faculty research survey report - auc intranet research... · science and engineering faculty, 40.4%...

The Office of Institutional Research/AUC

[Type the company name]

July 2011

Faculty Research Survey

Report

Prepared by Ola Anwar


Table of contents Page

_______________________________________________________________________________

The Executive Summary 3 Section I: Q.1: Please indicate your area of affiliation. 4 Q.2: How long have you been at AUC? 4 Section II: Q.3: Please indicate to what extent the incentives listed below are possible factors that impact your motivation to engage in scholarly work/research. 5 Q.4: Please indicate to what extent the barriers listed below are possible factors that impact your motivation to engage in scholarly work/research. 5 Section III: Q.5: Please indicate to what extent the services listed below are possible factors

that would assist you personally in your efforts or interest in applying for external funding (the first set of questions) AND internal funding (the second set of questions). 12

Section IV: Q.6: Please answer the following items to best reflect your publication history. 18 Section V: Q.7: Please indicate the number of proposals that you have submitted for funding

(first set of questions) and have had funded (second set of questions) in the following categories: While at AUC and since 2005, how many proposals have you submitted?

While at AUC and BEFORE 2005, how many proposals have you submitted? 20 Section VI: Cross tabulation questions 23 Section VII: Please provide us with any useful comments or suggestions regarding increasing your interest in pursuing and successfully conducting scholarly work/research and AUC's ability to attract external funding. 41


Executive Summary

Introduction

In order to continue the efforts to improve research at the American University in Cairo (AUC),

the Office of the Associate Provost for Research Administration in cooperation with the Office of

Institutional Research (IR) conducted an online survey of faculty opinions about the research

environment at AUC.

On May 22nd, 2011, IR emailed survey invitations to 403 faculty members. Two survey email

reminders were sent on May 26 and June 5, 2011 and the survey remained accessible until

June 12. When the survey was closed 103 (25.6%) out of 403 responded.

Methodology and Organization of the Report

This report is divided into seven sections. In Section I, respondents’ area of affiliation and

duration of services at AUC are presented as frequencies and in charts. In Section II, we

presented the factors that affected the motivational levels of the respondents in frequencies and

in charts. Furthermore, the respondents’ list of services that assisted them in applying, in both

internal and external funding, is presented in Section III as frequencies and in charts. In Section

IV, we reported the respondents’ publication history as frequencies and in charts. In Section V,

the respondents’ proposals for funding submitted to AUC before and since 2005 are stated. In

Section VI, the cross tabulation questions are presented in frequency tables. Finally, in Section

VII, the respondents’ comments and suggestions regarding increasing their interests in

conducting scholarly work/research are presented.


Section I:

For the question, “Please indicate your area of affiliation”, 21.2% of the respondents were

Science and Engineering faculty, 40.4% were Humanities and Social Sciences faculty, 12.5%

were Business Economics and Communication faculty, 1.9% were Library faculty, 4.8% were

Other (Social Research Center, Research Center, Arabic Language Institute and GAPP), and

19.2% did not report this question.

For the question, ‘How long have you been at AUC?’ 7.7% of the respondents reported ‘Less than 1 year’, 11.5% reported ‘1-2’, 16.3% reported ‘3-4’, 11.5% reported ‘5-6’,6.7% reported ‘7-8’, 7.7% reported ‘9-10’, 10.6% reported ‘11-20’, 4.8% reported ‘More than 20 years’ and 23.1% did not answer this question.

Table 1

Area of Affiliation Frequency Percent

Science and Engineering Faculty

22 21.2%

Humanities and Social Sciences Faculty

42 40.4%

Business Economics and Communication Faculty

13 12.5%

Library Faculty 2 1.9%

Other 5 4.8%

Missing 20 19.2%

Total 104 100%

Figure 1

Table 2

How long have you been at AUC?

