North Carolina State University
2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey:
Results for First Year College
To skip directly to a particular section, select the section below.
To download a Microsoft Word version of this document, click here.
| ..... No (%) | ..... Yes (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A2: Ever held an administrative position | 62.5 | 37.5 | 8 |
Section B: Image and Vision
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1a: Department doing good job of recruiting faculty | 3.1 | 37.5 | 37.5 | 25.0 | 8 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1b: Department creating culture where faculty can develop to full potential | 3.0 | 25.0 | 62.5 | 12.5 | 8 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1c: Department retaining most effective and productive faculty | 2.8 | 12.5 | 62.5 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 8 |
| Mean Rating | 5: Very strong (%) |
4: Strong (%) |
3: Average (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B2a: Department national reputation for undergraduate educ | 4.4 | 57.1 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strong (%) |
2: Weak (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B2b: Department national reputation for graduate education | 3.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strong (%) |
3: Average (%) |
2: Weak (%) |
1: Very weak (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B2c: Department national reputation for research & scholarly activity | 2.3 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 50.0 | 16.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strong (%) |
2: Weak (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B2d: Department national reputation for creative artistry and literature | 2.7 | 33.3 | 66.7 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strong (%) |
3: Average (%) |
2: Weak (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B2e: Department national reputation for tech & managerial innovation | 2.8 | 16.7 | 50.0 | 33.3 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Average (%) |
2: Weak (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B2f: Department national reputation for extension & engagement | 2.8 | 75.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strong (%) |
3: Average (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B2g: Department national reputation for contrib to econ development | 3.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | A (%) |
B (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B3a: Grade undergraduate majors' ability to meet prog demands | 4.7 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | B (%) |
C (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B3b: Grade graduate student ability to meet prog demands | 3.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | A (%) |
B (%) |
C (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B3c: Grade demonstrated professional ability of faculty | 4.5 | 62.5 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 8 |
| Mean Rating | A (%) |
B (%) |
C (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B3d: Grade professional achievement of faculty | 4.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 8 |
| Mean Rating | A (%) |
B (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B3e: Grade own demonstrated professional ability | 4.8 | 75.0 | 25.0 | 8 |
| Mean Rating | A (%) |
B (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B3f: Grade own professional achievement | 4.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 8 |
| Clear vision; actively working toward goals (%) |
Vision with slow progress (%) |
No clear vision (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B4: Department's vision for the future | 50.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 8 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B5: Agreement with department vision for future | 3.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 6 |
| Clear vision; actively working toward goals (%) |
Vision with slow progress (%) |
No clear vision (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B6: College's vision for the future | 37.5 | 37.5 | 25.0 | 8 |
| Change for the better (%) |
Change for the worse (%) |
Not really change (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B7a: Department change in next five years | 75.0 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 8 |
| Change for the better (%) |
Change for the worse (%) |
Not really change (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B7b: College change in next five years | 62.5 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 8 |
| Change for the better (%) |
Change for the worse (%) |
Not really change (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B7c: NC State change in next five years | 50.0 | 12.5 | 37.5 | 8 |
Section C: Leadership
| Mean Rating | 3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1a: Dept admin communication with faculty | 2.3 | 42.9 | 42.9 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1b: Dept admin seek faculty input for dept vision | 2.7 | 14.3 | 57.1 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1c: Dept admin use faculty ideas in decision-making | 2.7 | 14.3 | 57.1 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1d: Dept admin delegate dept responsibility to faculty | 2.4 | 14.3 | 28.6 | 42.9 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1e: Dept admin grant faculty autonomy | 3.3 | 57.1 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1f: Dept admin set clear and explicit priorities | 2.6 | 14.3 | 42.9 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1g: Dept admin appreciate your contrib to mission | 2.9 | 28.6 | 42.9 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1h: Dept admin conflict resolution | 2.0 | 28.6 | 42.9 | 28.6 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1i: Dept admin provide necessary resources | 2.6 | 14.3 | 42.9 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1j: Dept admin allocate resources fairly | 2.6 | 14.3 | 42.9 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1k: Dept admin serve as advocate for dept to college | 2.8 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1l: Dept admin support academic freedom | 3.4 | 71.4 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1m: Dept admin make rational decisions | 2.6 | 14.3 | 42.9 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1n: Dept admin make equitable decisions | 2.4 | 14.3 | 28.6 | 42.9 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1o: Dept admin promote diversity within dept | 2.9 | 28.6 | 42.9 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2a: College admin