2011 COACHE Survey
Trend Comparisons

Tables of Results
by Survey Year

This report compares results from the 2011 COACHE Survey to results from the 2008 COACHE Survey. Questions and responses are organized by 2011 COACHE Survey themes, as identified by Harvard. Note that that only those questions asked in both survey administrations are included in this report. The 2011 COACHE Table of Contents page provides access to alternative reports. For more information on survey methods and administration, see the 2011 COACHE Survey Final Report.

Navigate to:

Nature of Work
Resources and Support
Tenure
Departmental Collegiality, Engagement, and Quality
Appreciation and Recognition
Global Satisfaction

Nature of Work

Satisfaction with the amount of external funding you are expected to find	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.04	3.29
5: Very satisfied	6.3%	5.7%
4: Satisfied	27.1%	45.0%
3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	38.9%	27.1%
2: Dissatisfied	20.8%	17.1%
1: Very dissatisfied	6.9%	5.0%
Total (N)	144	140

Satisfaction with the influence you have over the focus of research/scholarly/creative work	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	4.34	4.30
5: Very satisfied	47.6%	46.9%
4: Satisfied	42.2%	42.8%
3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	6.8%	4.8%
2: Dissatisfied	2.7%	4.8%
1: Very dissatisfied	0.7%	0.7%
Total (N)	147	145

Satisfaction with the number of courses you teach	Year
Satisfaction with the number of courses you teach	2008	2011
Mean Rating	4.10	3.89
5: Very satisfied	35.7%	29.3%
4: Satisfied	46.2%	45.7%
3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	11.9%	10.7%
2: Dissatisfied	4.9%	12.9%
1: Very dissatisfied	1.4%	1.4%
Total (N)	143	140

Satisfaction with the level of courses you teach	Year
Satisfaction with the level of courses you teach	2008	2011
Mean Rating	4.17	4.01
5: Very satisfied	39.9%	30.7%
4: Satisfied	44.1%	50.7%
3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	9.8%	8.6%
2: Dissatisfied	5.6%	8.6%
1: Very dissatisfied	0.7%	1.4%
Total (N)	143	140

Satisfaction with the discretion you have over course content	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	4.48	4.27
5: Very satisfied	54.5%	48.2%
4: Satisfied	40.0%	40.3%
3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	4.8%	5.0%
2: Dissatisfied	.	3.6%
1: Very dissatisfied	0.7%	2.9%
Total (N)	145	139

Satisfaction with the number of students in the classes you teach, on average	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.82	3.59
5: Very satisfied	26.9%	20.0%
4: Satisfied	44.1%	42.1%
3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	14.5%	16.4%
2: Dissatisfied	11.7%	20.0%
1: Very dissatisfied	2.8%	1.4%
Total (N)	145	140

Resources and Support

Satisfaction with computing and technical support	Year
Satisfaction with computing and technical support	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.67	3.43
5: Very satisfied	18.6%	22.1%
4: Satisfied	50.3%	35.9%
3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	13.8%	13.1%
2: Dissatisfied	13.8%	21.4%
1: Very dissatisfied	3.4%	7.6%
Total (N)	145	145

Satisfaction with clerical/administrative support	Year
Satisfaction with clerical/administrative support	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.63	3.21
5: Very satisfied	22.4%	17.2%
4: Satisfied	43.5%	31.0%
3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	12.9%	15.2%
2: Dissatisfied	17.0%	28.3%
1: Very dissatisfied	4.1%	8.3%
Total (N)	147	145

Tenure

Clarity of departmental tenure process	Year
Clarity of departmental tenure process	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.93	3.87
5: Very clear	23.0%	36.6%
4: Somewhat clear	57.4%	37.4%
3: Neither clear nor unclear	10.1%	7.6%
2: Somewhat unclear	8.8%	13.0%
1: Very unclear	0.7%	5.3%
Total (N)	148	131

Clarity of departmental tenure criteria	Year
Clarity of departmental tenure criteria	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.80	3.73
5: Very clear	16.9%	31.3%
4: Somewhat clear	58.8%	38.9%
3: Neither clear nor unclear	14.2%	6.9%
2: Somewhat unclear	8.1%	17.6%
1: Very unclear	2.0%	5.3%
Total (N)	148	131

Clarity of departmental tenure standards	Year
Clarity of departmental tenure standards	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.45	3.49
5: Very clear	8.2%	25.4%
4: Somewhat clear	52.7%	33.8%
3: Neither clear nor unclear	19.9%	13.8%
2: Somewhat unclear	14.4%	18.5%
1: Very unclear	4.8%	8.5%
Total (N)	146	130

Clarity of tenure body of evidence	Year
Clarity of tenure body of evidence	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.76	3.76
5: Very clear	22.6%	31.3%
4: Somewhat clear	45.2%	38.2%
3: Neither clear nor unclear	19.9%	11.5%
2: Somewhat unclear	11.0%	13.0%
1: Very unclear	1.4%	6.1%
Total (N)	146	131

