North Carolina State University
2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey
Section D: Faculty-Administration Relationships

College Results
Tenure Track Faculty
(Tenured and Probationary)

The following tables provide results to questions in Section D: Faculty-Administration Relationships, broken down by college for tenure track faculty only. For exact question wording for this section, click here.

Table of Contents | Annotated Questionnaire | College Results for all Faculty

To download a Microsoft Word version of this document (Section D only), click here.

To download a Microsoft Word document with results for all sections of the survey, click here.

D1a: I am encouraged to give input on curricular issues

	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.4	54.5	37.8	5.4	2.2	904

D1a: I am encouraged to give input on curricular issues	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.4	51.8	40.5	6.1	1.6	247
..... CALS
..... CED	3.7	77.3	18.2	2.3	2.3	44
..... CHASS	3.5	60.0	35.3	3.3	1.3	150
..... CNR	3.6	61.5	34.6	1.9	1.9	52
..... COE	3.4	54.5	36.6	6.9	2.1	145
..... COM	3.2	45.5	40.9	4.5	9.1	44
..... COT	3.5	65.4	23.1	7.7	3.8	26
..... CVM	3.3	43.8	46.9	7.8	1.6	64
..... Design	3.5	60.0	36.0	.	4.0	25
..... PAMS	3.4	48.0	44.0	6.0	2.0	100
..... Student Affairs	3.4	40.0	60.0	.	.	5

Back to Top

D1b: I am encouraged to give input on prog assessment

	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.3	42.5	46.7	8.5	2.2	901

D1b: I am encouraged to give input on prog assessment	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.3	41.2	44.9	12.7	1.2	245
..... CALS
..... CED	3.6	70.5	25.0	.	4.5	44
..... CHASS	3.3	45.0	45.0	7.4	2.7	149
..... CNR	3.4	46.2	50.0	3.8	.	52
..... COE	3.3	42.9	50.3	4.8	2.0	147
..... COM	3.1	34.9	51.2	4.7	9.3	43
..... COT	3.4	57.7	30.8	7.7	3.8	26
..... CVM	3.2	32.8	51.6	14.1	1.6	64
..... Design	3.5	52.0	44.0	4.0	.	25
..... PAMS	3.2	31.3	56.6	10.1	2.0	99
..... Student Affairs	3.2	40.0	40.0	20.0	.	5

Back to Top

D1c: I am encouraged to give input on dept hiring

	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.4	51.7	38.2	7.1	3.0	899

D1c: I am encouraged to give input on dept hiring	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.5	56.1	38.1	4.9	0.8	244
..... CALS
..... CED	3.6	70.5	18.2	9.1	2.3	44
..... CHASS	3.5	60.8	35.1	2.0	2.0	148
..... CNR	3.4	54.9	37.3	3.9	3.9	51
..... COE	3.2	37.4	47.6	11.6	3.4	147
..... COM	3.4	61.4	25.0	9.1	4.5	44
..... COT	3.2	46.2	30.8	15.4	7.7	26
..... CVM	3.3	42.2	45.3	7.8	4.7	64
..... Design	3.2	44.0	40.0	4.0	12.0	25
..... PAMS	3.3	46.5	38.4	11.1	4.0	99
..... Student Affairs	3.0	20.0	60.0	20.0	.	5

Back to Top

D1d: I am encouraged to give input on college admin appointments

	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.6	13.9	42.9	31.2	11.9	897

D1d: I am encouraged to give input on college admin appointments	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.7	15.6	44.3	31.6	8.6	244
..... CALS
..... CED	2.6	23.3	30.2	32.6	14.0	43
..... CHASS	2.7	13.4	51.7	24.2	10.7	149
..... CNR	2.8	15.4	53.8	25.0	5.8	52
..... COE	2.4	9.5	39.5	36.7	14.3	147
..... COM	3.0	25.0	59.1	6.8	9.1	44
..... COT	2.0	.	24.0	52.0	24.0	25
..... CVM	2.7	17.2	43.8	28.1	10.9	64
..... Design	2.2	8.0	32.0	32.0	28.0	25
..... PAMS	2.4	11.3	33.0	42.3	13.4	97
..... Student Affairs	1.8	.	20.0	40.0	40.0	5