communication with faculty | 2.6 | 57.1 | 42.9 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2b: College admin seek faculty input for vision | 2.7 | 14.3 | 57.1 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2c: College admin use faculty ideas in decision-making | 2.9 | 28.6 | 28.6 | 42.9 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2d: College admin grant departmental autonomy | 3.4 | 42.9 | 57.1 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2e: College admin set clear and explicit priorities | 2.7 | 28.6 | 28.6 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2f: College admin appreciate your contrib to mission | 2.9 | 28.6 | 28.6 | 42.9 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2g: College admin conflict resolution | 2.7 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2h: College admin provide necessary resources | 2.7 | 14.3 | 42.9 | 42.9 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2i: College admin allocate resources fairly | 3.2 | 16.7 | 83.3 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2j: College admin serve as advocate for college to univ | 3.4 | 42.9 | 57.1 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2k: College admin support academic freedom | 3.7 | 71.4 | 28.6 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2l: College admin make rational decisions | 3.0 | 14.3 | 71.4 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2m: College admin make equitable decisions | 3.0 | 16.7 | 66.7 | 16.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2n: College admin promote diversity within college | 3.6 | 57.1 | 42.9 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C3a: Univ admin communication with faculty | 2.7 | 14.3 | 42.9 | 42.9 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C3b: Univ admin use faculty ideas in decision-making | 2.8 | 16.7 | 66.7 | 16.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C3c: Univ admin set clear and explicit priorities | 3.0 | 14.3 | 71.4 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C3d: Univ admin serves as advocate for univ to constituents | 3.2 | 20.0 | 80.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C3e: Univ admin support academic freedom | 3.1 | 28.6 | 57.1 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C3f: Univ admin make rational decisions | 3.0 | 16.7 | 66.7 | 16.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C3g: Univ admin make equitable decisions | 2.8 | 16.7 | 66.7 | 16.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C3h: Univ admin promote diversity within university | 2.9 | 28.6 | 42.9 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 7 |
Section D: Faculty-Administration Relationships
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1a: I am encouraged to give input on curricular issues | 3.4 | 62.5 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 8 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1b: I am encouraged to give input on prog assessment | 3.5 | 62.5 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 8 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1c: I am encouraged to give input on dept hiring | 3.4 | 37.5 | 62.5 | 8 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1d: I am encouraged to give input on college admin appointments | 2.1 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 8 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1e: I am encouraged to give input on university admin appointments | 2.1 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 8 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very familiar (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| D2: Familiarity with academic program assessment in dept | 4.0 | 100.0 | 8 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Fairly well (%) |
2: Not very well (%) |
1: Not at all (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D3a: Understanding of resource allocation to university | 2.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 8 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Fairly well (%) |
2: Not very well (%) |
1: Not at all (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D3b: Understanding of resource allocation to college | 2.1 | 25.0 | 62.5 | 12.5 | 8 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very well (%) |
3: Fairly well (%) |
2: Not very well (%) |
1: Not at all (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D3c: Understanding of resource allocation to department | 2.4 | 12.5 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 12.5 | 8 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very well (%) |
3: Fairly well (%) |
2: Not very well (%) |
1: Not at all (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D3d: Understanding of resource allocation within department | 2.3 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 57.1 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D4: Faculty have sufficient input on dept resource allocation | 2.0 | 12.5 | 75.0 | 12.5 | 8 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D5: Dept faculty searches/appointments are collegial and inclusive | 3.3 | 57.1 | 14.3 | 28.6 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
1: Poor (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D6a: Relations between faculty in dept and dept admin | 3.0 | 28.6 | 57.1 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D6b: Relations between faculty in dept and college admin | 3.1 | 28.6 | 57.1 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D6c: Relations between faculty in dept and univ admin | 2.7 | 14.3 | 42.9 | 42.9 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Excellent (%) |
3: Good (%) |
2: Fair (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D6d: Relations between all faculty and univ admin | 2.6 | 14.3 | 28.6 | 57.1 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| D7a: Faculty Senate effective commun between faculty and univ admin | 3.0 | 100.0 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| D7b: Faculty Senate advocates for faculty in general | 3.0 | 100.0 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D7c: Faculty Senate advocates for faculty like me | 2.7 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Somewhat effective (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| D8: Effectiveness of university grievance procedures | 3.0 | 100.0 | 1 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very important (%) |
3: Somewhat important (%) |
2: Not very important (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D9: Importance of "ombuds" for informal conflict resolution | 3.5 | 62.5 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 8 |
Section E: Diversity/Multiculturalism
| Mean Rating | 4: Very important (%) |
