Presentation on theme: "AAUP Survey #5 Results Nov 6-24, 2014. Methodology: Recruitment E-mail sent (to faculty on both campuses): Colleagues, The Purdue University Calumet chapter."— Presentation transcript:
Methodology: Recruitment E-mail sent (to faculty on both campuses): Colleagues, The Purdue University Calumet chapter of American Association of University Professors (AAUP) wishes to find out what impact the unification of Purdue Calumet and Purdue North Central will have on you and your campus, and on how you feel about the unification process and related issues. We ask for your cooperation in responding to the questions in the attached survey, by Nov. 20, 2014. Your participation is voluntary. The survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. We plan to share the aggregate (de-identified) results with the campus communities and beyond. Thank you for your time! If you have any questions about this study please contact the principal investigator, Prof. David P. Nalbone, Associate Professor of Psychology, at 219-989-2712, or firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com Survey link: https://purdue.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9Ho3erB1SoS98kRhttps://purdue.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9Ho3erB1SoS98kR
Methodology: Sample 73 faculty respondents – 70 at Calumet campus (3 unknown) 16 Instructor, LTL, or CL 5 Assistant Professor 22 Associate Professor 26 Full Professor 1 Other 3 unknown rank – 14 AAUP members
Methodology: Instrument I Responses on 4-point Likert scale: SA – A – D – SD (+ no opinion) 4 merger questions – Process handled competently? – Rationale adequately explained? – Input sought beforehand? – Input sought now? 4 unification process questions – Information… Accurate? Informative? Timely? Useful? 10 who benefits? questions – Who benefits? for 10 different stakeholders
Methodology: Instrument II Evaluation of administrators questions – Targets: Chancellors Keon and Dworkin; Vice Chancellors Turner, Gerard, and Schmid; your dean; your department head/chair – Questions: administrative ability, representation to public, faculty support, overall competence 6 evaluation of merger questions 6 effects of merger questions 3 open-ended questions: – Effects of merger, cause of merger, should merger occur? 3 demographic questions – Faculty rank, campus, AAUP member?
Competence and Input Item%SA/AMean The unification process has been handled competently.252.31 The reasons for the unification have been adequately explained. 241.97 Sufficient input was sought before the unification process was begun. 31.59 Sufficient input is being sought now that the unification process is under way. 312.48 Scale (Cronbach’s alpha =.81)2.09 Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree
Information Item: Would you agree or disagree that information about the unification process has been… %SA/AMean Accurate?262.21 Informative?302.08 Timely?242.00 Useful?232.06 Scale (Cronbach’s alpha =.94)2.09 Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree
Who Benefits? Item: Would you agree or disagree that the merger will benefit… %SA/AMean Purdue Calumet.211.83 Purdue North Central.302.00 Administrators.602.83 Faculty.131.67 Staff.111.77 Students.201.80 Alumni.71.77 Northwest Indiana.261.90 Board of Trustees.663.30 Purdue President Mitch Daniels793.57 Scale1 (Administrators, Board, Daniels: Cronbach’s alpha =.65)3.28 Scale 2 (all other items: Cronbach’s alpha =.98)1.85 Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree
Evaluation of Administrators Administrator (average of 4 rating items)% missing data Cronbach’s alpha Mean PUC Chancellor Keon8.972.22 PNC Chancellor Dworkin10.982.54 VC Turner8.972.60 PUC VC/Provost Gerard8.973.09 PNC VC/Provost Schmid8.982.12 Your dean8.992.60 Your department head/chair8.973.23 Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree
Evaluation of Merger Item%SA/AMean The merger is a good idea.191.78 The merger will save money in the long run.332.11 The merger is an effective use of time and resources.161.63 The merger will improve the quality of students.111.65 The merger will improve the quality of faculty.141.61 The merger will improve the quality of teaching.111.59 Scale (Cronbach’s alpha =.98)1.73 Scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree
Effects of Merger ItemMean As a result of the proposed merger, I have devoted ____________ to my teaching. 2.73 As a result of the proposed merger, I have devoted ____________ to my scholarly activity. 2.58 As a result of the proposed merger, I have devoted ____________ to my service. 3.10 As a result of the proposed merger, my teaching is of ____________.2.85 As a result of the proposed merger, my scholarly activity is of ____________. 2.68 As a result of the proposed merger, my service is of ____________.2.88 Scale (Cronbach’s alpha =.85)2.80 Scale: for items 1-3: 1 = Much less time, 5 = Much more time; for items 4-6: 1 = Much lower quality, 5 = Much higher quality