Back to Top

D1e: I am encouraged to give input on university admin appointments

	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.4	8.2	37.5	37.7	16.6	889

D1e: I am encouraged to give input on university admin appointments	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.5	9.1	39.9	39.9	11.1	243
..... CALS
..... CED	2.5	20.9	30.2	25.6	23.3	43
..... CHASS	2.2	6.2	33.1	38.6	22.1	145
..... CNR	2.5	9.6	44.2	34.6	11.5	52
..... COE	2.3	6.1	36.1	36.7	21.1	147
..... COM	2.4	9.3	37.2	37.2	16.3	43
..... COT	2.4	.	50.0	38.5	11.5	26
..... CVM	2.4	9.4	35.9	43.8	10.9	64
..... Design	2.2	8.7	34.8	26.1	30.4	23
..... PAMS	2.4	7.3	37.5	38.5	16.7	96
..... Student Affairs	2.4	.	60.0	20.0	20.0	5

Back to Top

D2: Familiarity with academic program assessment in dept

	Mean Rating	4: Very familiar (%)	3: Somewhat familiar (%)	2: Not very familiar (%)	1: Not at all familiar (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.2	42.5	40.8	13.5	3.2	899

D2: Familiarity with academic program assessment in dept	Mean Rating	4: Very familiar (%)	3: Somewhat familiar (%)	2: Not very familiar (%)	1: Not at all familiar (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.2	41.1	37.0	17.9	4.1	246
..... CALS
..... CED	3.5	61.4	29.5	9.1	.	44
..... CHASS	3.3	44.9	40.1	12.9	2.0	147
..... CNR	3.1	27.5	54.9	13.7	3.9	51
..... COE	3.4	49.7	44.9	4.8	0.7	147
..... COM	3.0	23.3	58.1	11.6	7.0	43
..... COT	3.7	68.0	32.0	.	.	25
..... CVM	3.0	32.3	38.5	27.7	1.5	65
..... Design	3.4	60.0	28.0	8.0	4.0	25
..... PAMS	3.0	32.3	45.5	14.1	8.1	99
..... Student Affairs	3.6	80.0	.	20.0	.	5

Back to Top

D3a: Understanding of resource allocation to university

	Mean Rating	4: Very well (%)	3: Fairly well (%)	2: Not very well (%)	1: Not at all (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.2	4.8	29.9	49.2	16.2	904

D3a: Understanding of resource allocation to university	Mean Rating	4: Very well (%)	3: Fairly well (%)	2: Not very well (%)	1: Not at all (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.3	6.0	30.2	51.2	12.5	248
..... CALS
..... CED	2.3	4.5	34.1	52.3	9.1	44
..... CHASS	2.2	5.3	28.7	48.7	17.3	150
..... CNR	2.2	3.8	23.1	59.6	13.5	52
..... COE	2.0	1.4	24.0	46.6	28.1	146
..... COM	2.3	4.5	36.4	40.9	18.2	44
..... COT	2.2	.	23.1	69.2	7.7	26
..... CVM	2.3	7.7	29.2	50.8	12.3	65
..... Design	2.3	4.0	32.0	52.0	12.0	25
..... PAMS	2.4	6.2	39.2	42.3	12.4	97
..... Student Affairs	1.8	.	40.0	.	60.0	5

Back to Top

D3b: Understanding of resource allocation to college

	Mean Rating	4: Very well (%)	3: Fairly well (%)	2: Not very well (%)	1: Not at all (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.2	4.0	29.1	54.0	12.9	905

D3b: Understanding of resource allocation to college	Mean Rating	4: Very well (%)	3: Fairly well (%)	2: Not very well (%)	1: Not at all (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.3	4.8	30.2	54.8	10.1	248
..... CALS
..... CED	2.4	4.5	36.4	54.5	4.5	44
..... CHASS	2.3	5.3	28.0	53.3	13.3	150
..... CNR	2.2	.	32.7	51.9	15.4	52
..... COE	2.0	1.4	17.7	58.5	22.4	147
..... COM	2.3	2.3	34.1	50.0	13.6	44
..... COT	2.2	.	26.9	65.4	7.7	26
..... CVM	2.4	4.6	38.5	49.2	7.7	65
..... Design	2.5	12.0	36.0	44.0	8.0	25
..... PAMS	2.3	5.2	28.9	55.7	10.3	97
..... Student Affairs	1.8	.	40.0	.	60.0	5

Back to Top

D3c: Understanding of resource allocation to department

	Mean Rating	4: Very well (%)	3: Fairly well (%)	2: Not very well (%)	1: Not at all (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.5	12.4	38.5	40.7	8.5	905

