San Francisco State University

FACULTY SURVEY

.

Spring 2003

.

Prepared for the Commission on University Strategic Planning (CUSP II)

July 7, 2003

Executive Summary

During the Spring of 2003, 292 faculty members[1] responded to a survey initiated by CUSP II, which invited them to offer their opinions about the quality of their work lives on campus. They were also asked to identify positives they associate with their work, problems associated with their jobs, and strategies that might enhance their work lives. This report captures the major highlights of the faculty’s responses to the seven questions they were asked. The survey essentially asked the same questions staff members were asked the previous Fall.

[1] This represents 16.8% of the entire faculty population of 1738 (Source: SFSU Facts 2002-2003).

Areas of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction

One can categorize areas of dissatisfaction into three clusters:

Approximately two-thirds of faculty respondents expressed dissatisfaction with their workload [71%], the resources available to them to do their work [65%], and the physical facilities in which they worked [64%].
Another 65% were dissatisfied with opportunities for professional development.
44% were dissatisfied with opportunities to offer opinions about future decisions.

Faculty’s highest satisfaction ratings centered on their relationships with various groups of people on campus:

81% of the faculty respondents expressed satisfaction with their interactions with staff; 70% were satisfied with their relationships with faculty colleagues; 62% were satisfied with their interactions with administrators.
Additionally, over 70% appeared to be satisfied with their job benefits and security.

When asked to list university strengths and weaknesses in attracting faculty, the institution’s location and its support for diversity elicited the greatest number of responses as strengths. The cost of living and lack of affordable housing in relation to salaries elicited the greatest number of responses as weaknesses.

When faculty were asked to indicate what would make their experience at the university better, the two sets of responses most offered were

to enhance the working environment with better facilities and resources and
to raise the university’s standards for student admissions and performance.

Tables

The following seven tables provide more detailed information on faculty responses:

Table 1. Faculty Satisfaction/ Dissatisfaction

Faculty were asked to respond to this prompt: “For each of the following features of the work experience at SFSU, please check the category that most corresponds with your level of satisfaction.”

	Very dissatisfied	Somewhat dissatisfied	Satisfied	Very Satisfied	Total n	Total % of Dissatisfied Responses
Workload	76	124	73	7	280	71.4%
Availability of resources to do work (e.g. equipment, supplies, appropriate hardware and/or software)	64	116	78	20	278	64.7%
Opportunities for professional development	60	123	84	16	283	64.7%
Physical work environment (e.g., work station, office layout and function)	57	89	90	51	287	50.9%
Classrooms, laboratories, studios	70	115	85	18	288	64.2%
Interactions with staff	15	39	138	98	290	18.6%
Interactions with faculty	18	67	103	97	285	29.8%
Interactions with administrators	34	71	131	41	277	37.9%
Opportunities to offer opinions about future decisions	34	85	121	33	273	43.6%
Availability of childcare	17	21	19	1	58	65.5%
Availability of housing	75	32	22	2	131	81.7%
Job benefits	20	57	139	67	283	27.2%
Job security	29	55	120	79	283	29.7%

Table 2. Faculty Concerns CUSP II Should Consider.

“Please tell us what you see as the three most important faculty concerns for CUSP II to consider this year. [1 is your top priority; 2 your next highest priority, etc.] ” Ranking was determined by adding first, second, and third choice numbers.

	First Choice	Second Choice	Third Choice	Total n	Most Important-Least Important
Workload	166	43	21	230	1
Available resources to do work	65	68	49	182	2
Opportunities for professional development	53	80	47	180	3
Concerns with Classrooms, studios, labs	63	52	34	149	4
Concerns with Offices and work stations	38	44	54	136	5
Job Security	61	28	37	126	6
Job benefits	39	46	38	123	7
Interactions with Faculty	19	38	57	114	8
Availability of housing	40	31	41	112	9
Interactions with administrators	19	36	51	106	10
Opportunities to offer opinions about future decisions	32	47	22	101	11
Interactions with Staff	9	36	51	96	12
Availability of childcare	14	12	63	89	13

Table 3. Strategies for Enhancing the Faculty Experience at SFSU.

“Please list three things that would make your experience at the university better.”