3: Somewhat important (%) |
1: Not at all important (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1: Importance of institutional emphasis on diversity/multiculturalism | 3.4 | 71.4 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very important (%) |
3: Somewhat important (%) |
2: Not very important (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E2: Importance of diversity to enhanced learning in own classroom | 3.6 | 71.4 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E3: NCSU prepares students to live and work in diverse society | 2.8 | 33.3 | 16.7 | 50.0 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E4a: My dept recruits historically underrepresented students | 3.6 | 60.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E4b: My dept retains historically underrepresented students | 3.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E4c: My dept supports historically underrepresented students | 3.7 | 71.4 | 28.6 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E4d: My dept recruits historically underrepresented faculty | 3.3 | 33.3 | 66.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E4e: My dept retains historically underrepresented faculty | 3.2 | 16.7 | 83.3 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E4f: My dept supports historically underrepresented faculty | 3.3 | 33.3 | 66.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E5a: Dept environ accepting/respectful of age | 3.4 | 57.1 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E5b: Dept environ accepting/respectful of disability status | 3.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E5c: Dept environ accepting/respectful of gender | 3.6 | 57.1 | 42.9 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E5d: Dept environ accepting/respectful of military status | 3.4 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E5e: Dept environ accepting/respectful of nationality/ethnic origin | 3.3 | 42.9 | 42.9 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E5f: Dept environ accepting/respectful of race and color | 3.6 | 57.1 | 42.9 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E5g: Dept environ accepting/respectful of religion | 3.2 | 33.3 | 50.0 | 16.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E5h: Dept environ accepting/respectful of sexual orientation | 3.4 | 42.9 | 57.1 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E6a: Faculty welcomed at dept social events regardless of age | 3.3 | 50.0 | 33.3 | 16.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E6b: Faculty welcomed at dept social events regardless of disability status | 3.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E6c: Faculty welcomed at dept social events regardless of gender | 3.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E6d: Faculty welcomed at dept social events regardless of military status | 3.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E6e: Faculty welcomed at dept social events regardless of national/ethnic origin | 3.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E6f: Faculty welcomed at dept social events regardless of race and color | 3.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E6g: Faculty welcomed at dept social events regardless of religion | 3.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E6h: Faculty welcomed at dept social events regardless of sexual orientation | 3.6 | 60.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: A great deal (%) |
3: Some (%) |
2: A little (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E7: Faculty diversity/multiculturalism enhancement of intellectual diversity in dept | 3.6 | 71.4 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: A great deal (%) |
3: Some (%) |
2: A little (%) |
1: Not at all (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E8: Inclusion of diversity-related topics, scholarship, etc in your courses | 2.9 | 28.6 | 42.9 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: A great deal (%) |
3: Some (%) |
1: None (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E9a: Interest in research, extension, art endeavors outside U.S. | 2.0 | 14.3 | 28.6 | 57.1 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: A great deal (%) |
2: A little (%) |
1: None (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E9b: Interest in teaching study abroad | 2.0 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 57.1 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: A great deal (%) |
3: Some (%) |
2: A little (%) |
1: None (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E9c: Interest in participating in spring break service learning | 2.6 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 42.9 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Some (%) |
2: A little (%) |
1: None (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E9d: Interest in participating in international service projects | 1.4 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 71.4 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 1: None (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| E9e: Interest in teaching in international studies major | 1.0 | 100.0 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: A great deal (%) |
3: Some (%) |
2: A little (%) |
1: None (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E9f: Interest in advising international students | 2.6 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 42.9 | 14.3 | 7 |
Section F: Working Relationships
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1: There is unity/cohesion among faculty in my department | 2.6 | 71.4 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F2a: Good communication between my students and me | 3.7 | 71.4 | 28.6 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F2b: Good communication between dept and our students | 3.3 | 42.9 | 42.9 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F2c: Good communication between faculty in my dept | 3.1 | 28.6 | 57.1 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F2d: Good communication between my dept and other depts | 3.2 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F2e: Good communication between my college and other colleges | 2.8 | 16.7 | 50.0 | 33.3 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F3: Dept environ promotes respectful dialogue between diverse perspectives | 3.3 | 42.9 | 42.9 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | Frequently (%) |
Sometimes (%) |
Seldom (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F4a: Frequency given/recvd teaching advice in dept past few years | 3.3 | 42.9 | 42.9 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | Frequently (%) |
Sometimes (%) |
Seldom (%) |