D3c: Understanding of resource allocation to department	Mean Rating	4: Very well (%)	3: Fairly well (%)	2: Not very well (%)	1: Not at all (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.6	13.7	38.3	41.9	6.0	248
..... CALS
..... CED	2.6	11.4	43.2	40.9	4.5	44
..... CHASS	2.6	14.7	41.3	35.3	8.7	150
..... CNR	2.5	7.7	46.2	32.7	13.5	52
..... COE	2.3	8.2	28.1	52.7	11.0	146
..... COM	2.4	4.5	47.7	34.1	13.6	44
..... COT	2.5	7.7	42.3	42.3	7.7	26
..... CVM	2.8	24.6	33.8	38.5	3.1	65
..... Design	2.6	20.0	32.0	40.0	8.0	25
..... PAMS	2.5	10.2	42.9	36.7	10.2	98
..... Student Affairs	2.0	.	40.0	20.0	40.0	5

Back to Top

D3d: Understanding of resource allocation within department

	Mean Rating	4: Very well (%)	3: Fairly well (%)	2: Not very well (%)	1: Not at all (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.0	29.3	43.0	22.3	5.3	904

D3d: Understanding of resource allocation within department	Mean Rating	4: Very well (%)	3: Fairly well (%)	2: Not very well (%)	1: Not at all (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.0	29.1	42.9	23.5	4.5	247
..... CALS
..... CED	2.8	18.2	50.0	25.0	6.8	44
..... CHASS	3.2	40.9	42.3	12.8	4.0	149
..... CNR	2.9	26.9	46.2	15.4	11.5	52
..... COE	2.8	18.4	46.9	31.3	3.4	147
..... COM	2.9	27.3	43.2	20.5	9.1	44
..... COT	2.9	26.9	42.3	23.1	7.7	26
..... CVM	3.3	53.1	29.7	15.6	1.6	64
..... Design	2.8	36.0	20.0	32.0	12.0	25
..... PAMS	2.8	20.0	49.0	25.0	6.0	100
..... Student Affairs	2.6	20.0	40.0	20.0	20.0	5

Back to Top

D4: Faculty have sufficient input on dept resource allocation

	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.7	14.4	49.2	28.8	7.7	897

D4: Faculty have sufficient input on dept resource allocation	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.7	13.4	48.8	30.5	7.3	246
..... CALS
..... CED	2.5	6.8	50.0	31.8	11.4	44
..... CHASS	2.9	23.8	46.9	21.1	8.2	147
..... CNR	2.8	11.5	59.6	23.1	5.8	52
..... COE	2.5	7.6	47.6	36.6	8.3	145
..... COM	2.5	13.6	36.4	36.4	13.6	44
..... COT	2.7	12.0	52.0	28.0	8.0	25
..... CVM	3.0	23.4	56.3	18.8	1.6	64
..... Design	2.6	20.0	32.0	32.0	16.0	25
..... PAMS	2.7	12.1	54.5	29.3	4.0	99
..... Student Affairs	2.3	.	50.0	25.0	25.0	4

Back to Top

D5: Dept faculty searches/appointments are collegial and inclusive

	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.3	48.4	39.2	8.7	3.7	903

D5: Dept faculty searches/appointments are collegial and inclusive	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.4	52.4	38.3	7.7	1.6	248
..... CALS
..... CED	3.4	52.3	36.4	6.8	4.5	44
..... CHASS	3.3	51.4	33.1	10.8	4.7	148
..... CNR	3.6	63.5	30.8	3.8	1.9	52
..... COE	3.2	38.4	48.6	10.3	2.7	146
..... COM	3.3	50.0	40.9	.	9.1	44
..... COT	3.2	42.3	38.5	11.5	7.7	26
..... CVM	3.3	46.9	42.2	6.3	4.7	64
..... Design	3.0	32.0	40.0	20.0	8.0	25
..... PAMS	3.3	47.0	39.0	10.0	4.0	100
..... Student Affairs	3.0	20.0	60.0	20.0	.	5

Back to Top

D6a: Relations between faculty in dept and dept admin

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.1	40.8	39.2	13.5	6.4	887

D6a: Relations between faculty in dept and dept admin	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.2	39.7	42.7	14.2	3.3	239
..... CALS
..... CED	3.2	47.7	29.5	18.2	4.5	44
..... CHASS	3.2	44.1	35.2	13.8	6.9	145
..... CNR	3.3	50.0	34.6	11.5	3.8	52
..... COE	3.0	28.5	47.2	15.3	9.0	144
..... COM	3.0	43.2	31.8	11.4	13.6	44
..... COT	2.7	26.9	34.6	23.1	15.4	26
..... CVM	3.5	54.0	39.7	4.8	1.6	63
..... Design	2.8	29.2	37.5	12.5	20.8	24
..... PAMS	3.3	47.5	38.4	9.1	5.1	99
..... Student Affairs	2.4	20.0	.	80.0	.	5