Conclusions: Survey #5 Quantitative Items Unification process not handled well, and presumed to benefit administrators, Board of Trustees, and president of Purdue. Information on merger process was poor, and not well- received. Evaluation of administrators reveals disparity: high marks for PUC VC/Provost Gerard, one’s department head; low marks for PUC Chancellor Keon, PNC VC/Provost Schmid. Little confidence that merger will be beneficial. Merger has reduced time for teaching and scholarly activity, reduced quality of scholarly activity.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Why is the merger occurring? 18 no response 5 No idea 23 Cost savings/consolidation 13 Mitch Daniels/Board of Trustees/top administrator 3 Chancellor Keon (and Chancellor Dworkin) wanted to “shine” for Mitch Daniels 2 Politics 2 Best interest of students 2 To eliminate faculty/unwanted people and academic freedom 1 Administrative attempt to increase income vs. faculty/staff 1 Anti-regional mindset of Mitch Daniels 1 To strengthen One Purdue
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Positive Comments: An increase in the student population on both campuses through innovative programs would increase income and offset expense management. Yes it should be. Higher education is going through a seismic shift in its mission and the way it operates and we need to be ready. This merger will help us be ready for the next shift. Yes, but my answer may be backwards; there never should have been separate campuses this close together from the outset.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Positive Comments (cont’d): Yes, many universities and community colleges work best on mergers and grow rapidly after becoming one. Yes. There are visible ways to serve the same number of students with less resources, or better, more students with the same number of resources. Yes. [It is] in the best interest of students Yes. It makes no sense to be competing with a "sister" campus 30 miles away. Yes, it is ludicrous to have two major universities (and a third minor, Crown Point) within such a short distance to each other.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Neutral, Uncertain, or Conflicted Comments: As long as it does not inconvenience students or staff. It may be a good idea to save money by having fewer administrators. But everything else is a big unknown. Long-term effect has not be discussed. Perhaps, but I think there should have been some input from faculty and staff before making the decision for us. The timing is suspect. If PUC's administration cannot even project its tenure track faculty salaries a semester ahead, I have little confidence in their hope for significant cost savings. I am still waiting to see a projection of the savings they expect.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Neutral, Uncertain, or Conflicted Comments (cont’d): Possibly, but we need a study about likely outcomes, financial and otherwise. Since merging and other alternatives were not openly discussed before the merger was announced, I don't know if the merger decision was the optimal one. The merger should occur only if it is done in such a way that the primary focus is on high quality academics, collaborative research and shared resources. It is a foregone conclusion. Long-term effect has not be discussed.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Neutral, Uncertain, or Conflicted Comments (cont’d): The research that has. Been found on this does not show significant savings. Why continue. I do like the idea of working with and sharing other faculty to be able to offer a wider range of classes s at PUC.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Neutral, Uncertain, or Conflicted Comments (cont’d ): Maybe for a chancellor and some top level administrators. No from all other perspectives - currently from the "grapevine" some money will be saved - however the cost of unification on software and such appears to have the potential to cost much more than the initial savings. In terms of students it is unlikely that the majority will want to drive between two different campuses. Many students at PUC and PNC are here for convenience of location. Dorm students generally choose to live in dorms to be close to school. For the minority of student who may take an upper level class (>300) class on the other campus, maybe could work out an agreement that would accept those toward the 32 campus residency requirement and for there major - as long as it is an appropriate course. If faculty have to commute between campuses that will add hours to there day - hours that should be devoted to students, scholarship and service. Driving back and forth would be inefficient for the faculty. Also adds more fossil fuel emissions to the atmosphere.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Negative Comments: Absolutely not. There is no justifiable reason for it. The logistics of unifying two campuses 35+ miles apart are indescribable. Any paltry sum of money that might be saved is being spent on travel alone (of course on our own dime) and on unification work hours that could be better spent. It makes no sense whatsoever for students to drive to both campuses or for faculty to drive to both campuses. Both campuses seem to have their own sustainability, so therefore should not be merging at all.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Negative Comments (cont’d): I believe that the whole idea was very incompetently developed. I could see some consolidation at the top, because perhaps some money could be saved with one Admissions Director, for example, or one Provost (I'm not sure, but I'm assuming that some of these functions could be consolidated.) However, attempting to merge departments and disciplines is a recipe for disaster. It will be a bureaucratic nightmare as attempts are made to merge majors, for example. Department meetings will also be problematic One effect will be that the administration will be that much more consolidated while the faculty will be consolidated on paper, but in fact be more fragmented.