Never (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F4b: Frequency given/recvd research/artistic feedback in dept past few yrs | 2.6 | 14.3 | 42.9 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | Frequently (%) |
Sometimes (%) |
Seldom (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F4c: Frequency given/recvd help with dept/college bureaucracy past few yrs | 3.3 | 42.9 | 42.9 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | Sometimes (%) |
Seldom (%) |
Never (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F4d: Frequency given/recvd help undrsnd reappointment, promotion, tenure past few yrs | 2.4 | 57.1 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | Frequently (%) |
Sometimes (%) |
Seldom (%) |
Never (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F4e: Frequency given/recvd help with work/personal balance issues past few yrs | 2.6 | 14.3 | 42.9 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | Frequently (%) |
Sometimes (%) |
Seldom (%) |
Never (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F5a: Frequency of collab with faculty in your dept | 2.9 | 28.6 | 42.9 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | Frequently (%) |
Sometimes (%) |
Seldom (%) |
Never (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F5b: Frequency of collab with faculty in other NCSU depts | 2.7 | 28.6 | 28.6 | 28.6 | 14.3 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | Frequently (%) |
Never (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F5c: Frequency of collab with faculty from other universities | 1.4 | 14.3 | 85.7 | 7 |
| Mean Rating | Frequently (%) |
Sometimes (%) |
Seldom (%) |
Never (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F5d: Frequency of collab with non-faculty external to NCSU | 2.0 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 28.6 | 42.9 | 7 |
Section G: Faculty Support & Professional Development
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1a: Satisfaction with level of courses | 3.3 | 50.0 | 33.3 | 16.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1b: Satisfaction with number of courses | 3.7 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1c: Satisfaction with choice in courses | 3.7 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1d: Satisfaction with course content discretion | 3.7 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1e: Satisfaction with number of students | 3.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1f: Satisfaction with quality of undergraduates | 3.5 | 66.7 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1g: Satisfaction with quality of graduate students | 2.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1h: Satisfaction with access to grad TAs | 2.3 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1i: Satisfaction with access to grad RAs | 2.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G2a: NCSU supports innovative teaching | 2.6 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G2b: NCSU supports innovative research and scholarly activity | 2.8 | 20.0 | 60.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G2c: NCSU supports innovative creative artistry and literature | 2.5 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G2d: NCSU supports innovative extension/engagement/econ dev activity | 2.8 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G3a: NCSU rewards innovative teaching | 2.4 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G3b: NCSU rewards innovative research and scholarly activity | 3.0 | 33.3 | 50.0 | 16.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G3c: NCSU rewards innovative creative artistry and literature | 2.3 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G3d: NCSU rewards innovative extension/engagement/econ dev activity | 2.3 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G4a: Satisfaction: Availability of classroom technology | 3.2 | 33.3 | 50.0 | 16.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G4b: Satisfaction: Teaching reduction for scholarly/prof growth | 3.0 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G4c: Satisfaction: Teaching workshop/seminar opportunities | 3.3 | 50.0 | 33.3 | 16.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G4d: Satisfaction: Avail of funds to attend teaching conference/wrkshp | 3.0 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G4e: Satisfaction: Learning technology training/support | 3.2 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G4f: Satisfaction: Campus bookstore meeting course needs | 3.0 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G4g: Satisfaction: Availability of funds to present work | 3.0 | 16.7 | 66.7 | 16.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G4h: Satisfaction: Opportunities for scholarly/professional leave | 2.8 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G4i: Satisfaction: Financial support for scholarly/professional leave | 2.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G4j: Satisfaction: Leadership development opportunities | 2.8 | 83.3 | 16.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G4k: Satisfaction: Support for dept assessment activities | 3.2 | 50.0 | 33.3 | 16.7 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G4l: Satisfaction: Availability of/access to materials via NCSU Libraries | 3.4 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G4m: Satisfaction: Support with dealing with student concerns | 3.7 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| G4n: Satisfaction: Support for technology transfer | 3.0 | 100.0 | 3 |
| No (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| G5: Assignment of formal mentor | 100.0 | 6 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| G7a: Satisfaction: Pre-award support from college for grant/contract | 3.0 | 100.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| G7b: Satisfaction: Post-award support from college for grant/contract | 3.0 | 100.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| G7c: Satisfaction: Pre-award University support for grant/contract | 3.0 | 100.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| G7d: Satisfaction: Post-award University support for grant/contract | 3.0 | 100.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| G7e: Satisfaction: Allocation of indirect grant costs to investigator | 1.0 | 100.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| G7f: Satisfaction: Allocation of indirect grant costs to department | 1.0 | 100.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| G7g: Satisfaction: PI control over indirect cost allocation | 1.0 | 100.0 | 2 |