Back to Top

D6b: Relations between faculty in dept and college admin

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.7	15.2	48.5	26.2	10.0	808

D6b: Relations between faculty in dept and college admin	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.6	15.8	46.6	23.9	13.7	234
..... CALS
..... CED	2.6	22.7	27.3	38.6	11.4	44
..... CHASS	2.7	11.5	58.4	22.1	8.0	113
..... CNR	3.0	33.3	37.5	25.0	4.2	48
..... COE	2.7	8.5	55.1	32.2	4.2	118
..... COM	2.5	9.1	45.5	27.3	18.2	44
..... COT	2.5	7.7	46.2	38.5	7.7	26
..... CVM	2.8	18.8	53.1	18.8	9.4	64
..... Design	2.6	12.5	45.8	29.2	12.5	24
..... PAMS	2.8	18.4	50.6	20.7	10.3	87
..... Student Affairs	2.2	.	20.0	80.0	.	5

Back to Top

D6c: Relations between faculty in dept and univ admin

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.5	8.5	44.5	33.1	13.9	632

D6c: Relations between faculty in dept and univ admin	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.6	12.4	48.9	28.0	10.8	186
..... CALS
..... CED	2.6	10.7	50.0	28.6	10.7	28
..... CHASS	2.2	5.7	31.4	38.1	24.8	105
..... CNR	2.7	17.1	48.8	22.0	12.2	41
..... COE	2.4	3.1	46.9	38.5	11.5	96
..... COM	2.5	7.4	48.1	33.3	11.1	27
..... COT	2.4	.	52.9	35.3	11.8	17
..... CVM	2.3	4.5	40.9	31.8	22.7	44
..... Design	2.5	15.8	31.6	42.1	10.5	19
..... PAMS	2.5	7.8	48.4	34.4	9.4	64
..... Student Affairs	2.3	.	25.0	75.0	.	4

Back to Top

D6d: Relations between all faculty and univ admin

	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.4	5.8	42.8	38.9	12.5	617

D6d: Relations between all faculty and univ admin	Mean Rating	4: Excellent (%)	3: Good (%)	2: Fair (%)	1: Poor (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.6	8.2	47.8	36.3	7.7	182
..... CALS
..... CED	2.6	10.0	50.0	26.7	13.3	30
..... CHASS	2.0	5.0	19.8	49.5	25.7	101
..... CNR	2.5	8.9	46.7	33.3	11.1	45
..... COE	2.4	3.1	44.8	39.6	12.5	96
..... COM	2.5	4.3	47.8	43.5	4.3	23
..... COT	2.6	.	64.7	35.3	.	17
..... CVM	2.3	.	45.0	37.5	17.5	40
..... Design	2.4	.	50.0	43.8	6.3	16
..... PAMS	2.5	8.1	46.8	33.9	11.3	62
..... Student Affairs	2.3	.	25.0	75.0	.	4

Back to Top

D7a: Faculty Senate effective commun between faculty and univ admin

	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.5	7.3	50.6	26.9	15.2	631

D7a: Faculty Senate effective commun between faculty and univ admin	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.6	8.7	51.9	25.1	14.2	183
..... CALS
..... CED	2.8	9.4	62.5	21.9	6.3	32
..... CHASS	2.4	8.1	41.4	34.3	16.2	99
..... CNR	2.5	7.3	48.8	26.8	17.1	41
..... COE	2.4	4.0	49.0	30.0	17.0	100
..... COM	2.4	6.7	50.0	16.7	26.7	30
..... COT	2.8	10.5	68.4	15.8	5.3	19
..... CVM	2.3	6.7	33.3	42.2	17.8	45
..... Design	2.7	10.0	60.0	15.0	15.0	20
..... PAMS	2.6	5.4	58.9	21.4	14.3	56
..... Student Affairs	3.0	.	100.0	.	.	5

