1. Higher education research this year: COACHE 36 th Annual National Conference April 20, 2009 Joint Labor/Management Meeting: Academic Bargaining in an Era of Constraint Cathy A. Trower, Ph.D.

2. What is COACHE? A collaborative of, currently, over 130 four-year colleges and universities committed to improving the quality of pre-tenure faculty work life. At its core, a survey based on focus groups with over 80 junior faculty members, interviews with dozens more, a pilot (Study of New Scholars) conducted at six universities and six colleges, and the expertise of statisticians and social scientists at Harvard as well as practitioners from the private sector. We invite all full-time, probationary (on TT but not yet tenured) in years 2+ (not in first year) to participate. Overall response rate is 61%.

3. * Collectively Bargained System ** Collectively Bargained Non-System U.S. Universities in COACHE Arizona State University Auburn University Ball State University Boston University Brown University Case Western Reserve University Clemson University Dartmouth College Drexel University Duke University Harvard University Indiana University, Bloomington Iowa State University James Madison University Kansas State University Lehigh University Loyola Marymount University Michigan State University Mississippi State University Montana State University * Montclair State University North Dakota State University Northeastern University Ohio State University Ohio University * Queens College, CUNY * Rowan University Stanford University Syracuse University * California State University System Cal Poly, Pomona Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo CSU Fullerton CSU Long Beach CSU San Bernardino CSU San Marcos Sonoma State University University of Missouri System: University of Missouri, Columbia University of Missouri, Kansas City University of Missouri, St. Louis University of Missouri, Rolla University of North Carolina System: Appalachian State University East Carolina University Elizabeth City State University Fayetteville State University North Carolina A&T State University North Carolina Central University North Carolina State University UNC Asheville UNC Chapel Hill UNC Charlotte UNC Greensboro UNC Pembroke UNC Wilmington Western Carolina University Winston-Salem State University Texas Tech University Tufts University Tulane University * University at Albany, SUNY * University at Buffalo, SUNY University of Alabama University of Arizona ** University of Cincinnati University of Chicago ** University of Connecticut University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign University of Iowa University of Kansas * University of Massachusetts at Amherst University of Memphis ** University of Michigan-Flint University of Minnesota University of Nebraska, Lincoln University of North Texas University of Notre Dame University of South Carolina University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Virginia University of Wyoming Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ. Washington State University West Virginia University

4. Matching Process Collectively Bargained (n)Not Collectively Bargained (n) University of Massachusetts, Amherst (152)University of South Carolina (161) University at Albany, SUNY (69)Kansas State University (105) University at Buffalo, SUNY (145)University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (220) University of Cincinnati (105)Virginia Tech (157) University of Connecticut (121)University of Tennessee (128) TOTAL respondents = 592TOTAL respondents = 771 Matched for: Cohort, Carnegie Class, and Size of Faculty

5. Some important caveats Attitudes, in and of themselves, do not directly determine bargaining outcomes – other variables come into play. This is a probationary faculty to probationary faculty comparison, not a bargaining unit comparison. It excludes part-time faculty, graduate students, and tenured faculty. Institutions studied here are primarily Northeast and Southern.

6. COACHE Measures Support Services Research Teaching Global Satisfaction Climate & Culture Work & Family Policy Importance Policy Effectiveness Tenure Clarity Tenure Reasonableness

7. Construct Comparisons ConstructCB MeanNot CB MeanSig Diff * ** *** CB = Non-CB but not sig dif Satisfaction with compensation3.293.03> ** Climate3.593.64< Work-Family3.033.00> Tenure Overall3.523.46> Tenure Clarity3.453.39> Tenure Reasonableness3.683.65> Nature of Work Overall3.633.66< Nature of Work Teaching4.00 = Nature of Work Research3.463.50< Nature of Work Services3.393.43< Policy Effectiveness3.183.24< Global Satisfaction3.663.73<

8. Climate, culture, collegiality Survey itemCB Mean Not CB Mean Sig Diff * ** *** = Fairness of supervision (Satisfaction)4.024.07< Interest senior faculty take in your professional development3.543.58< Opportunities to collaborate with senior faculty3.313.43< Amount professional interaction with senior faculty3.473.54< Amount personal interaction with senior faculty3.643.70< Amount professional interaction with junior faculty3.863.85> Amount personal interaction with junior faculty3.933.98< How well you “fit” in your department3.803.81< The intellectual vitality of tenured faculty in department3.443.45< Formal mentoring (Effectiveness)2.922.94< Informal mentoring (Effectiveness)3.463.51<