Section H: Performance Review, Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1: Faculty performance review standards are clearly stated | 2.6 | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H2: Faculty performance review procedures are clearly stated | 2.6 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H3: SME is consistent with departmental vision | 2.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H4: SME is consistent with departmental promotion standards | 2.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H5a: Performance Review feedback appropriately based on SME | 2.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H5b: Performance Review feedback helpful for professional development | 2.6 | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H5c: Performance Review feedback corresponds with my perceptions of own performance | 2.6 | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H5d: Performance Review feedback helps understand relation to other faculty | 2.6 | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H5e: Feedback given appropriate weight in merit raises | 2.2 | 60.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Fairly well (%) |
1: Not at all (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H6: Understanding of current Academic Tenure Policy | 1.8 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 5 |
| No (%) | Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| H7_1: Participated in RPT process as candidate | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| No (%) | Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| H7_2: Participated in RPT process as voter | 60.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| No (%) | Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| H7_3: Participated in RPT process as review committee member | 60.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| No (%) | Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| H7_4: Have never participated in RPT process | 40.0 | 60.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very well (%) |
2: Not very well (%) |
1: Not at all (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H8: Understand dept RPT standards | 3.0 | 60.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very well (%) |
2: Not very well (%) |
1: Not at all (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H9: Understand dept RPT procedures | 3.0 | 60.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H10: Departmental RPT standards applied consistently/fairly | 2.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H11: Departmental RPT procedures applied consistently/fairly | 2.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H12a: Sufficient resources for teaching/mentoring students | 2.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H12b: Sufficient resources for discovery of knowledge | 2.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H12c: Sufficient resources for creative artistry and literature | 2.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| H12d: Sufficient resources for tech/managerial innovation | 3.0 | 100.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| H12e: Sufficient resources for extension/engagement | 2.0 | 100.0 | 1 |
| Mean Rating | 2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| H12f: Sufficient resources for professional service | 2.0 | 100.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H13a: Department rewards teaching/mentoring of students | 2.6 | 60.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H13b: Department rewards discovery of knowledge | 2.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H13c: Department rewards creative artistry and literature | 2.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H13d: Department rewards tech/managerial innovation | 2.3 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H13e: Department rewards extension/engagement | 2.8 | 75.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H13f: Department rewards professional service | 2.3 | 25.0 | 75.0 | 4 |
Section I: Post-Tenure Review
| Has experience (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| I1_1: No experience with PTR | 100.0 | 2 |
| Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| I1_2: Have had PTR Comprehensive Review | 100.0 | 2 |
| No (%) | Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| I1_3: Have served on PTR committee | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| No (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| I1_4: Have been dept/college administrator in PTR process | 100.0 | 2 |
| No (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| I1_5: Had other PTR experience | 100.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2a: Easy to find PTR information on NCSU website | 2.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2b: PTR process known/understood in department | 2.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2c: Departmental PTR procedures are clear | 2.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2d: Departmental PTR standards are clear | 2.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2e: Departmental PTR procedures are followed equitably | 2.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2f: Departmental PTR standards are applied fairly | 2.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2g: Dept PTR committee members are well prepared and trained | 2.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 2: Dissatisfied (%) |
1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I3: Overall satisfaction with PTR process | 1.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
Section J: Pay and Compensation
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J1a: My salary is competitive within my department | 2.8 | 75.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J1b: My salary is competitive within my college | 2.7 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J1c: My salary is competitive within NC State | 2.3 | 33.3 | 66.7 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| J1d: My salary is competitive within UNC system | 2.0 | 100.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| J1e: My salary is competitive within discipline at comparable institutions | 2.0 | 100.0 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 2: Not very well (%) |