Clarity of sense of whether or not I will achieve tenure	Year
Clarity of sense of whether or not I will achieve tenure	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.75	3.70
5: Very clear	20.5%	26.2%
4: Somewhat clear	46.6%	40.8%
3: Neither clear nor unclear	23.3%	16.9%
2: Somewhat unclear	6.8%	9.2%
1: Very unclear	2.7%	6.9%
Total (N)	146	130

Received consistent messages from tenured faculty about the requirements for tenure	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.44	3.25
5: Strongly agree	19.0%	22.3%
4: Somewhat agree	40.8%	33.1%
3: Neither agree nor disagree	10.2%	6.9%
2: Somewhat disagree	24.5%	23.1%
1: Strongly disagree	5.4%	14.6%
Total (N)	147	130

Tenure decisions here are made primarily on performance-based criteria	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.91	3.69
5: Strongly agree	35.7%	30.2%
4: Somewhat agree	39.3%	35.7%
3: Neither agree nor disagree	8.6%	15.5%
2: Somewhat disagree	12.1%	10.1%
1: Strongly disagree	4.3%	8.5%
Total (N)	140	129

Clarity of tenure expectations in performance as scholar	Year
Clarity of tenure expectations in performance as scholar	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.88	3.84
5: Very clear	21.6%	39.7%
4: Somewhat clear	54.7%	33.6%
3: Neither clear nor unclear	14.9%	6.1%
2: Somewhat unclear	7.4%	12.2%
1: Very unclear	1.4%	8.4%
Total (N)	148	131

Clarity of tenure expectations in performance as teacher	Year
Clarity of tenure expectations in performance as teacher	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.71	3.65
5: Very clear	18.1%	21.7%
4: Somewhat clear	48.6%	48.8%
3: Neither clear nor unclear	23.6%	7.0%
2: Somewhat unclear	6.9%	17.8%
1: Very unclear	2.8%	4.7%
Total (N)	144	129

Clarity of tenure expectations in performance as advisor to students	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.34	3.29
5: Very clear	11.6%	16.3%
4: Somewhat clear	36.2%	35.7%
3: Neither clear nor unclear	31.2%	17.1%
2: Somewhat unclear	15.9%	23.3%
1: Very unclear	5.1%	7.8%
Total (N)	138	129

Clarity of tenure expectations in performance as department colleague	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.27	3.24
5: Very clear	6.9%	19.1%
4: Somewhat clear	39.3%	24.4%
3: Neither clear nor unclear	34.5	23.7%
2: Somewhat unclear	13.1%	26.7%
1: Very unclear	6.2%	6.1%
Total (N)	145	131

Clarity of tenure expectations in performance as campus citizen	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	2.94	2.92
5: Very clear	5.6%	11.6%
4: Somewhat clear	27.8%	22.5%
3: Neither clear nor unclear	32.6%	24.8%
2: Somewhat unclear	22.9%	28.7%
1: Very unclear	11.1%	12.4%
Total (N)	144	129

Clarity of tenure expectations in performance as community member	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.07	2.90
5: Very clear	5.6%	11.5%
4: Somewhat clear	38.2%	23.1%
3: Neither clear nor unclear	22.9%	25.4%
2: Somewhat unclear	24.3%	23.8%
1: Very unclear	9.0%	16.2%
Total (N)	144	130

Reasonableness of tenure obligations as scholar	Year
Reasonableness of tenure obligations as scholar	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.88	4.01
5: Very reasonable	20.4%	35.2%
4: Somewhat reasonable	55.1%	45.3%
3: Neither reasonable nor unreasonable	17.7%	8.6%
2: Somewhat unreasonable	6.1%	7.0%
1: Very unreasonable	0.7%	3.9%
Total (N)	147	128

Reasonableness of tenure obligations as teacher	Year
Reasonableness of tenure obligations as teacher	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.84	4.15
5: Very reasonable	20.8%	41.6%
4: Somewhat reasonable	47.2%	40.0%
3: Neither reasonable nor unreasonable	27.8%	13.6%
2: Somewhat unreasonable	4.2%	1.6%
1: Very unreasonable	.	3.2%
Total (N)	144	125

Reasonableness of tenure obligations as advisor to students	Year
Reasonableness of tenure obligations as advisor to students	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.67	3.84
5: Very reasonable	18.1%	29.3%
4: Somewhat reasonable	35.5%	35.0%
3: Neither reasonable nor unreasonable	42.0%	28.5%
2: Somewhat unreasonable	4.3%	4.9%
1: Very unreasonable	.	2.4%
Total (N)	138	123