9. Work-Family Survey item CB Mean Not CB Mean Sig Diff * ** *** = My institution does what it can to make having children and the tenure-track compatible (Agreement) 3.082.99> My institution does what it can to make raising children and the tenure-track compatible 2.882.80> ** My departmental colleagues do what they can to make having children and the tenure-track compatible 3.573.53> My departmental colleagues do what they can to make raising children and the tenure-track compatible 3.533.48> The balance I am able to strike between professional and personal or family time (Satisfaction) 2.882.84> Childcare (Effectiveness)2.592.40> Financial assistance with housing2.142.16< Stop-the-clock provisions3.443.40> Spousal/partner hiring program2.562.66<

10. Tenure Clarity Survey itemCB Mean Not CB Mean Sig Diff * ** *** = Tenure process (how one proceeds)3.743.65> * Tenure criteria (what is measured)3.733.60> ** Tenure standards (where’s the bar)3.353.29> Body of evidence that will be considered in their tenure case3.543.51> Their own prospects for tenure3.603.63< The expectations for performance as a scholar3.853.80> The expectations for performance as a teacher3.693.62> The expectations for performance as a advisor to students3.16 = The expectations for performance as a departmental colleague3.203.16> The expectations for performance as a campus citizen3.072.93> The expectations for performance as a community members2.87 =

11. Tenure: Reasonableness, Messages, Performance-Based Decision Survey itemCB Mean Not CB Mean Sig Diff * ** *** = The expectations for performance as a scholar (Reasonableness)2.832.84< The expectations for performance as a teacher3.913.87> The expectations for performance as a advisor to students3.603.57> The expectations for performance as a departmental colleague3.653.62> The expectations for performance as a campus citizen3.543.49> The expectations for performance as a community members3.483.44> Survey itemCB Mean Not CB Mean Sig Diff * ** *** = I have received consistent messages from senior colleagues about tenure (Agreement) 3.213.04> Tenure decisions are based on performance-based rather than non-performance based criteria 3.803.65 > **

12. Nature of Work: Teaching Survey itemCB Mean Not CB Mean Sig Diff * ** *** = The level of the courses you teach (Satisfaction)4.164.19< The number of courses you teach4.03 = The degree of influence you have over which courses you teach4.284.18> The discretion you have over the content of your courses4.624.58> The number of students you teach3.923.93< The quality of undergraduate students with whom you interact3.273.35< The quality of graduate students with whom you interact3.603.63<

13. Nature of Work: Research, Other, Support Services Survey itemCB Mean Not CB Mean Sig Diff * ** *** = The amount of time you have to conduct research/creative work3.003.06< The amount of external funding you are expected to find2.982.97> The degree of influence you have over the focus of your research4.354.41< The quality of facilities3.103.18< The amount of access you have to Teaching Fellows, GA’s, etc.2.962.98< The quality of clerical/administrative support services3.353.41< The quality of research support services3.053.23< ** The quality of teaching support services3.573.49> The quality of computing services3.493.54<

14. Policy Effectiveness Survey itemCB Mean Not CB Mean Sig Diff L * ** *** = Formal mentoring2.922.94< Informal mentoring3.463.51< Periodic (annual) formal performance reviews3.373.56< ** Written summaries of periodic, formal performance reviews3.273.39< Professional assistance obtaining externally funded grants2.542.75< ** Professional assistance for improving teaching3.393.14> *** Travel funds to present papers or conduct research3.313.46< Paid or unpaid research leave during the pre-tenure period2.993.19< Paid or unpaid personal leave during the pre-tenure period3.223.10> An upper limit on committee assignments during pre-tenure period3.053.14< An upper limit on teaching assignment during pre-tenure period3.58 =

15. Policy Effectiveness Survey itemCB Mean Not CB Mean Sig Diff * ** *** = Peer reviews of teaching or research/creative work2.993.20< *** Childcare2.592.40> Financial assistance with housing2.142.16< Stop-the-clock for parental or other reasons3.443.40> Spousal/partner hiring programs2.562.66<

16. Global Satisfaction Survey itemCB Mean Not CB Mean Sig Diff * ** *** = Satisfaction with department (all things considered)3.893.91< Satisfaction with institution (all things considered)3.463.56< * The person who serves as CAO seems to care about pre-tenure faculty 2.983.24< *** If I could do it over, I would again choose to work here4.023.98> How do you rate* your institution overall as a workplace?3.653.77< ** Rating: 5=Great; 4=Good; 3=So-so; 2=Bad; 1=Awful