1: Not at all (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J2: Understand how faculty salaries determined | 1.2 | 20.0 | 80.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J3: My department links salary increase to meritorious performance | 2.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J4: I have access to benefits information | 3.2 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J5: Healthcare benefits are competitive with other institutions | 2.0 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J6: Retirement programs are competitive with other institutions | 1.8 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J7: Voluntary benefits programs are competitive with other institutions | 2.3 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J8: I am satisfied with my compensation at NC State | 2.2 | 20.0 | 80.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J9: Departmental environment enables work/personal life balance | 3.0 | 20.0 | 60.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J10: NCSU environment enables work/personal life balance | 2.8 | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very important (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| J11a: Importance of flexible work hours | 4.0 | 100.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very important (%) |
3: Somewhat important (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J11b: Importance of maternity/paternity leave | 3.8 | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very important (%) |
3: Somewhat important (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J11c: Importance of family leave time | 3.8 | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very important (%) |
3: Somewhat important (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J11d: Importance of altering tenure clock for family concerns | 3.8 | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very important (%) |
3: Somewhat important (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J11e: Importance of childcare facility on or near campus | 3.8 | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very important (%) |
3: Somewhat important (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J11f: Importance of tuition remission for dependents | 3.8 | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
Section K: Campus Infrastructure/Physical Environment
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K1: I have sufficient clerical/admin support in my dept | 2.6 | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| K2: I have sufficient tech assistance | 3.0 | 100.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K3: There is sufficient support staff in my college | 3.2 | 20.0 | 80.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K4a: Satisfaction with office space | 3.0 | 20.0 | 60.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K4b: Satisfaction with lab space | 2.7 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K4c: Satisfaction with classrooms in which you teach | 2.6 | 60.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K4d: Satisfaction with labs in which you teach | 2.7 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K4e: Satisfaction with maintenance of building in which you work | 2.4 | 60.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K4f: Satisfaction with infrastructure of bldgs in which you work | 2.4 | 60.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K4g: Satisfaction with availability of up-to-date equipment | 2.8 | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K4h: Satisfaction with availability of office supplies | 3.2 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K4i: Satisfaction with availability of informal meeting space | 2.6 | 60.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K4j: Satisfaction with dining options on campus | 2.8 | 75.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K4k: Satisfaction with availability of parking | 2.4 | 60.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 2: Dissatisfied (%) |
1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K4l: Satisfaction with cost of parking | 1.4 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| K4m: Satisfaction with Wolfline | 2.0 | 100.0 | 1 |
| Mean Rating | 1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| K4n: Satisfaction with commute between Centennial and main | 1.0 | 100.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K4o: Satisfaction with campus safety | 2.6 | 60.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K4p: Satisfaction with campus aesthetics | 2.4 | 60.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K4q: Satisfaction with upkeep of campus grounds | 2.6 | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
1: Very dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K4r: Satisfaction with amount of green space | 2.0 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K5a: Satisfaction with energy conservation | 2.7 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K5b: Satisfaction with water conservation | 2.7 | 66.7 | 33.3 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K5c: Satisfaction with recycling efforts | 3.3 | 25.0 | 75.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K5d: Satisfaction with alternative transportation | 2.8 | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K5e: Satisfaction with green building practices | 2.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K5f: Satisfaction with use of recycled-content resources | 2.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 2 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Some (%) |
2: A little (%) |
1: None at all (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K6: Interest in hotel/conference center on Centennial Campus | 1.6 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 60.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very likely (%) |
3: Somewhat likely (%) |
2: Not very likely (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K7: Likelihood of using conference center on Centennial Campus | 2.8 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
Section L: Recreation/Wellness
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L1: Satisfaction with recreation activities on campus | 2.6 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 60.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L2: Satisfaction with cultural activities on campus | 2.8 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L3a: Satisfaction with Carmichael Gymnasium | 2.8 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L3b: Satisfaction with recreation space around campus | 3.0 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L3c: Satisfaction with organized Campus Recreation activities | 3.0 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L3d: Satisfaction with ARTS NC State programs | 3.3 | 25.0 | 75.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L3e: Satisfaction with Wolfpack athletic events | 3.0 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | Once a week or more (%) |
A few times a month (%) |
A few times a semester (%) |