Frequency

Percent

Less than 1year 8 7.7%

1-2 12 11.5%

3-4 17 16.3%

5-6 12 11.5%

7-8 7 6.7%

9-10 8 7.7%

11-20 11 10.6%

More than 20 years 5 4.8%

Missing 24 23.1%

Total 104 100%

Figure 2

Scie

nce

and

En

gin

eeri…

Hum

anitie

sand S

ocia

lS

cie

nces…

Bu

sin

ess

Econom

ics

and…

Lib

rary

Fa

culty

Oth

er

21.2%

40.4%

12.5%

1.9% 4.8%

Less than 1year

1-2

3-4

5-6

7-8

9-10

11-20

More than 20 years

7.7%

11.5%

16.3%

11.5%

6.7%

7.7%

10.6%

4.8%


Section II

In this section, we asked the respondents to indicate, the incentives and the barriers as

possible factors that impact their motivation to engage in scholarly work/research.

The incentives are as follows:

“My personal commitment to scholarly activity/research”, 2.9% of the respondents reported ‘Not

a factor’, 3.8% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 2.9% reported ‘Neutral’, 15.4% reported ‘A factor’,

74% of the respondents reported ‘A big factor’, and 1% did not report this question.

“To enhance/maintain my reputation among the community of scholars”, 4.8% of the

respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 5.8% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 12.5% reported

‘Neutral’, 32.7% reported ‘A factor’, 42.3% reported ‘A big factor’ and 1.9% did not report this

question.

“To provide students with opportunities”, 10.6% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 3.8%

reported ‘Somewhat a factor’. 16.3% reported ‘Neutral’, 45.2% reported ‘A factor’, 20.2%

reported ‘A big factor’ and 3.8% did not report this question.

“To improve the quality of my teaching”, 3.8% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 9.6%

reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 13.5% reported ‘Neutral’, 40.4% reported ‘A factor’, 31.7%

reported ‘A big factor’ and 1% did not answer this question.

“To improve favorable decisions for merit increases”, 10.6% of the respondents reported ‘Not a

factor’, 11.5% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 22.1% reported ‘Neutral’, 34.6% reported ‘A factor’,

19.2% reported ‘A big factor’ and 1.9% did not answer this question.

“To achieve my overall career objectives”, 2.9% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 3.8%



“It is valued by my department”, 10.6% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 9.6% reported

’Somewhat a factor’, 14.4% reported ‘Neutral’, 46.2% reported ‘A factor’, 16.3% reported ‘A big

factor’ and 2.9% did not report this question.

“It is valued by the School”, 12.5% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 5.8% reported

‘Somewhat a factor’, 11.5% reported ‘Neutral’, 40.4% reported ‘A factor’, 23.1% reported ‘A big

factor’ and 6.7% did not answer this question.


The barriers are as follows:

“Not enough time due to teaching load”, 6.7% of the respondent reported ‘Not a factor’, 3.8%

reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 3.8% reported ‘Neutral’, 24% reported ‘A factor’, 53.8% reported

‘A big factor’ and 7.7% did not report this question.

“Not enough time due to administrative (committee) load”, 10.6% of the respondents reported

‘Not a factor’, 1% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 12.5% reported ‘Neutral’, 31.7% reported ‘A

factor’, 35.6% reported ‘A big factor’ and 8.7% did not report this question.

“Not enough time due to advising load”, 31.7% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 3.8%

reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 25% reported ‘Neutral’, 21.2% reported ‘A factor’, 8.7% reported

‘A big factor’ and 9.6% did not answer this question.

“Too much redtape within the School”, 34.6% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 5.8%

reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 23.1% reported ‘Neutral’, 19.2% ‘A factor’, 6.7% reported ‘A big


“Too much redtape within the Administration”, 30.8% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’,

8.7% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 20.2% reported ‘Neutral’, 15.4% reported ‘A factor’, 15.4%

reported ‘A big factor’, and 9.6% did not answer this question.

“Inadequate facilities”, 38.5% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 7.7% reported



“Inadequate equipment”, 51.9% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 5.8% reported



“Is too labor intensive”, 46.2% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 9.6% reported



“Not rewarding”, 68.3% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 3.8% reported ‘Somewhat a

factor’, 4.8% reported ‘Neutral’, 9.6% reported ‘A factor’, 2.9% reported ‘A big factor’ and 10.6%

did not report this question.

“Lack of collaboration opportunities in my department”, 41.3% of the respondents reported ‘Not

a factor’, 11.5% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 16.3% reported ‘Neutral’, 12.5% reported ‘A

factor’, 7.7% reported ‘A big factor’ and 10.6% did not report this question.


