Slide 1

Retention and Advancement for Mid Career Faculty K.D. JoshiKelly WardAssociate Professor of Interim Chair andInformation Systems Professor, Education Leadership & Co. Psychology College of Business College of Education

OverviewWho are mid career faculty?Importance of the topicNational sceneCOACHE--Mid Career FindingsOther researchMid Career FacultyNext stepsWho are mid career faculty?Associate professorsPost tenure (associate or full) more than five years from retirementNot so young anymoreFaculty with tenure between 10 and 30 years on the jobFaculty with tenure who are 40-55 of ageWSU--COACHE --Post tenure associate faculty

Why is the advancement of mid career faculty important? Who cares?Why important?Develop potential leadersMaintain faculty pipelineFaculty moraleWise institutional investmentMaintain research vitality and productivityRole model for junior facultyOther reasons?Issues and challenges associated with advancement of mid-career facultyThe pipeline is lackingnot enough people to go up for fullPromotion to full is voluntarynot on a set time line like promotion to associateTenure and promotion policies vagueWork/family issues (child and elder care)Gendered culturesDisciplinary cultures varyService responsibilitiesOther ideas?

COACHE Findings Related to Mid-Career FacultyBackground Cohort analysis at WSU Fran McSweeney Focus group at WSU - Fran McSweeney What we can learn from COACHE 2009 DataAssociate Professor Perspectives on Factors that shape Job Satisfaction of Faculty A comparison of Assistant, Associate and Full Professors Are there any Gender Differences? Begin Conversation Background Cohort Analysis Cohorts of those hired as, or promoted to, associate professor between 1992 and 2001Major Conclusions: We lose associate professors (23% in 6 years; 33% over all years) at a lower rate than we lose assistant professors (44% in 6 years). Few associate professors move to full professor status in a timely manner (22% in 6 years) or at all (40% in 15 years for the 1992 cohort.Women (13% in 6 years) are only approximately half as likely to be promoted to full professor as men (27% in 6 years) Women may encounter a glass ceiling for salaries at approximately $130,000 per year. Doing better in more recent years than we did in the earlier years. Background Focus GroupsFour discussion sessions of Associate Professors were conducted during February/March 2009. A set recommendations were derived from the insights gained through these sessions:Increase Transparency Clarify Responsibilities Increase Institutional Support

Distribution of Survey Participants by Rank N = 578COACHE Survey for Associate Professors COACHE focuses mainly on Pre-tenure faculty, however, associate and full were included in a small set of ADVANCE InstitutionsComparative data not available from other institutions This work focuses Associate Professors and conducts analysis to compare perspectives of Associates with Assistant and Fulls. I do not compare Assistant and Fulls. A five point scale is used to measure perceptions

Survey Themes Tenure and Promotion Nature of the Work Policies and PracticesClimate, Culture and CollegialityGlobal SatisfactionHow Satisfied are Associate Professors Compared to Assistant and Full?Global Satisfaction Differences between Associate and Assistant & Associate and Full are Significant Tenure and Promotion Level of Agreement All the Faculty rated their level of agreement with the following two statements:

I have received consistent messages from tenured/Full colleagues about the requirements for tenure, and

In my opinion, tenure/promotion decisions here are made primarily on performance-based criteria rather than on non-performance criteria.

Fulls ONLY rated their perceptions of level of clarity regarding the promotion of associates.

Consistent Message and Objectivity

Differences between Associate and Assistant & Associate and Full are Significant Tenure and Promotion Overall The survey asked Assistants and Associates to rate their level of clarity regarding four aspects of tenure: process, criteria, standards, and the body of evidence required. Along the same scale, the survey asked faculty to rate their level of clarity regarding their sense of whether or not they will achieve tenure/promotion.

The survey also asked the Fulls to rate their perceptions of level of clarity regarding getting promoted to Full on the aforementioned itemsTenure and Promotion Process - Perception Differences Between Associates and Assistants

Differences are Significant for all items except the Sense Item Promotion to Full Professor: Perception Differences Between Associates and Full

Differences are Significant for all items Tenure and Promotion Drilling DownPerformance Expectation Clarity and Reasonableness

Next, the survey asked faculty to rate their level of clarity regarding the expectations for earning tenure or promotion in six areas where faculty work is judged: scholarship, teaching, advising, colleagueship in the department, campus citizenship, and membership in the broader community. For each item, the survey also asked faculty about the reasonableness of those expectations. Performance Expectation Clarity

Differences are Significant for all items except advisor and broader community member Item Performance Expectation Clarity Differences are Significant for only scholar itemPerformance Expectation Reasonableness

Differences are Significant for all items except for advisor Item Expectation Reasonableness Differences are Significant only for Scholar, Teacher and Colleague itemsNature of WorkNature of Work OverallThe Nature of Work Overall composite represents the mean satisfaction scores of the following:

Satisfaction with the number of hours workedThe allocation of faculty members timeClerical/administrative support servicesAccess to TAs, RAs, and/or GAsQuality of facilitiesComputing support services

Nature of Work Teaching The Teaching composite represents the mean satisfaction scores of the following:

Level of courses taughtNumber of courses taughtDegree of influence over which courses are taughtDiscretion over content of courses taughtNumber of students taughtQuality of undergraduates taught/interacted withQuality of graduates taught/interacted withTeaching services

Nature of Work - Research The Research composite represents the mean satisfaction scores of the following:

Amount of time to conduct researchAmount of external funding requiredInfluence over research focusResearch Services

Work Related Satisfaction

Differences between Associate and Assistant (except for Teaching) & Associate and Full are SignificantCompensation and Work-Life BalanceDifferences between Associate and Assistant & Associate and Full are Significant for Compensation, but not for Work-Life BalanceClimate Differences between Associate and Assistant & Associate and Full are SignificantOverall Male and Female Perceptions are not statistically different, but females consistently rate their satisfaction lower than males. Gender DifferencesPolicies and Practices Gender differences in how the Importance of these policies were ratedNow what? Next steps?Best practices: What are you doing in your department?Issues: What challenges do you face in addressing mid career faculty development?Future: What can you do in your department to maintain faculty vitality and advancement?Institution: What can WSU do to maintain the pipeline?Policy and practiceNext stepsTransparency in policies for promotionnot a cure all, but a helpWork/family balance issues remain very important for women faculty, regardless of rank (Britton, 2010)Pay attention to departmental/disciplinary culture and expectations for promotionMaintain a faculty development mindset that includes associate faculty

Institutional initiativesWhat data analysis needs exist?What can ADVANCE do to be helpful?