Never (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L4a: How often use Carmichael Gymnasium | 3.4 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | A few times a semester (%) |
Once a semester (%) |
Never (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L4b: How often use recreational space around campus | 2.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 60.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | Once a semester (%) |
Never (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L4c: How often participate in organized Campus Recreation activities | 1.4 | 20.0 | 80.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | A few times a month (%) |
A few times a semester (%) |
Once a semester (%) |
Once a year (%) |
Never (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L4d: How often attend ARTS NC State programs | 3.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | A few times a semester (%) |
Once a year (%) |
Never (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L4e: How often attend Wolfpack athletic events | 2.0 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Some (%) |
1: None at all (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L5: Interest in designated faculty-only dining facility | 1.8 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 5 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very likely (%) |
2: Not very likely (%) |
1: Not at all likely (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L6: Likelihood of using gym on Centennial campus | 1.8 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 60.0 | 5 |
Section M: Work Activities
| Mean # Hrs Work |
51 to 60 hrs (%) |
41 to 50 hrs (%) |
40 hrs or less (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1: Total hours per week spent performing job-related work (collapsed) | 48.0 | 20.0 | 60.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Mean % of Time on Activity |
26% to 50% of time (%) |
11% to 25% of time (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M2A: Proportion of total hours spent on teaching/mentoring | 33.0 | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| M2a_1r: Includes teaching (among those reporting time spent on teaching/mentoring) | 100.0 | 5 |
| No (%) | Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| M2a_2r: Includes professional development to improve teaching (among those reporting time spent on teaching/mentoring) | 20.0 | 80.0 | 5 |
| No (%) | Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| M2a_3r: Includes research projects with students (among those reporting time spent on teaching/mentoring) | 60.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| No (%) | Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| M2a_4r: Includes supervising internships/field experiences (among those reporting time spent on teaching/mentoring) | 60.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| No (%) | Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| M2a_5r: Includes student thesis/dissertation committee work (among those reporting time spent on teaching/mentoring) | 60.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| Mean % of Time on Activity |
26% to 50% of time (%) |
11% to 25% of time (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M2B: Proportion of total hours spent advising students | 29.0 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 5 |
| Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| M2b_1r: Includes formal advising (among those reporting time spent on advising) | 100.0 | 5 |
| Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| M2b_2r: Includes informal advising (among those reporting time spent on advising) | 100.0 | 5 |
| Mean % of Time on Activity |
26% to 50% of time (%) |
1% to 5% of time (%) |
0% of time (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M2C: Proportion of total hours spent on research/scholarly activities | 12.2 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| Mean % of Time on Activity |
0% of time (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| M2D: Proportion of total hours spent on creative artistry/literature | 0.0 | 100.0 | 5 |
| Mean % of Time on Activity |
1% to 5% of time (%) |
0% of time (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M2E: Proportion of total hours spent on extension/engagement/econ dev | 1.0 | 20.0 | 80.0 | 5 |
| No (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| M2e_1r: Includes service learning teaching/mentoring (among those reporting time spent on extension/engagement) | 100.0 | 1 |
| Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| M2e_2r: Includes extension education/non-credit programs (among those reporting time spent on extension/engagement) | 100.0 | 1 |
| Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| M2e_3r: Includes economic development training/tech assistance (among those reporting time spent on extension/engagement) | 100.0 | 1 |
| No (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| M2e_4r: Includes partnering with private sector - job/investment creation (among those reporting time spent on extension/engagement) | 100.0 | 1 |
| No (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| M2e_5r: Public service grants/contracts (among those reporting time spent on extension/engagement) | 100.0 | 1 |
| Mean % of Time on Activity |
26% to 50% of time (%) |
6% to 10% of time (%) |
1% to 5% of time (%) |
0% of time (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M2F: Proportion of total hours spent on service work | 11.0 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| No (%) | Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| M2f_1r: Includes advising student groups (among those reporting time spent on service work) | 75.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| M2f_2r: Includes dept/college/university committees (among those reporting time spent on service work) | 100.0 | 4 |
| No (%) | Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| M2f_3r: Includes professional service (among those reporting time spent on service work) | 75.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| M2f_4r: Includes academic program assessment activities (among those reporting time spent on service work) | 100.0 | 4 |
| No (%) | Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| M2f_5r: Includes other university service (among those reporting time spent on service work) | 50.0 | 50.0 | 4 |
| Mean % of Time on Activity |
0% of time (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| M2G: Proportion of total hours spent on tech/managerial innovation | 0.0 | 100.0 | 5 |
| Mean % of Time on Activity |
26% to 50% of time (%) |
11% to 25% of time (%) |