“Lack of collaboration opportunities across the School”, 43.3% of the respondents reported ‘Not

a factor’, 10.6% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 17.3% reported ‘Neutral’, 13.5% reported ‘A

factor’, 5.8% reported ‘A big factor’ and 9.6% did not answer this question.

“Inadequate budget for professional travel”, 32.7% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’,

8.7% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 11.5% reported ‘Neutral’, 24% reported ‘A factor’, 12.5%


“Lack of departmental support”, 50% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 4.8% reported



“Lack of Dean’s support”, 54.8% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 3.8% reported



“Lack of Administration support”, 35.6% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 6.7%

reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 16.3% reported ‘Neutral’, 8.7% reported ‘A factor’, 15.4% reported

‘A big factor’ and 17.3% did not answer this question.

Descriptive Analysis For Section I

Table 3

The Incentives Not a factor

Somewhat a factor

Neutral A

factor A big factor

Missing Total

My personal commitment to scholarly activity/research.

3 4 3 16 77 1 104

2.9% 3.8% 2.9% 15.4% 74.0% 1.0% 100%

To enhance/maintain my reputation among the community of scholars

5 6 13 34 44 2 104

4.8% 5.8% 12.5% 32.7% 42.3% 1.9% 100%

To provide students with opportunities

11 4 17 47 21 4 104

10.6% 3.8% 16.3% 45.2% 20.2% 3.8% 100%

To improve the quality of my teaching

4 10 14 42 33 1 104

3.8% 9.6% 13.5% 40.4% 31.7% 1.0% 100%

To improve favorable decisions for merit increases

11 12 23 36 20 2 104

10.6% 11.5% 22.1% 34.6% 19.2% 1.9% 100%

To achieve my overall career objectives

3 4 11 34 50 2 104

2.9% 3.8% 10.6% 32.7% 48.1% 1.9% 100%

It is valued by my department.

11 10 15 48 17 3 104

10.6% 9.6% 14.4% 46.2% 16.3% 2.9% 100%

It is valued by the School. 13 6 12 42 24 7 104

12.5% 5.8% 11.5% 40.4% 23.1% 6.7% 100%


Figure 3

Other Incentives:

To receive an annual financial bonus/salary increase

Unfortunately research in general is not valued enough in my department and it doesn't

seem valued enough by AUC.

I love doing research but find very little time for it

To keep updated on research especially in terms of theoretical advancement.

I am at a university because I love my subject and wish to engage in it as deeply as

possible. I enjoy exciting the interest of students in my subject matter.

It keeps me more engaged in my field.

It is gratifying and fulfilling to engage in doing research.

The Dean of BUS has cash awards for top quality journal articles.

Pure enjoyment

Satisfaction associated with new discoveries

As AUC salaries lag, I think a great many faculty engage in research to provide more

opportunities for higher salaries elsewhere.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

My personal commitment to scholarlyactivity/research.

To enhance/maintain my reputation among thecommunity of scholars

To provide students with opportunities

To improve the quality of my teaching

To improve favorable decisions for meritincreases

To achieve my overall career objectives

It is valued by my department.

It is valued by the School.