Reasonableness of tenure obligations as departmental colleague	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.50	3.92
5: Very reasonable	10.3%	32.5%
4: Somewhat reasonable	34.5%	35.8%
3: Neither reasonable nor unreasonable	50.3%	26.0%
2: Somewhat unreasonable	4.1%	2.4%
1: Very unreasonable	0.7%	3.3%
Total (N)	145	123

Reasonableness of tenure obligations as campus citizen	Year
Reasonableness of tenure obligations as campus citizen	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.42	3.68
5: Very reasonable	9.1%	20.5%
4: Somewhat reasonable	25.2%	34.4%
3: Neither reasonable nor unreasonable	64.3%	40.2%
2: Somewhat unreasonable	1.4%	2.5%
1: Very unreasonable	.	2.5%
Total (N)	143	122

Reasonableness of tenure obligations as community member	Year
Reasonableness of tenure obligations as community member	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.48	3.63
5: Very reasonable	7.6%	21.5%
4: Somewhat reasonable	36.1%	29.8%
3: Neither reasonable nor unreasonable	52.8%	42.1%
2: Somewhat unreasonable	2.8%	3.3%
1: Very unreasonable	0.7%	3.3%
Total (N)	144	121

Departmental Collegiality, Engagement, and Quality

Satisfaction with amount of personal interaction with pre-tenure faculty	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.83	3.78
5: Very satisfied	27.9%	26.0%
4: Satisfied	40.0%	43.5%
3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	20.0%	16.8%
2: Dissatisfied	10.7%	9.9%
1: Very dissatisfied	1.4%	3.8%
Total (N)	140	131

Satisfaction with amount of personal interaction with tenured faculty	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.50	3.59
5: Very satisfied	21.8%	18.0%
4: Satisfied	33.1%	43.6%
3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	24.6%	22.6%
2: Dissatisfied	15.5%	11.3%
1: Very dissatisfied	4.9%	4.5%
Total (N)	142	133

Satisfaction with fit in department	Year
Satisfaction with fit in department	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.76	3.87
5: Very satisfied	28.4%	34.3%
4: Satisfied	37.6%	38.8%
3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	19.1%	12.7%
2: Dissatisfied	11.3%	7.5%
1: Very dissatisfied	3.5%	6.7%
Total (N)	141	134

Satisfaction with amount of professional interaction with pre-tenure faculty	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.89	4.02
5: Very satisfied	27.9%	31.6%
4: Satisfied	45.7%	49.6%
3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	17.1%	9.0%
2: Dissatisfied	6.4%	8.3%
1: Very dissatisfied	2.9%	1.5%
Total (N)	140	133

Satisfaction with amount of professional interaction with tenured faculty	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.66	3.79
5: Very satisfied	23.6%	26.1%
4: Satisfied	41.0%	46.3%
3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	18.8%	12.7%
2: Dissatisfied	12.5%	10.4%
1: Very dissatisfied	4.2%	4.5%
Total (N)	144	134

Satisfaction with the intellectual vitality of tenured faculty in department	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.53	3.47
5: Very satisfied	18.7%	18.0%
4: Satisfied	41.0%	44.4%
3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	20.1%	10.5%
2: Dissatisfied	14.4%	20.3%
1: Very dissatisfied	5.8%	6.8%
Total (N)	139	133

Satisfaction with the intellectual vitality of pre-tenure faculty in department	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	4.08	4.27
5: Very satisfied	32.9%	42.4%
4: Satisfied	48.6%	47.0%
3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	14.3%	6.8%
2: Dissatisfied	2.1%	2.3%
1: Very dissatisfied	2.1%	1.5%
Total (N)	140	132

Appreciation and Recognition

Provost seems to care about the quality of life for faculty of my rank	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.34	3.04
5: Strongly agree	19.2%	5.6%
4: Somewhat agree	30.1%	31.5%
3: Neither agree nor disagree	23.3%	32.6%
2: Somewhat disagree	20.5%	22.5%
1: Strongly disagree	6.8%	7.9%
Total (N)	73	89

Global Satisfaction

If starting over, I would again choose to work at NC State	Year
If starting over, I would again choose to work at NC State	2008	2011
Mean Rating	4.16	3.82
5: Strongly agree	51.1%	42.1%
4: Somewhat agree	26.6%	27.0%
3: Neither agree nor disagree	11.5%	10.3%
2: Somewhat disagree	9.4%	11.9%
1: Strongly disagree	1.4%	8.7%
Total (N)	139	126

All things considered, satisfaction with department as a place to work	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.96	3.98
5: Very satisfied	31.7%	36.1%
4: Satisfied	45.8%	43.6%
3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	11.3%	7.5%
2: Dissatisfied	9.2%	7.5%
1: Very dissatisfied	2.1%	5.3%
Total (N)	142	133