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Negative Comments (cont’d): I can see it occurring at the top levels, like Chancellor, vice chancellors, assistant vice chancellors. But it think it's disruptive to do things like have one sports team--how can students who attend both campuses do practice sessions together? Also employees who don't drive being told they have to work at PNC once a week and the university not providing any transportation is not an employee-friendly situation. I felt that the decision was made before a through study of impacts, cost and benefit.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Negative Comments (cont’d): I don't think it should be happening without a sufficient feasibility study. How does an organization make a major move such as a merger without even a cursory exploration of its impact? If we want a previous model of how PUC has forged ahead with a major project without any sound feasibility studies, we need look no further than the abandoned Academic Learning Center in Crown Point. I have heard NO justification that indicates to me that the merger should be occurring. It probably will not result in any major changes.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Negative Comments (cont’d): It should not. The campuses are too far apart and any positives are far outweighed by the huge expenditure of time and effort. No in the way it is conducted. There needs to be a study of the merits (advantages), and the disadvantages and the cost to students and faculty. Will the quality of the programs and the learning improve or decline? I'm sure Daniels did not study it! No, because an analysis of the impact has never been done. The financial, academic, employment, and student- related impacts have never been determined. Failing to do this is poor planning.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Negative Comments (cont’d): NO--it's frozen faculty ability to develop and maintain curriculum because we don't have any idea what's going on with the merger and how combining (or not--we don't even know if there will be a combined curriculum) will happen. All projects that were launched prior to the announcement of the merger have crashed and there are other curricular issues that we can't address because the future is unclear. It is a BIG F*CKING mess. No, could have shared administrators without merging. No, it doesn't make sense to me, or students.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Negative Comments (cont’d): No, this merger between Purdue University Calumet and Purdue North Central should not be occurring at all. If any merger should take place that involves Purdue University Calumet, it should be a merger between Purdue University Calumet and Indiana University Northwest. These two campuses are about 12 miles apart and it is conceivable that considerable savings could have been achieved with this merger. No. I don't believe this is in the best interest of faculty or students. No. It is merely an attempt to fix something that is not broken.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Negative Comments (cont’d): No, this merger should not be happening. The distance between the two campuses is reason enough. I will however support a merger of the top administration including all levels of administration: Chancellor's office, all Vice Chancellors, and perhaps all deans. I will keep all academic units functioning the same way, however, we can align the courses so there is commonality within the two campuses. Say a course is taught only in Fall semesters at PUC, it can be taught only in Spring semesters at PNC. Cost savings may be achieved with this and also it gives students a way to catch up if they do not do well in any particular course, they have the option to go to the other campus so continuity within the program is not affected.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Negative Comments (cont’d): No. It seems like an immense amount of additional time and effort from many parties without a clear payoff in the end. If financial savings are the primary objective, it seems like there could have been other ways of combining services without necessitating a full merger. After all, we are already both part of the same system...why couldn't there just be more streamlining at the system level that would have allowed for combined services at both campuses. No. The two schools are very far apart physically and serve different groups of students. No. There is no need for a merger.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Negative Comments (cont’d): No. There are no demonstrable advantages, and a lot of logistical disadvantages to closer ties between the campuses. A full merger is a logistical nightmare, especially when considering curricular issues. No. Faculty and academic affairs can't benefit anything from this unnecessary merger. No. I think this is an ill conceived, shoot from the hip decision, that is causing chaos and disruption, for little actual benefit. I think the decision is not having or going to have positive outcomes for students. There was a creation of an "air of inevitability" that faculty just bought into. That is too bad....