Not a factor

Somewhat a factor

Neutral

A factor

A big factor


Table 4

Different Barriers Not a factor

Somewhat a factor

Neutral A

factor A big factor

Missing Total

Not enough time due to teaching load

7 4 4 25 56 8 104

6.7% 3.8% 3.8% 24.0% 53.8% 7.7% 100%

Not enough time due to administrative (committee) load

11 1 13 33 37 9 104

10.6% 1.0% 12.5% 31.7% 35.6% 8.7% 100%

Not enough time due to advising load

33 4 26 22 9 10 104

31.7% 3.8% 25.0% 21.2% 8.7% 9.6% 100%

Too much redtape within the School

36 6 24 20 7 11 104

34.6% 5.8% 23.1% 19.2% 6.7% 10.6% 100%

Too much redtape within the Administration

32 9 21 16 16 10 104

30.8% 8.7% 20.2% 15.4% 15.4% 9.6% 100%

Inadequate facilities

40 8 18 15 12 11 104

38.5% 7.7% 17.3% 14.4% 11.5% 10.6% 100%

Inadequate equipment

54 6 18 8 8 10 104

51.9% 5.8% 17.3% 7.7% 7.7% 9.6% 100%

Is too labor intensive 48 10 18 13 4 11 104

46.2% 9.6% 17.3% 12.5% 3.8% 10.6% 100%

Not rewarding 71 4 5 10 3 11 104

68.3% 3.8% 4.8% 9.6% 2.9% 10.6% 100%

Lack of collaboration opportunities in my department

43 12 17 13 8 11 104

41.3% 11.5% 16.3% 12.5% 7.7% 10.6% 100%

Lack of collaboration opportunities across the School

45 11 18 14 6 10 104

43.3% 10.6% 17.3% 13.5% 5.8% 9.6% 100%

Inadequate budget for professional travel

34 9 12 25 13 11 104

32.7% 8.7% 11.5% 24.0% 12.5% 10.6% 100%

Lack of departmental support

52 5 19 6 12 10 104

50.0% 4.8% 18.3% 5.8% 11.5% 9.6% 100%

Lack of my Dean's support 57 4 15 8 11 9 104

54.8% 3.8% 14.4% 7.7% 10.6% 8.7% 100%

Lack of Administration support

37 7 17 9 16 18 104

35.6% 6.7% 16.3% 8.7% 15.4% 17.3% 100%


Figure 4

Other barriers:

The workshop in the physics department is not well equipped. The facilities there are not

suited for a professional project. The workers there are not committed or well trained.

Admin could do more to reduce both teaching load and admin loads

The main barriers are lack of time due to class and service commitments.

My department and dean encourage research verbally, by saying that it is must for

teenier and it is very important. However, I get asked to carry a big load in teaching and

to participate in various service activities for the school and department, that I seriously

doubt there is any material support. I get the impression that as a relatively new and

young faculty member, I am asked to accomplish mission impossible - achieve good

teaching evaluations, take good care of my students, serve the department, school,

university, and student activities, and somehow publish research. But of course,

research is my own problem, I have to figure out how I'm going to do that. If I am

consumed days, nights and weekends in teaching, service and supporting new initiatives

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Not enough time due to teaching load

Not enough time due to administrative…

Not enough time due to advising load

Too much redtape within the School

Too much redtape within the Administration

Inadequate facilities

Inadequate equipment

Is too labor intensive

Not rewarding

Lack of collaboration opportunities in my…

Lack of collaboration opportunities across the…

Inadequate budget for professional travel

Lack of departmental support

Lack of my Dean's support

Lack of Administration support

Not a factor

Somewhat a factor

Neutral

A factor

A big factor


that will enable my school and AUC to be world class, I honestly have very little time for

research - and I do not think it is a question of time management.

Lack of trained research assistance which can be partially solved by the establishment

of PhD program.

The application process for faculty grants is overly cumbersome, requiring us to re-list

everything on our c.v. over and over again. The committee's decisions on whether to

fund projects or not seems very random and unfair.

"Red tape" in school and administration primarily involves the lack of a rational process

for purchasing/shipping/receiving of laboratory equipment. It should not be handled

under the same protocol as books and office supplies!

Access to books and other pertinent materials is a factor. The library holdings in my area

are limited--and inter-library loan within the region does not supplement well. Obtaining

the needed books from abroad is expensive and cumbersome. The university should

account for this in some way (grant funds for this expense, for example.)

Administrative and teaching duties are the main issue with regard to researching. Also,

for some subjects, inadequate library facilities within Egypt.

unclear requirements for tenure

Although I have pursued research opportunities (and received two externally funded

grants in the past 3 years), my current duties--including departmental service--make

research extremely difficult for me. Even though I have been successful so far in my

pursuits, I feel it is not valued in my department (ELI), and therefore, not well-supported.

Teaching and service demands are excessive.

Lack of funding opportunities

The office of funded programs is still very much stereo typed as being an obstacle, not a

support function. The university charges a large overhead, and there is little reward for a

faculty member to intensively apply for funded research because of limitations on the

pay. Consultation is much more lucrative pay wise. Such pay restrictions associated with

funded programs must be eliminated.

The associate vice-provost for research position [currently held by Harman] needs to

have a change of head every couple of years. Please replace him.

pettiness in grant refusal and priority of 'money spent' in reports... no real interest in

reports as a research value indicator

Lack of interest at AUC and in Cairo in my work. My research is an island here.