Strategies Suggested	[n=372] [1]	Percentage of Total Reponses
Enhance the working environment with better facilities and resources. Improve classrooms, labs, studios; provide more and better office space and cleaner facilities; upgrade technology; add more parking spaces; provide a gym.	98	26.3%
Raise the university standards for student admission and performance. Raise the admissions standards; upgrade the retention standards; encourage higher levels of student performance and achievement levels. Lower the number of students in a class; offer more scholarships. Provide more funds for speakers, teaching assistantships.	72	19.4%
Reduce the workload. Reduce the teaching workload; install a comparable workload system for T/TT and lecturer faculty.	71	19.1%
Provide more support for professional development. Offer release time to stay current in the field; grant more money to support research; provide more resources for professional conferences, activities and travel. Offer more technological training and support. More staff support for faculty’s classes and research needs.	53	14.2%
Create more opportunities for interactions with faculty and administrators. Encourage/initiate socializing among department faculty/deans/other administrators. Initiate more occasions to recognize and respect faculty at all levels and include lecturers in these activities. Allow lecturer input in decision-making.	38	10.2%
Increase salaries and compensation. Offer more rewards & honors; increase salaries; provide more benefits.	30	8.1%
Reduce the bureaucracy. Less paperwork and forms; less administrative burdens; fewer committees.	16	4.3%

[1] Respondents could enter more than one response which accounts for more total responses than the number of respondents. For Table 3 and subsequent tables, the Interim Coordinator of Assessment worked in tandem with Anh Tran to review each word-based response and then create categories which exemplified the themes emerging from the research; faculty responses were added up after those themes were chosen. Samples of the exact words of the faculty respondents are cited here in “quotation marks” to capture the tone of faculty responses.

Table 4. Features that Attract Faculty to SFSU.

“Please list three strengths you believe SFSU has in attracting faculty to the university.”

Theme	Total Responses [n=334]	% Of Total Responses
Location San Francisco; living conditions; social and cultural activities; fine weather; physical beauty of the area.	124	37.1%
Support for diversity in all its expressions. SFSU offers a widespread acceptance of diversity; it offers a global community; it has a “history as a liberal, minority-based institution.”	117	35.0%
Caliber of faculty members + their commitment to both teaching and research. “Supportive”, “high-quality”, “friendly” faculty “who care about their students”.	57	17.1%
Great students!	16	4.8%
Other: Benefits; security; technical support; library access; opportunity to conduct research; accessible administrators.	20	6.0%

Table 5. Weaknesses in Attracting Faculty to SFSU.

“Please list three weaknesses you believe SFSU has in attracting faculty to the university.”

Theme	Total Responses [n= 346]	% Of Total Responses
Financial Reasons Cost of living in San Francisco; lack of affordable housing; low salaries, especially for existing faculty and lecturers.	107	30.9%
Workload is too large. Class size is too large; number of classes taught. “Steadily increasing amount of time to complete assigned workload.” “Too heavy a teaching load relative to productivity expectations.” “Outrageous amount of non-curricular university work expected.”	73	21.1%
Inadequate Facilities to conduct work. Unsafe/poor facilities including offices; not enough classrooms; lack of infrastructure for technology use inside classes.	72	20.8%
Lack of campus housing, parking, social life. Lack of faculty housing; parking far away from job—with no flexibility once parked; little campus life.	30	8.7%
Lack of support or concern from chairs and administrators. “Lack of respect for faculty”; too much bureaucracy; “outdated tenured faculty and administrators unwilling to evolve to fit the needs of contemporary faculty and students.”	25	7.2%
Students lack strong academic backgrounds and abilities. “Sorry admissions standards;” “not academically well regarded—somewhat of a joke.”	13	3.8%
Lack of support for professional development. “Fighting for time to both teach and do research.” “Lack of support for research coupled with demand to publish.”	7	2.0%
Other Bad weather (n=6); job security (n=5); focus on teaching vs. research (n=7); focus on grants (n=1)	19	5.5%

Table 6. Features that Attract Students to SFSU.

“Please list three strengths you believe SFSU has in attracting students to the university.”

Theme	Total Responses [n= 341]	% Of Total Responses
Location San Francisco; “cosmopolitan setting;” “attractive campus.”	73	21.4%
Excellent faculty “Sharing and caring professors.” “First-rate faculty very interested in teaching.” “Dedicated if beleaguered faculty.” “Great faculty who believe in quality teaching actually teach the classes.”	60	17.6%
Diversity “Faculty who themselves represent ethnic and cultural diversity who want to teach a diverse student body.” “A multi-racial student body.” “Diversity of all sorts.” “An inclusive place.”	58	17.0%
Inexpensive education with good support services. “We provide the best education for the money.” “Support services for minority students.” “Cheaper than UC system.”	57	16.7%
Academic Offerings “High quality programs.” “Willingness to explore alternative forms of learning/teaching methods.” “Non-western models and ideas.” “Some stellar departments.”	54	15.8%
Campus Reputation / Environment “A history of political activism and educational access.” “Vibrant, urbane institution;” “Spirit of cooperation among students.” ”Socio-political consciousness permeates the campus.”	39	11.4%

Table 7. Weaknesses in Attracting Students

“Please list three weaknesses you believe SFSU has in attracting students to the university.”

