Appendices

• Appendix A: Methodology
• Appendix B: Definitions
• Appendix C: Instrumentation Summary
• Appendix D: Selected Peer Universities and Cohort Institutions

Appendix A – Methodology

Background

The principal purposes of the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) survey are two-fold: (1) to enlighten academic leaders about the experiences and concerns of full-time, faculty; and (2) to provide data that lead to informed discussions and appropriate actions to improve the quality of work/life for those faculty. The core element of COACHE is a web-based survey designed on the basis of extensive literature reviews; of themes emerging from multiple focus groups; of feedback from senior administrators in Academic Affairs; and of extensive pilot studies and cognitive tests in multiple institutional contexts.

Survey Design

The COACHE instrument was developed and validated in stages over several years. Faculty were interviewed in focus groups to learn how they view certain work-related issues, including specific institutional policies and practices, work climate, the ability to balance professional and personal lives, issues surrounding tenure, and overall job satisfaction.

COACHE solicited feedback about the survey by conducting follow-up interviews with a sub-sample of the pilot study respondents. Cognitive interviews were conducted with faculty from a broad range of institutional types to test the generalizability of questions across various institutional types. The survey was revised in light of this feedback. The current version of the survey was revised further, taking into account feedback provided by respondents in survey administrations annually since 2005.

Survey administration

All eligible subjects at participating institutions were invited to complete the survey. Eligibility was determined according to the following criteria: Full-time, not hired in the same year as survey administration, and not in terminal year after being denied tenure.

Subjects first received a letter about the survey from a senior administrator (e.g., president, provost, or dean) at their institution. Next, subjects received an email from COACHE inviting them to complete the survey. Over the course of the survey administration period, four automated reminders were sent via email to all subjects who had not completed the survey. Participants accessed a secure web server through their own unique link provided by COACHE. Generally, respondents completed the survey in less than twenty-five minutes; the mode (most frequent) completion time was approximately 24 minutes.

Data conditioning

For a participant's responses to be included in the data set, s/he had to provide at least one meaningful response beyond the initial demographic section of the instrument. The responses of faculty who either terminated the survey before completing the demographic section or chose only N/A or Decline to Respond for all questions were removed from the survey data set, although they remained in the population data file. The impact of such deletions, however, is relatively small: on average, greater than 90 percent of respondents who enter the COACHE survey go on to complete it in its entirety.

When respondents completed the survey in an inordinately short time or when the same response was used for at least 95% of items, the respondents were removed from the survey data file. Self-reported demographic characteristics differing from institutional data provided to COACHE was recoded to match the respondent's selection.

Appendix B – Definitions

All comparable institutions, "Cohort," or "All"

Within the report, comparisons between your institution and the cohort group provide context for your results in the broader faculty labor market. While the experiences, demands, and expectations for faculty vary by institutional type - reflected in your peer selections - this comparison to the entire COACHE cohort can add an important dimension to your understanding of your faculty. The institutions included in this year's cohort group is listed in the appendix of your Provost's Report.

Effect size

Put simply, an effect size describes the magnitude of difference between two groups, regardless of statistical significance. In this report, effect sizes measure the differences between paired subgroups within a campus (i.e., male and female, tenured and pre-tenure faculty, associate and full professors, white faculty and faculty of color).

We do not use tests of statistical significance in part because COACHE is a census, not a sample; differences in means are representative of the population, not of some broader sample. We rely on effect sizes, instead, because they consider both the central tendency and the variance, countering concerns about differences in group sizes. Also, unlike other measures of differences between groups, effect sizes show both the direction and magnitude of differences.

Effect sizes in this report are calculated using the formula below where:

 Effect size = x1 – x2
                            sd1

In the social science research domain in which COACHE operates, the following thresholds are generally accepted ranges of effect size magnitude.

0 < Trivial < .1
.1 < Small < .3
.3 < Moderate < .5
.5 < Large < 1.0+

Faculty of color or "FOC"

Any respondent identified by his or her institution or self-identifying in the survey as non-White.

Underrepresented minority faculty or "URM"

Any respondent identified by his or her institution or self-identifying in the survey as non-White and non- Asian/Asian-American.

To protect the identity of respondents and in accordance with procedures approved by Harvard University's Committee on the Use of Human Subjects, cells with fewer than five data points (i.e., mean scores for questions that were answered by fewer than five faculty from a subgroup within an institution) are not reported. Instead, "n < 5" will appear as the result.

n < 5

Response rate
 The percent of all eligible respondents, by tenure status, rank, gender and by race, whose responses, following the data conditioning process, were deemed eligible to be included in this analysis. Thus, your response rate counts as nonrespondents those faculty who were "screened out" by the survey application or by later processes.