I do not feel my efforts are rewarded or valued either by my department, my school or

the administration. I am not given the guidance and facilities I need.

As faculty, we are amazingly time constrained. I spend the equivalent of an additional

work day on uni transport every week. If I could spend that time working, my research

output would increase exponentially. Add to this, the silly overly inflated use of

committees at AUC and it is bordering on criminal to ask faculty to produce any research

output at all.


Section III

In this section, we asked the respondents to indicate to what extent different services could

assist them in applying for Internal and External funding.

A: The Internal Funding:

For “Additional proposal writing workshops”, 31.7% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’.

4.8% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 18.3% ‘A factor’, 4.8% ‘A big factor’ and 23.1% did not

report this question.

For “Availability of faculty mentors in my department”, 26.9% of the respondents reported ‘Not a

factor’, 3.8% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 17.3% reported ‘Neutral’, 19.2% reported ‘A factor’.


For “Increased departmental secretarial support for proposal submissions”, 26% of the

respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 7.7% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 14.4% ‘Neutral’, 20.2%

reported ‘A factor’, 8.7% reported ‘A big factor’ and 23.1% did not report this question.

For “Increased departmental qualified research assistants”, 15.4% of the respondents reported

‘Not a factor’, 4.8% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 6.7% reported ‘Neutral’, 26.9% reported ‘A

factor’, 21.2% reported ‘A big factor’, 25% did not answer this question.

For “Increased departmental teaching assistants”, 21.2% of the respondents reported ‘Not a


11.5% reported ‘A big factor’ and 23.1% did not report this question.

For “Redistribution of indirect costs recovered among department/school/university”, 23.1% of

the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 1.9% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 21.2% reported

‘Neutral’, 17.3% reported ‘A factor’, 10.6% reported ‘A big factor’ and 26% did not answer this

question.

For “Increased funding opportunity announcements”, 15.4% of the respondents reported ‘Not a

factor’, 5.8% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 13.5% reported ‘Neutral’, 24% reported ‘A factor’,


For “Institutionalization of flexible formulae for teaching load, research, and service”, 9.6% of the

respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 2.9% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 6.7% reported ‘Neutral’,

22.1% reported ‘A factor’, 33.7% reported ‘A big factor’ and 25% did not answer this question.

For “Improved financial Missing (SAP)”, 19.2% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 3.8%

reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 22.1% reported ‘Neutral’, 20.2% reported ‘A factor’, 9.6% reported

‘A big factor’ and 25% did not report this question.


B: The External Funding:

For “Additional proposal writing workshops”, 28.8% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’.

9.6% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 13.5% ‘A factor’, 10.6% ‘A big factor’ and 18.3% did not

report this question.

For “Availability of faculty mentors in my department”, 26% of the respondents reported ‘Not a

factor’, 5.8% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 14.4% reported ‘Neutral’, 26% reported ‘A factor’.


For “Increased departmental secretarial support for proposal submissions”, 19.2% of the

respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 9.6% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 15.4% ‘Neutral’, 23.1%

reported ‘A factor’, 13.5% reported ‘A big factor’ and 19.2% did not report this question.

For “Increased departmental qualified research assistants”, 9.6% of the respondents reported

‘Not a factor’, 6.7% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 11.5% reported ‘Neutral’, 25% reported ‘A

factor’, 27.9% reported ‘A big factor’, 19.2% did not answer this question.

For “Increased departmental teaching assistants”, 17.3% of the respondents reported ‘Not a

factor’, 4.8% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 17.3% reported ‘Neutral’, 25% reported ‘A factor’,


For “Redistribution of indirect costs recovered among department/school/university”, 12.5% of

the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 2.9% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 21.2% reported

‘Neutral’, 26% reported ‘A factor’, 16.3% reported ‘A big factor’ and 21.2% did not answer this

question.

For “Increased funding opportunity announcements”, 7.7% of the respondents reported ‘Not a


25% reported ‘A big factor’ and 18.3% did not report this question.

For “Institutionalization of flexible formulae for teaching load, research, and service”, 3.8% of the

respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 4.8% reported ‘Somewhat a factor’, 8.7% reported ‘Neutral’,

21.2% reported ‘A factor’, 41.3% reported ‘A big factor’ and 20.2% did not answer this question.