Theme	Total Responses [n =299]	% Of Total Responses
Course-related problems. Insufficient number and range of classes; difficult access. “Watered-down curriculum due to too many students either coming in improperly prepared or working too many hours to do effective work.” Lack of technology and equipment in class and labs.	62	20.7%
Poor academic reputation. Overall reputation is weak. “Not perceived as a serious, respected university in core standard disciplines.” Quality of programs is low; admissions standards are low; quality of peers is questionable. “Appearance that we are a backwater campus compared to UCB. We do not attract students that have academic vitality.” “The bar’s too low.”	53	17.7%
Insufficient housing for students.	49	16.4%
Lacks a rich campus life. Commuter campus; not much of a community/life on campus “lack of support services;” “ inadequate support services.”	49	16.4%
Cost of living in San Francisco is too steep.	38	12.7%
Insufficient faculty and administrative support.	21	7.0%
Insufficient funding for students. Lack of financial aid; student work; few scholarships available.	15	5.0%
Too much bureaucracy.	12	4.0

Appendix A

Who Answered the Survey?

Since personal information was optional, these facts reflect just the demographics of people willing to respond to questions about themselves. [1]

[1] The data use the total faculty respondent population [n=292] as the basis for determining who answered each demographic question and who did not. 17% of the respondents did not reveal their faculty rank; 25% did not answer a question about their ethnic identity; 13% did not indicate their years of service; 17.5% did not reveal their academic unit.

Of the respondents willing to answer gender questions, 56% of the respondents were women; 44% were men. Approximately 7% of the respondents identify themselves as disabled.

The tables below show the breakdown of respondents’ ranks, ethnic identities, years of service at the university, and academic unit.

Table 9. Self-Reported Faculty Rank.

Faculty Rank	Total Responses [n = 242]	% Of Total Respondents
Professors	92	38.0
Associate Professor	29	12.0
Assistant Professor	61	25.2
Lecturers	60	24.8

Table 10. Self-Reported Ethnic Identities of Faculty Respondents.

Ethnic Identity	Total Responses [n = 220]	% Of Total Respondents
American Indian	3	1.4
Black, African-American	6	2.7
Chicano/Mexican	7	3.2
Latino	9	4.1
Chinese	10	4.5
Japanese	2	.9
Filipino	1	.5
Other Asian	11	5.0
White, Caucasian	159	72.3
Other	12	5.5

Table 11. Years of Service at the University.

Years at SFSU	Total Responses [n = 253]	% Of Total Respondents
< 1 year	30	11.9
1-5 years	63	24.9
6-10	42	16.6
11-15	47	18.6
16-20	22	8.7
>20 years	49	19.4

Table 12. Breakdown by Academic Unit of the University.

Academic Unit of the University	Total Responses [n = 241]	% of Total Respondents
BSS	41	17.0
BUS	23	9.5
CA	32	13.2
EDU	15	6.2
ETHS	7	2.9
HHS	24	10.0
HUM	50	20.7
LIB	7	2.9
SCI & ENGIN	42	17.4

back to SURVEYS | SFSU Home | Search | Need Help? | 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco CA 94132 ADM 447 415/338-3376

This page was last updated August 13, 2003 by David Apelt.

Total % of Dissatisfied Responses

Table 2. Faculty Concerns CUSP II Should Consider.

Third Choice

Table 4. Features that Attract Faculty to SFSU.

Table 5. Weaknesses in Attracting Faculty to SFSU.

Theme

Financial Reasons

Other

Bad weather (n=6); job security (n=5); focus on teaching vs. research (n=7); focus on grants (n=1)

Table 6. Features that Attract Students to SFSU.

Theme

Table 7. Weaknesses in Attracting Students

Theme

% Of Total Responses

Course-related problems.

Poor academic reputation.

Lacks a rich campus life.

Who Answered the Survey?

Table 9. Self-Reported Faculty Rank.

Table 10. Self-Reported Ethnic Identities of Faculty Respondents.