Appendix C – Instrumentation Summary

The COACHE Benchmarks and abbreviated names for nearly every item included in the 2024 edition of the COACHE Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey. Some items are rated on an agreement scale, others on a satisfaction scale, and others on a frequency scale. The question identifiers (e.g., “Q45B”) skip in sequence and do not indicate the quantity of variables in this survey, only their relative order; although a “Q460” exists, there are not 460 questions. Also, due to adaptive survey branching (depending on respondents’ institutional types, rank, tenure status, etc.), no participant is administered every item in the instrument.

During the developmental phases of our research, COACHE analysts conducted a series of principal component analyses (PCA) to derive twenty summary themes, or benchmarks, which describe faculty attitudes about their workplaces. Each benchmark is comprised of a few or several survey items, as follows. Some items remain in the survey, though they are not included in a benchmark score; these are marked here with an asterisk. Where applicable, Cronbach’s alpha values are reported in parentheses.

Nature of work: Research

Q45B Satisfaction with the portion of your time spent on research.

Q50B* Indicate whether you feel you spend too much or too little time on research.

Q80A The amount of external funding you are expected to find

Q80B The influence you have over the focus of your research/scholarly/creative work

Q80C The quality of graduate students to support your research/scholarly/creative work

Q80D Institutional support (e.g., internal grants/seed money) for your research/scholarly/creative work

Q80E The support your institution provides for engaging undergraduates in your research/scholarly/creative work Q85A Obtaining externally funded grants (pre-award)

Q85B Managing externally funded grants (post‐award) Q85C Securing graduate student assistance

Q85D Traveling to present papers or conduct research/creative work

Q85E The availability of course release time to focus on your research

Nature of work: Service

Q45C Satisfaction with the portion of your time spent on service.

Q50C* Indicate whether you feel you spend too much or too little time on service.

Q55B My institution helps faculty who take on additional leadership roles to sustain other aspects of their work. Q60A The number of committees on which you serve

Q60B The attractiveness (e.g., value, visibility, importance, personal preference) of the committees on which you serve

Q60C The discretion you have to choose the committees on which you serve

Q60D How equitably committee assignments are distributed across faculty in your department

Q60E* The number of students you advise/mentor

Nature of work: Teaching

Q45A Satisfaction with the portion of your time spent on teaching.

Q50A* Indicate whether you feel you spend too much or too little time on teaching.

Q70A The number of courses you teach

Q70B The level of courses you teach

Q70C The discretion you have over the content of the courses you teach

Q70D The number of students in the classes you teach, on average

Q70E The quality of students you teach, on average

Q70H How equitably the teaching workload is distributed across faculty in your department

Q70I The quality of graduate students to support your teaching

Facilities and work resources

Q70F The support your institution has offered you for improving your teaching

Q90A Office

Q90B Laboratory, research, or studio space

Q90C Equipment

Q90D Classrooms

Q90E Library resources

Q90F Computing and technical support

Q90H Clerical/administrative support

Personal and Family Policies

Q95D Housing benefits (e.g. real estate services, subsidized housing, low-interest mortgage)

Q95E Tuition waivers, remission, or exchange

Q95F Spousal/partner hiring program

Q95G Childcare

Q95H Eldercare

Q95J Family medical/parental leave

Q95K Flexible workload/modified duties for parental or other family reasons

Q95L Stop-the-clock for parental or other family reasons

Q200B My institution does what it can to make personal/family obligations and an academic career compatible. Q200A I have been able to find the right balance, for me, between my professional life and my personal/family life.

Health and retirement benefits

Q95A Health benefits for yourself

Q95B Health benefits for your family (i.e. spouse, partner, and dependents)

Q95C Retirement benefits

Q95I Phased retirement options

Appreciation and recognition

Q215A Recognition you receive for your teaching efforts

Q215B Recognition you receive for your student advising?

Q215C Recognition you receive for your scholarly/creative work?

Q215D Recognition you receive for your service contributions?

Q215E Recognition you receive for your outreach?

Q215J For all of your work, recognition you receive from your chief academic officer (provost, VPAA, dean of faculty)?

Q215K For all of your work, recognition you receive from your dean or division head?

Q215L For all of your work, recognition you receive from your department head or chair?

Q215I For all of your work, recognition you receive from your colleagues/peers?