All things considered, satisfaction with NC State as a place to work	Year
	2008	2011
Mean Rating	3.72	3.65
5: Very satisfied	16.8%	26.3%
4: Satisfied	49.7%	35.3%
3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	22.4%	20.3%
2: Dissatisfied	10.5%	13.5%
1: Very dissatisfied	0.7%	4.5%
Total (N)	143	133

Response to same-rank candidate inquiring about department as a place to work	Year
	2008	2011
Strongly recommend your department as a place to work	53.9%	53.8%
Recommend your department with reservations	44.0%	37.7%
Not recommend your department as a place to work	2.1%	8.5%
Total (N)	141	130

Best things about working at NC State*	Year
Best things about working at NC State*	2008	2011
Quality of colleagues	21.5%	33.6%
Support of colleagues	18.8%	15.3%
Opportunities to collaborate with colleagues	9.7%	9.2%
Quality of graduate students	5.6%	1.5%
Quality of graduate students	5.6%	1.5%
Quality of undergraduate students	1.4%	3.1%
Quality of facilities	4.9%	7.6%
Support for research/creative work	2.1%	3.1%
Support for teaching	2.8%	0.8%
Support for professional development	0.7%	1.5%
Assistance for grant proposals	3.5%	2.3%
Childcare policies/practices	0.0%	0.8%
Availability/quality of childcare facilities	0.0%	0.8%
Spousal/partner hiring program	0.0%	2.3%
Compensation	4.2%	2.3%
Geographic location	29.2%	32.1%
Diversity	0.0%	0.8%
Presence of others like me	0.0%	3.8%
My sense of fit here	19.4%	20.6%
Protections from service/assignments	3.5%	2.3%
Commute	2.1%	5.3%
Cost of living	7.6%	8.4%
Research/creative work requirements for tenure/promotion	4.9%	2.3%
Teaching load	9.7%	6.9%
Tenure/promotion requirements in general	4.2%	0.0%
Tenure/promotion criteria clarity	3.5%	2.3%
Tenure/promotion process clarity	1.4%	1.5%
Manageable pressure to perform	10.4%	9.9%
Academic freedom	19.4%	13.7%
Other	2.8%	3.1%
Other	0.0%	0.0%
There are no positive aspects	0.0%	0.8%
Total (N)	149	145

*Note: 2008 data have not been weighted and will vary slightly from the 2008 reports.

Worst things about working at NC State*	Year
Worst things about working at NC State*	2008	2011
Quality of colleagues	2.8%	6.3%
Support of colleagues	2.8%	5.5%
Opportunities to collaborate with colleagues	6.3%	3.1%
Quality of graduate students	11.8%	14.2%
Quality of graduate students	11.8%	14.2%
Quality of undergraduate students	6.9%	2.4%
Quality of facilities	10.4%	10.2%
Lack of support for research/creative work	9.0%	11.8%
Lack of support for teaching	2.8%	3.1%
Lack of support for professional development	3.5%	3.1%
Lack of assistance for grant proposals	14.6%	11.0%
Childcare policies/practices (or lack thereof)	6.3%	3.1%
Availability/quality of childcare facilities	4.2%	2.4%
Spousal/partner hiring program (or lack thereof)	6.9%	6.3%
Compensation	12.5%	40.2%
Geographic location	0.7%	2.4%
Lack of diversity	3.5%	5.5%
Absence of others like me	6.9%	7.1%
My lack of ???fit??? here	5.6%	5.5%
Too much service/too many assignments	7.6%	6.3%
Commute	2.8%	0.0%
Cost of living	4.2%	2.4%
Research/creative work requirements for tenure/promotion	6.3%	4.7%
Teaching load	7.6%	5.5%
Tenure/promotion requirements in general	0.7%	6.3%
Tenure/promotion criteria clarity	3.5%	3.1%
Tenure/promotion process clarity	1.4%	1.6%
Unrelenting pressure to perform	6.9%	6.3%
Academic freedom	0.7%	0.8%
Other	6.9%	5.5%
Other	2.8%	0.0%
There are no negative aspects	6.3%	6.3%
Total (N)	149	145

*Note: 2008 data have not been weighted and will vary slightly from the 2008 reports.
Back to top

Contacts:

Dr. Betsy E. Brown
Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs
North Carolina State University
206 Holladay Hall
Campus Box 7112
Raleigh NC 27695-7112
Phone: 919-513-7741
Fax: 919-515-1587
Email: betsy_brown@ncsu.edu

Dr. Nancy Whelchel
Associate Director for Survey Research
Office of Institutional Planning and Research
North Carolina State University
Campus Box 7002
Raleigh, NC 27695-7002
Phone: 919-515-4184
Email: nancy_whelchel@ncsu.edu

Posted: February, 2013

Return to 2011 COACHE Survey Table of Contents Page

Return to OIRP Survey Page

Return to OIRP Home Page

2011 COACHE SurveyTrend Comparisons

Tables of Results by Survey Year