0% of time (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M2H: Proportion of total hours spent on dept/college admin duties | 13.8 | 20.0 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| No (%) | Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| M3_1: Worked summer at NCSU without overload pay | 40.0 | 60.0 | 5 |
| No (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| M3_2: Taught at NCSU on overload basis | 100.0 | 5 |
| No (%) | Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| M3_3: Taught NCSU distance education class | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| No (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| M3_4: Taught for another academic institution | 100.0 | 5 |
| No (%) | Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| M3_5: Did outside consulting/freelance for pay | 60.0 | 40.0 | 5 |
| No (%) | Yes (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| M3_6: Did outside consulting/freelance without pay | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| No (%) | Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| M3_7: Had other secondary employment | 100.0 | 5 |
| A few times (%) |
About once per month (%) |
Two or three times per month (%) |
At least once per week (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M4: Frequency of volunteer work past 2 years | 40.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| Never (%) |
Once or twice (%) |
More than 10 times (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M5: Frequency of public policy work past 5 years | 60.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| 3 (%) |
4 (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| M6: Management of work-related demands of past 2 years | 80.0 | 20.0 | 5 |
| I would change how I spent time (%) |
I would not change a thing (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| M7: Change how you spend your work time | 75.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
Section N: Conclusions/Overall Satisfaction
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N1: Satisfaction with your "fit" in department | 3.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N2: I generally feel valued in my department | 2.8 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N3a: I am treated with respect by my students | 3.3 | 25.0 | 75.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N3b: I am treated with respect by dept support staff | 3.8 | 75.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N3c: I am treated with respect faculty in my dept | 3.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
2: Disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N3d: I am treated with respect by NCSU administrators | 3.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Strongly agree (%) |
3: Agree (%) |
1: Strongly disagree (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N4: I would recommend my department as a good place to work | 2.8 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: A great deal (%) |
3: Some (%) |
2: A little (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N5a: Amount of stress due to reappointment, promotion or tenure | 3.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: A great deal (%) |
3: Some (%) |
2: A little (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N5b: Amount of stress from research/publication demands | 3.0 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Some (%) |
2: A little (%) |
1: None at all (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N5c: Amount of stress from professional development | 2.3 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Some (%) |
2: A little (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N5d: Amount of stress from institutional procedures | 2.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Some (%) |
2: A little (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N5e: Amount of stress from committee work | 2.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Some (%) |
2: A little (%) |
1: None at all (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N5f: Amount of stress from relationships with students | 2.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Some (%) |
2: A little (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N5g: Amount of stress from relationships with faculty in dept | 2.8 | 75.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: A great deal (%) |
2: A little (%) |
1: None at all (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N5h: Amount of stress from relationships w/dept admin | 2.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 2: A little (%) |
1: None at all (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N5i: Amount of stress from relationships w/college admin | 1.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: A great deal (%) |
3: Some (%) |
2: A little (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N5j: Amount of stress from workload | 3.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: A great deal (%) |
3: Some (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N5k: Amount of stress from work/personal life balance | 3.3 | 25.0 | 75.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 3: Some (%) |
2: A little (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N5l: Amount of stress from working with under-prepared students | 2.5 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: A great deal (%) |
3: Some (%) |
2: A little (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N5m: Amount of stress from self-assessment activities | 3.0 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 3 |
| Mean Rating | 4: A great deal (%) |
3: Some (%) |
2: A little (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N5n: Amount of stress from program assessment requirements | 2.8 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | 4: Very Satisfied (%) |
3: Satisfied (%) |
2: Dissatisfied (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N6: Overall satisfaction with NCSU | 3.3 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Mean Rating | Somewhat more satisfied now (%) |
Neither more or less satisfied now (%) |
A lot less satisfied now (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N7: More or less satisfied with NC State, compared to 5 yrs ago | 2.8 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| Yes - not very seriously (%) |
Yes - very seriously (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N8: Ever considered leaving NC State for another university | 75.0 | 25.0 | 4 |
| No - never considered leaving (%) |
Total (N) | |
|---|---|---|
| N10: Ever considered leaving academe, since coming to NC State | 100.0 | 4 |
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, click here.
Return to 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey Table of Contents Page