Q220A My school/college is valued by this institution’s President/Chancellor and Provost. [large institutions] Q220B My department is valued by this institution’s President/Chancellor and Provost.

Q245A The chief academic officer at my institution seems to care about the quality of life for faculty of my rank.

Interdisciplinary work

Q99* Interest in interdisciplinary work

Q98A* Engagement in collaborative interdisciplinary teaching

Q98B* Engagement in collaborative interdisciplinary research

Q98C* Engagement in solo interdisciplinary teaching or research

Q100A Budget allocations encourage interdisciplinary work.

Q100B Campus facilities (e.g. spaces, buildings, centers, labs) are conducive to interdisciplinary work.

Q100C Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in the merit process.

Q100D Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in the promotion process.

Q100E Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in the tenure process.

Q100G My department understands how to evaluate interdisciplinary work.

Collaboration

Q105A Opportunities for collaboration with other members of your department

Q105E Opportunities for collaboration within your institution, faculty outside your department

Q105D Opportunities for collaboration with faculty outside your institution

Mentoring

Q110* I have served as either a formal or informal mentor to… (Pre-tenure, Tenured faculty | In my, Outside my department)

Q115* Being a mentor is/has been fulfilling to you in your role as a faculty member

Q120A* Importance of having a mentor(s) in your department to your success as a faculty member

Q120B* Importance of having a mentor(s) outside your department at your institution to your success as a faculty member

Q120C* Importance of having a mentor(s) outside your institution to your success as a faculty member

Q125A Effectiveness of mentoring for you from someone in your department

Q125B Effectiveness of mentoring for you from someone outside your department at your institution

Q125C* Effectiveness of mentoring for you from someone outside your institution

Q130A There is effective mentoring of pre‐tenure faculty in my department.

Q130B There is effective mentoring of tenured associate professors in my department.

Q130C My institution provides adequate support for faculty to be good mentors.

Tenure policies

Q136A The clarity of the tenure process in your department.

Q136B The clarity of the tenure criteria (what things are evaluated) in my department

Q136C The clarity of the tenure standards (the performance threshold) in my department

Q136D The clarity of the body of evidence (the dossier’s contents) considered in making tenure decisions in my department

Q136E The clarity of whether or not you will achieve tenure.

Q139A I have received consistent messages from tenured faculty about the requirements for tenure.

Q139B Tenure decisions here are made primarily on performance‐based rather than on non‐performance‐based criteria.

Q145B* Have you received formal feedback on your progress toward tenure?

Tenure clarity

Q137A Clarity of expectations regarding your performance as a scholar

Q137B Clarity of expectations regarding your performance as a teacher

Q137C Clarity of expectations regarding your performance as an advisor to students

Q137D Clarity of expectations regarding your performance as a colleague in your department

Q137E Clarity of expectations regarding your performance as a campus citizen

Q137F Clarity of expectations regarding your performance as a member of the broader community (e.g., outreach)

Promotion

Q135C Generally, the expectations for promotion from associate to full professor are reasonable to me.

Q135B My department has a culture where associate professors are encouraged to work towards promotion to full professor.

Q140A Clarity of the process for promotion from associate to full professor in my department

Q140B Clarity of the criteria (what things are evaluated) for promotion from associate to full professor in my department

Q140C Clarity of the standards (the performance thresholds) for promotion from associate to full professor in my department

Q140D Clarity of the body of evidence (the dossier’s contents) for promotion from associate to full professor in my department

Q140E Clarity of the timeframe within which associate professors should apply for promotion in rank to full professor

Q140F My sense [of clarity] of whether or not I will be promoted from associate to full professor

Q145A* Have you received formal feedback on your progress toward promotion to full professor?

Q150* When do you plan to submit your dossier for promotion to full professor?

Leadership: Senior

Q180A My institution’s president’s/chancellor’s: Pace of decision making

Q180B My institution’s president’s/chancellor’s: Stated priorities

Q180C My institution’s president’s/chancellor’s: Communication of priorities to faculty

Q180L My institution’s CAO’s: Pace of decision making

Q180M My institution’s CAO’s: Stated priorities

Q180N My institution’s CAO’s: Communication of priorities to faculty

Leadership: Divisional

Q185D My dean’s or division head’s: Pace of decision making

Q185E My dean’s or division head’s: Stated priorities

Q185F My dean’s or division head’s: Communication of priorities to faculty

Q185G My dean’s or division head’s: Ensuring opportunities for faculty to have input into school/college priorities