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Negative Comments (cont’d): No. It does not benefit students or faculty or staff. No. It imposes tremendous costs, and the savings appear illusory. No. The curricula are very different No. The focus and target student population of the two campuses are totally [different]. No. The two campuses serve the needs of very different groups of students No. The university community was not consulted. There was no transparency or shared governance. No. This was not sought-after or initiated by faculty or students at either campus.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: Should the merger be occurring? Negative Comments (cont’d): [No] and not without broad discussion of regional campus function and purpose as well as affiliation with PWL The decision was made unilaterally, which makes people be against it, until all the repercussions are investigated, aren't we after all an institution that promotes and supports critical thinking and rigorous scientific analysis? The merger, in the long run, is going to cost more with more administrators and travel between the two campuses, not to mention the time and resources that will be wasted. This merger should not be occurring as it will not save money in the long run.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: How has the unification process affected you? Positive Comments: An opportunity to teach more classes on a more consistent basis is one potential benefit for me. My work has not been affected by the unification process I'm excited about the merger.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: How has the unification process affected you? Neutral, Uncertain, or Conflicted Comments: At this time I have been minimally impacted by the merger. However, I can see this as having a negative impact on faculty teaching and scholarship time if on any joint committees and even in cases for department meetings. Discussing this has taken up some hours of time, but otherwise, I have avoided (for now) dealing with the bureaucratic nightmare which I suspect will come soon and swallow up a great deal of my and others' time. I don't believe that my work has been affected so far. It has not been affected.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: How has the unification process affected you? Neutral, Uncertain, or Conflicted Comments (cont’d): It has not been impacted in any significant way. It really has not at this point except for the stress and uncertainty it has generated. Not yet, but I am sure it'll affect once the merger is under way. [It] remains to be seen.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: How has the unification process affected you? Negative Comments: The unification process is a diversion of resources (time, laboratory support, etc.). The unification process takes up time that could be better spent on teaching and research. This process has required a great deal of time and energy, through added committee work, more time spent in meetings in general, the inability to plan for the future, etc. it has also created an air of anxiety, which has a an overall affect on productivity. We are all spending time talking in the halls about the uncertainty associated with unification instead of our research and classes and students. That is probably hard to measure but everyone knows it.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: How has the unification process affected you? Negative Comments: Too much time spent gathering, sifting information. Unification of academic department will be very challenging. I expected huge amount work will be ahead and it will take away time and energy of faculty and compromise quality of teaching, research, and service. Wasted time devoted to the unification process. Many un- productive meetings! Lower morale across the campus! I am being asked to serve on several committees. I am committeed to death.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: How has the unification process affected you? Negative Comments: I have less time to do what I as a faculty member should be doing, and must spend more time trying to undo and combat administrative stupidity. I have not been able to spend as much time as I would like for my students, as I have had to find a second position to supplement my lost income. It's a distraction; increased committee load has cut into the time necessary for teaching. Just general stress as to the prospect of how to get to PNC once a week. Less time to devote to teaching and research because of committee work.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: How has the unification process affected you? Negative Comments: Look, I can't even get copies of my syllabus for the first week of school because the university is so badly managed. The unification only adds insult to injury. All at once -- new course management system, new teaching evaluation system, curriculum in the air between our degree major and PNC's along with our ABET accreditations, new regional accreditation system, new hour-long commutes for many faculty and staff between campuses, all the work developing inter-collegiate athletics and spirit up in the air, 60 years of tradition and identity set aside, Our campus culture is unraveled and must be re-knit together with another campus that is an hour away without any public transportation between campuses.
Responses to Open-Ended Items: How has the unification process affected you? Negative Comments: More meetings and issues that distract us from the real work of university faculty. I'm trying to please too many people and do so with a great deal of uncertainty about promotion expectations, scholarship standards, teaching and learning objectives. The requirements for promotion (scholarship) have skyrocketed in recent years (in comparison to publishing "achievements" of faculty promoted in the past, and it's difficult to determine what is acceptable to faculty in two institutions.
Conclusions: Survey #5 Open-Ended Items High levels of frustration with merger decision, its apparent political genesis, and lack of confidence that any tangible improvements will be produced by it. Most responses on effects of unification process point to less time on teaching and scholarly activities, increased stress, lack of confidence in any positive results. Overall, there is a lack of confidence that the merger process will be worth the time and effort it takes to bring about.