For “Improved financial Missing (SAP)”, 12.5% of the respondents reported ‘Not a factor’, 1.9%




Descriptive Analysis For Section III

A and B Table 5

List of Services for Internal Funding

Not a factor

Somewhat a factor

Neutral A

factor A big factor

Missing Total

Additional proposal writing workshops

33 5 19 18 5 24 104

31.7% 4.8% 18.3% 17.3% 4.8% 23.1% 100%

Availability of faculty mentors in my department

28 4 18 20 11 23 104

26.9% 3.8% 17.3% 19.2% 10.6% 22.1% 100%

Increased departmental secretarial support for proposal submissions

27 8 15 21 9 24 104

26.0% 7.7% 14.4% 20.2% 8.7% 23.1% 100%

Increased departmental qualified research assistants

16 5 7 28 22 26 104

15.4% 4.8% 6.7% 26.9% 21.2% 25.0% 100%

Increased departmental teaching assistants

22 5 20 21 12 24 104

21.2% 4.8% 19.2% 20.2% 11.5% 23.1% 100%

Redistribution of indirect costs recovered among department/school/university

24 2 22 18 11 27 104

23.1% 1.9% 21.2% 17.3% 10.6% 26.0% 100%

Increased funding opportunity announcements

16 6 14 25 19 24 104

15.4% 5.8% 13.5% 24.0% 18.3% 23.1% 100%

Institutionalization of flexible formulae for teaching load, research, and service

10 3 7 23 35 26 104

9.6% 2.9% 6.7% 22.1% 33.7% 25.0% 100%

Improved financial Missing (SAP) 20 4 23 21 10 26 104

19.2% 3.8% 22.1% 20.2% 9.6% 25.0% 100%

Figure 5

Ad

dit

ion

alp

rop

osa

l wri

tin

gw

ork

sho

ps

Ava

ilab

ility

of

facu

lty

men

tors

in m

y…

Incr

ease

dd

epar

tmen

tal

secr

etar

ial…

Incr

ease

dd

epar

tmen

tal

qu

alif

ied

…

Incr

ease

dd

epar

tmen

tal

teac

hin

g…

Red

istr

ibu

tio

no

f in

dir

ect

cost

sre

cove

red

…

Incr

ease

dfu

nd

ing

op

po

rtu

nit

y…

Inst

itu

tio

nal

izat

io

n o

f fl

exib

lefo

rmu

lae

for…

Imp

rove

dfi

nan

cial

Mis

sin

g (S

AP

)

Serivces for Internal Funding

Not a factor Somewhat a factor Neutral A factor A big factor


Other assisting factors for internal funding:

Please see above. Plus, for all of these, since when should "Neutral" fall between

"Somewhat a factor" and "A factor"? I think your numbers are going to be off--how is

"Neutral" distinguished from "Not a factor"? Most of us are probably familiar enough with

Likert scales to figure out what you're getting at, but I would be afraid to assume as

much in my own research design. Good luck!

transparency at the department and school level.

The current rate that is paid teaching assistants will not attract qualified graduate TAs. 3

hours a week per course is not enough.

Keeping simple grant applications and procedures as we have in the past is most

beneficial to the whole application process and actually doing the work. Asking for

lengthy proposals and reports (in some instances, such as with conferences or when

one has done library research) is counterproductive. Similarly, large-scale accounting is

pointless for grants that are less than $10,000.

There are few (no?) faculty mentors in the ELI as far as internal (or external) research is

concerned.

Having Graham in place is a blessing, he is thorough and linear. A very clear guy and a

pleasure to work with, easily accessible and insightful.