Leadership: Departmental

Q185H My department head’s or chair’s: Pace of decision making

Q185I My department head’s or chair’s: Stated priorities

Q185J My department head’s or chair’s: Communication of priorities to faculty

Q185K My department head’s or chair’s: Ensuring opportunities for faculty to have input into departmental policy decisions

Q185L My department head’s or chair’s: Fairness in evaluating my work

Leadership: Faculty

Q186A My institution‐wide faculty governing body’s: Pace of decision making

Q186B My institution‐wide faculty governing body’s: Stated priorities

Q186C My institution‐wide faculty governing body’s: Communication of priorities to faculty

Q186D My institution‐wide faculty governing body’s: Steps taken to ensure faculty are included in that body’s decision making

Shared Governance: Trust

Q188B I understand the process by which I can express my opinions about institutional policies.

Q188C My institution has clear rules about the various roles and authority of the faculty and administration.

Q189BD Faculty leaders and senior administrators: Follow agreed-upon rules of engagement when there are disagreements.

Q189BE Faculty leaders and senior administrators: Have an open system of communication for making decisions.

Q189BG Faculty leaders and senior administrators: Discuss difficult issues in good faith.

Shared Governance: Purpose

Q189AB Important institutional decisions not made until consensus among faculty leaders, senior administrators is achieved.

Q189AC Senior administrators ensure that there is sufficient time for faculty to provide input on important decisions.

Q189BC Faculty leaders and senior administrators: Respectfully consider one another's views before important decisions.

Q189BF Faculty leaders and senior administrators: Share a sense of responsibility for the welfare of the institution.

Shared Governance: Understanding

Q188A Existing faculty governance structures offer sufficient opportunities for me to provide input on institution‐wide policies.

Q189AD Once an important decision is made, senior administrators communicate their rationale.

Q189BA Faculty leaders and senior administrators: Have equal say in governance matters.

Q189BB Faculty leaders and senior administrators: Engage each other in defining decision criteria used to evaluate options.

Shared Governance: Adaptability

Q188D My institution's shared governance model holds up under unusual situations.

Q188E My institution systematically reviews the effectiveness of its decision-making processes.

Q189AA My institution cultivates new leaders among faculty.

Shared Governance: Productivity

Q187B On the whole, the effectiveness of the shared governance system at your institution.

Q189F The governance committees on which I currently serve make observable progress toward goals.

Q189G The progress achieved through governance efforts is publicly recognized.

Departmental collegiality

Q200C My department colleagues do what they can to make personal/family obligations and an academic career compatible.

Q200D Department meetings occur at times that are compatible with my personal/family needs. Q205B The amount of personal interaction you have with pre-tenure faculty in your department Q205C How well you fit in your department (e.g. your sense of belonging in your department) Q205E The amount of personal interaction you have with tenured faculty in your department Q210A My department colleagues "pitch in" when needed.

Q210C On the whole, my department is collegial.

Q212A On the whole, my department colleagues are committed to supporting, promoting diversity and inclusion in the dept.

Departmental engagement

Q190A Engagement with faculty in your department in conversations about: Undergraduate student learning

Q190B Engagement with faculty in your department in conversations about: Graduate student learning [large institutions]

Q190C Engagement with faculty in your department in conversations about: Effective teaching practices

Q190D Engagement with faculty in your department in conversations about: Effective uses of technology

Q190E Engagement with faculty in your department in conversations about: Uses of current research methodologies

Q205A The amount of professional interaction you have with pre-tenure faculty in your department

Q205D The amount of professional interaction you have with tenured faculty in your department

Departmental quality

Q195A The intellectual vitality of tenured faculty in your department

Q195B The intellectual vitality of pre-tenure faculty in your department

Q195C The research/scholarly/creative productivity of tenured faculty in your department

Q195D The research/scholarly/creative productivity of pre-tenure faculty in your department Q195G The teaching effectiveness of tenured faculty in your department

Q195H The teaching effectiveness of pre-tenure faculty in your department

Q195I The teaching effectiveness of non-tenure track faculty in your department

Q240B My department is successful at recruiting high‐quality faculty members.

Q240C My department is successful at retaining high‐quality faculty members.

Q240D My department is successful at addressing sub-standard tenured faculty performance.

* Not included in benchmark (following principal component analysis) but reported individually in the COACHE Institutional Report.

Appendix D – Selected Peer Universities and Cohort Institutions

 

Selected Peer Universities

You selected 5 institutions as peers against whom to assess your COACHE Survey results. The results at these institutions are included throughout this report in the aggregate or, when cited individually, in random order.