Back to Top

D7b: Faculty Senate advocates for faculty in general

	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.5	9.3	48.9	26.5	15.3	603

D7b: Faculty Senate advocates for faculty in general	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.6	10.7	50.8	23.7	14.7	177
..... CALS
..... CED	2.7	12.9	48.4	32.3	6.5	31
..... CHASS	2.4	10.3	41.2	29.9	18.6	97
..... CNR	2.5	10.8	45.9	27.0	16.2	37
..... COE	2.5	7.4	46.8	29.8	16.0	94
..... COM	2.5	13.8	41.4	24.1	20.7	29
..... COT	2.9	5.6	83.3	11.1	.	18
..... CVM	2.2	4.7	37.2	34.9	23.3	43
..... Design	2.7	16.7	50.0	22.2	11.1	18
..... PAMS	2.5	3.8	58.5	24.5	13.2	53
..... Student Affairs	3.0	.	100.0	.	.	5

Back to Top

D7c: Faculty Senate advocates for faculty like me

	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.3	6.3	39.8	33.2	20.7	585

D7c: Faculty Senate advocates for faculty like me	Mean Rating	4: Strongly agree (%)	3: Agree (%)	2: Disagree (%)	1: Strongly disagree (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.4	8.2	45.0	28.1	18.7	171
..... CALS
..... CED	2.5	6.9	48.3	34.5	10.3	29
..... CHASS	2.2	7.7	31.9	31.9	28.6	91
..... CNR	2.3	8.3	33.3	41.7	16.7	36
..... COE	2.2	3.2	37.9	34.7	24.2	95
..... COM	2.3	10.3	34.5	27.6	27.6	29
..... COT	2.6	5.3	63.2	15.8	15.8	19
..... CVM	2.1	.	29.3	48.8	22.0	41
..... Design	2.3	13.3	26.7	33.3	26.7	15
..... PAMS	2.4	3.8	43.4	39.6	13.2	53
..... Student Affairs	2.6	.	60.0	40.0	.	5

Back to Top

D8: Effectiveness of university grievance procedures

	Mean Rating	4: Very effective (%)	3: Somewhat effective (%)	2: Not very effective (%)	1: Not at all effective (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	2.8	16.9	51.8	21.0	10.4	338

D8: Effectiveness of university grievance procedures	Mean Rating	4: Very effective (%)	3: Somewhat effective (%)	2: Not very effective (%)	1: Not at all effective (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	2.8	18.2	51.1	22.7	8.0	88
..... CALS
..... CED	2.4	11.1	33.3	44.4	11.1	18
..... CHASS	2.7	11.4	59.1	13.6	15.9	44
..... CNR	3.1	28.6	52.4	19.0	.	21
..... COE	2.7	7.1	60.7	23.2	8.9	56
..... COM	2.9	26.3	47.4	21.1	5.3	19
..... COT	3.0	30.0	50.0	10.0	10.0	10
..... CVM	2.5	21.2	33.3	24.2	21.2	33
..... Design	2.6	21.4	35.7	28.6	14.3	14
..... PAMS	2.9	18.2	63.6	9.1	9.1	33
..... Student Affairs	3.0	.	100.0	.	.	1

Back to Top

D9: Importance of "ombuds" for informal conflict resolution

	Mean Rating	4: Very important (%)	3: Somewhat important (%)	2: Not very important (%)	1: Not at all important (%)	Total (N)
Total (N)	3.4	50.9	40.2	7.5	1.3	895

D9: Importance of "ombuds" for informal conflict resolution	Mean Rating	4: Very important (%)	3: Somewhat important (%)	2: Not very important (%)	1: Not at all important (%)	Total (N)
College of appointment	3.4	45.5	45.9	7.3	1.2	246
..... CALS
..... CED	3.5	54.5	43.2	2.3	.	44
..... CHASS	3.5	59.9	33.3	6.1	0.7	147
..... CNR	3.4	47.1	43.1	7.8	2.0	51
..... COE	3.5	53.7	39.5	5.4	1.4	147
..... COM	3.2	44.2	34.9	18.6	2.3	43
..... COT	3.4	50.0	46.2	.	3.8	26
..... CVM	3.5	57.8	35.9	6.3	.	64
..... Design	3.5	52.0	44.0	4.0	.	25
..... PAMS	3.2	44.2	38.9	13.7	3.2	95
..... Student Affairs	3.8	80.0	20.0	.	.	5

Back to top

Continue to Section E: Diversity/Multiculturalism

For more information on the NC State University 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey contact:
Dr. Nancy Whelchel, Associate Director for Survey Research
Office of Institutional Planning and Research
Box 7002
NCSU
Phone: (919) 515-4184
Email: ncsu_surveys@ncsu.edu

Posted: April, 2007

To download a Microsoft Word version of this document (Section D only), click here.

To download a Microsoft Word document with results for all sections of the survey, click here.

Return to Annotated Questionnaire

Return to 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey Table of Contents Page