Availability of a summer deadline for submitting proposals

I think Q6 is irrelevant to Internal Funding

The attitude of OSP has been very detrimental for incentive to apply for institutional

grants. Overhead has to be justified and not just taken as a matter of course

simplification of the process


Descriptive Analysis For Section III

Table 6

List of Services for External Funding

Not a factor

Somewhat a factor

Neutral A

factor A big factor

Missing Total

Additional proposal writing workshops

30 10 14 20 11 19 104

28.8% 9.6% 13.5% 19.2% 10.6% 18.3% 100%

Availability of faculty mentors in my department

27 6 15 27 10 19 104

26.0% 5.8% 14.4% 26.0% 9.6% 18.3% 100%

Increased departmental secretarial support for proposal submissions

20 10 16 24 14 20 104

19.2% 9.6% 15.4% 23.1% 13.5% 19.2% 100%

Increased departmental qualified research assistants

10 7 12 26 29 20 104

9.6% 6.7% 11.5% 25.0% 27.9% 19.2% 100%

Increased departmental teaching assistants

18 5 18 26 16 21 104

17.3% 4.8% 17.3% 25.0% 15.4% 20.2% 100%

Redistribution of indirect costs recovered among department/school/university

13 3 22 27 17 22 104

12.5% 2.9% 21.2% 26.0% 16.3% 21.2% 100%

Increased funding opportunity announcements

8 8 14 29 26 19 104

7.7% 7.7% 13.5% 27.9% 25.0% 18.3% 100%

Institutionalization of flexible formulae for teaching load, research, and service

4 5 9 22 43 21 104

3.8% 4.8% 8.7% 21.2% 41.3% 20.2% 100%

Improved financial Missing (SAP)

13 2 31 19 15 24 104

12.5% 1.9% 29.8% 18.3% 14.4% 23.1% 100%

Figure 6

Ad

dit

ion

alp

rop

osa

l wri

tin

gw

ork

sho

ps

Ava

ilab

ility

of

facu

lty

men

tors

in m

y…

Incr

eas

edd

ep

artm

en

tal

secr

etar

ial…

Incr

eas

edd

ep

artm

en

tal

qu

alif

ied

…

Incr

eas

edd

ep

artm

en

tal

teac

hin

g…

Red

istr

ibu

tio

n o

fin

dir

ect

co

sts

reco

vere

d…

Incr

eas

edfu

nd

ing

op

po

rtu

nit

y…

Inst

itu

tio

nal

izat

io

n o

f fl

exi

ble

form

ula

e fo

r…

Imp

rove

dfi

nan

cial

Mis

sin

g(S

AP

)

Services for External Funding

Not a factor Somewhat a factor Neutral A factor A big factor


Other assisting factors for external funding:

These questions are getting more opaque. Could you write it as a simple, clear question,

and then have simple, clear answers to choose from that don't make me figure out the

double negative and then rate it backwards? Also, items (6), (8), and (9) above are

completely impenetrable. I have no idea what you're talking about. And please number

items.

I once attended a proposal writing workshop almost 5 years ago & it was a disaster.

Very shallow & weak.

I am a creative writer so what keeps me from writing as much as I can is a heavy

teaching load. However, I utilize vacations. If I had a reduced teaching load, I might be

able to complete a longer writing project, like a novel. Right now I work on shorter

projects because a longer projects requires a greater time commitment over a long

period of time.

I received plenty of external funding. Lack of funding was not the hindrance to my

research.

SAP: not necessarily improved, but one that people can navigate. Ever since its entry

into our lives, everything has become more complicated. One can say the same about

the Banner system too--all these time-saving mechanical devices/programs actually

take far longer than the previous human systems, and also the new systems 'make

mistakes', as did the old upon occasion.

research fellows should help significantly in the research effort of faculty, AND THEY

NEED TO BE PAID ACCORDINGLY, which means we must increase the wage rate and

allow for full-time research fellows per faculty member

Please solve the issues related to the non-illegibility of AUC for grants available through

the Egyptian Government (STDF), as well as NHS in the US. These are two significant

hurdles which need to be solved for improved success in attracting external funding

I did not respond to the two items starting with "Redistribution of .." and

"Institutionalization of ..." because they were not clearly stated!

The 58% overhead is ridiculous, it provides the incentive for us to take the opportunity as

an external consulting job, rather than share with the University. Replacing Ms. Shaker

will improve the flow of deals coming to AUC, she was not fun to work with on these

issues.

Short-term leaves of absence

Availability of funding opportunities and institutional commitment to streamline

mechanisms of purchasing and to secure government approved protocols for conducting

field research

Not available for most external funding in my department because most grants are for

research institutions located in the USA; AUC is ineligible.


Section IV

In this section we report the respondents publication history.

Table 7.1

Publication History

One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten Eleven

or more

Missing Total

How many peer reviewed publications (e.g., journal articles) have you had since 2005?