• Florida International University (2024)
• Georgia State University: Atlanta (2023)
• University of Central Florida (2024)
• University of Texas at El Paso (2023)
• Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (2023)

Cohort Institutions

Faculty from the following 85 institutions comprise the comparison cohort of universities for this 2024 Chief Academic Officer Report.

• Appalachian State University (2022)
• Auburn University (2023)
• Baylor University (2024)
• Bowling Green State University (2023)
• Brown University (2023)
• California State University - Fullerton (2022)
• Central Michigan University (2021)
• Christopher Newport University (2024)
• Clarkson University (2024)
• Clemson University (2022)
• CUNY - Bernard M Baruch College (2023)
• CUNY - Brooklyn College (2023)
• CUNY - City College of New York (2023)
• CUNY - College of Staten Island (2023)
• CUNY - Hunter College (2023)
• CUNY - John Jay College of Criminal Justice (2023)
• CUNY - Lehman College (2023)
• CUNY - Medgar Evers College (2023)
• CUNY - New York City College of Technology (2023)
• CUNY - Queens College (2023)
• CUNY - School of Law (2023)
• CUNY - The Graduate School and University Center (2023)
• CUNY - York College (2023)
• Emory University (2023)
• Fisk University (2021)
• Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (2022)
• Florida Gulf Coast University (2023)
• Florida International University (2024)
• Florida State University (2024)
• Fordham University (2024)
• George Mason University (2022)
• Georgetown University (2024)
• Georgia Institute of Technology (2024)
• Georgia State University: Atlanta (2023)
• Grand Valley State University (2024)
• Illinois State University (2022)
• Indiana University - Bloomington (2023)
• Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (2024)
• Iowa State University (2021)
• Kent State University (2022)
• Lehigh University (2022)
• Louisiana State University (2021)
• Missouri University of Science and Technology (2023)
• North Carolina Central University (2021)
• North Carolina State University (2024)
• Old Dominion University (2023)
• Purdue University (2022)
• Radford University (2022)
• Rochester Institute of Technology (2023)
• Rutgers University-Camden (2023)
• Rutgers University-Newark (2023)
• Rutgers University-New Brunswick (2023)
• John's University (2022)
• SUNY - Stony Brook University (2022)
• SUNY - University at Buffalo (2022)
• Texas Tech University (2022)
• Tulane University (2023)
• University of Arizona (2024)
• University of Arkansas (2022)
• University of California, Davis (2021)
• University of Central Florida (2024)
• University of Cincinnati - Main Campus (2022)
• University of Denver (2023)
• University of Kansas (2022)
• University of Louisville (2023)
• University of Massachusetts - Amherst (2024)
• University of Memphis (2024)
• University of Missouri - Columbia (2022)
• University of Missouri - Kansas City (2023)
• University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill (2021)
• University of North Carolina - Charlotte (2024)
• University of North Carolina - Wilmington (2024)
• University of Richmond (2023)
• University of South Carolina - Columbia (2023)
• University of Tennessee (2021)
• University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (2022)
• University of Tennessee at Martin (2022)
• University of Tennessee Southern (2022)
• University of Texas at Arlington (2021)
• University of Texas at Austin (2023)
• University of Texas at El Paso (2023)
• University of Virginia (2024)
• Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (2023)
• Washington State University (2024)
• Worcester Polytechnic Institute (2024)

Appendix E: 2024-2025 Steering Committee Members

Jorge Aviles-Diz, Professor, Spanish, College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences

Alex Barr, Senior Lecturer, Physics, College of Science

Amanda Fuller, Associate Director, University Brand Strategy and Communications

Daniel Hubbard, Director, Data, Analytics, and Institutional Research (DAIR)

Karen Johnson, Associate Professor, Department of Learning Technologies, College of Information

William Joyner, Vice Chair, Faculty Senate; Associate Professor, Vocal Studies, College of Music

Jessica Napoles, Professor, Music Education, College of Music

Jessica Pamplin, Business Intelligence Analyst, DAIR

Jesus Quevedo-Torrero, Clinical Associate Professor, Computer Science and Engineering, College of Engineering

Reynaldo Quiroz, Business Intelligence Analyst, DAIR

Barrett Taylor, Professor, Counseling and Higher Education, College of Education

Kim Williams, Chair, Hospitality and Tourism Management, College of Merchandising, Hospitality and Tourism

Majed Yaghi, Clinical Associate Professor, Marketing, G. Brint Ryan College of Business

Kevin Yanowski, Associate Librarian, Department Head of Cataloging and Metadata Services, UNT Libraries