prim Undergrad Research Research Research Research % institution type 100 % in Sector Pre-Tenure Departures (total) Post-Tenure Departures (total) Lateral Lateral Promotion Promotion % lateral or promotion US Higher Ed Industry Int'l Higher Ed Post-Tenure Departures (total) US Higher Ed Industry Int'l Higher Ed AY 12 -1 AY 13 -1 AY 14 -1 AY 15 -1 AY 16 -1 AY 17 -1 AY 18 -1 Pre-Tenure Departures (total) Type of US Higher Ed Institution Lateral/Promotion if stayed in Higher Education Most Pre- and Post-tenure departed faculty stay in higher education with the majority of pre-tenure career changes being promotion with tenure at institutions similar in research and teaching to Clarkson though locationally more urban Posttenure departed faculty, mostly full professor rank, not necessarily move to more research intensive institutions February 2020 19 How we define, support, and merit faculty success? Review of faculty workload and recent practices Review of strategic interventions starting Fall 2019 and forward Critical questions for discussion - what else should we be doing to define, support, and merit success? - How could an alliance/partnership impact these efforts? A maturing organization needs to adapt policies and practices to ensure inclusion and transparency Failure of shared governance weaken our ability to recognize, merit, and support faculty  Inconsistent review processes  Outdated review processes  Inconsistent allocation of resources  ‘unwritten’ rules and exclusive rhetoric and policies Outdated and inconsistently applied review processes must be addressed to ensure a strong, thriving faculty  Antiquated paper-based non-uniform annual performance reviews, tenure/promotion reviews  Inconsistent pre-tenure review with no outcomes if done  No post-tenure review  Operations manual with conflicting/inconsistent/unclear information February 2020 21 Scaled interventions across a breadth of faculty workflows is essential for recruiting and retaining a strong faculty Implementing modern, computer-based standardized review systems for faculty and departments • Aligning standards to faculty workload through the lens of workload equity • Aligning to best practices in review, workload, and resource allocation Let Your Voice Be Heard Empowering the faculty through shared governance • Recognizing and supporting faculty service and leadership • Being transparent in decision-making and ensuring a faculty voice in decision-making • Moving, at all times, through the lens of equity Developing and supporting faculty development programs • Office of Faculty Achievement • STEM Leaf program • Fixing the system not the people February 2020 22 ‘Make the status quo more dangerous than the unknown” (2012) – John Kotter Moving forward with equity at the center of all we • Everyone MUST have what they NEED to be successful • We are fixing the system NOT the faculty • Addressing equity guarantees resistance A sense of urgency • Change is mandated • Change is intentional • Change is inclusive February 2020 23 How does an alliance with another institution impact the academic mission? Impact on faculty diversity, equity, and inclusion Impact on faculty recruitment and retention Impact on faculty success and shared governance