11 6 12 7 4 11 3 3 2 3 12 30 104

10.6% 5.8% 11.5% 6.7% 3.8% 10.6% 2.9% 2.9% 1.9% 2.9% 11.5% 28.8 100%

How many books have you published since 2005?

14 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 82 104

13.5% 1.9% 1.9% 2.9% 1.0% 78.8% 100%

How many edited books have you published since 2005?

13 5 1

0 3

0 0 0 0 0

1 81 104

12.5% 4.8% 1.0% 2.9% 1.0% 77.9% 100%

How many book chapters have you published since 2005?

22 9 5 3 1 2 1 2 2 0 2 55 104

21.2% 8.7% 4.8% 2.9% 1.0% 1.9% 1.0% 1.9% 1.9% 0 1.9% 52.9% 100%

How many articles in conference proceedings have you had since 2005?

10 3 10 8 9 5 2 2 2 9 5 39 104

9.6% 2.9% 9.6% 7.7% 8.7% 4.8% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 8.7% 4.8% 37.5% 100%

Figure 7.1

.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

How manypeerreviewed

publications (e.g.,journal articles) haveyou had since 2005?

How many books haveyou published since

2005?

How many editedbooks have you

published since 2005?

How many bookchapters have you

published since 2005?

How many articles inconference

proceedings have youhad since 2005?

One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten Eleven or more


Table 7.2

Publication History


or more

Missing Total

How many newspaper or magazine articles have you had since 2005?

7 7 4 5 4 1 1 2

0 0

4 69 104

6.7% 6.7% 3.8% 4.8% 3.8% 1.0% 1.0% 1.9% 3.8% 66.3% 100%

How many creative works or exhibits have you had since 2005?

7 2 4 1

0 0 1 0 0 0

1 88 104

6.7% 1.9% 3.8% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 84.6% 100%

How many patents have you had since 2005?

8 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 104

7.7% 1.0% 91.3% 100%

How many other publications (exclusive of conference proceedings and abstracts) have you had since 2005?

5 5 3 6 2 5 3 2 2 1 3 67 104

4.8% 4.8% 2.9% 5.8% 1.9% 4.8% 2.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.0% 2.9% 64.4% 100%

How many other publications (exclusive of conference proceedings and abstracts) have you had PRIOR to 2005?

2 7 4 2 3 4 2 1 1 1 15 62 104

1.9% 6.7% 3.8% 1.9% 2.9% 3.8% 1.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 14.4% 59.6% 100%

Figure 7.2

.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

How many newspaperor magazine articleshave you had since

2005?

How many creativeworks or exhibits haveyou had since 2005?

How many patentshave you had since

2005?

How many otherpublications (exclusive

of conferenceproceedings and

abstracts) have youhad since 2005?

How many otherpublications (exclusive

of conferenceproceedings and

abstracts) have youhad PRIOR to 2005?

One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten Eleven or more


Section V

Answering the question, how many proposals have you submitted for funding?, for the

first part: While at AUC and since 2005 is as follows:

For “Submitted for external funding”, 28.8% of the respondents reported ‘Zero’, 13.5% reported

‘One’, 10.6% reported ‘Two’, 6.7% reported ‘Three’, 4.8% reported ‘Four’, 13.5% reported ‘Five

or more’ and 22.1% did not report this question.

For “Had externally funded”, 36.5% of the respondents reported ‘Zero’, 18.3% reported ‘One’,

9.6% reported ‘Two’, 1.9% reported ‘Three’, 2.9% reported ‘Four’, 5.8% reported ‘Five or more’

and 25% did not report this question.

For “Submitted for internal funding”, 12.5% of the respondents reported ‘Zero’, 16.3% reported

‘One’, 8.7% reported ‘Two’, 7.7% reported ‘Three’, 10.6% reported ‘Four’, 19.2% reported ‘Five

or more’ and 25% did not report this question.

For “Had internally funded”, 11.5% of the respondents reported ‘Zero’, 21.2% reported ‘One’,

8.7% reported ‘Two’, 3.8% reported ‘Three’, 12.5% reported ‘Four’, 16.3% reported ‘Five or

more’ and 26% did not report this question.

Table 8.1

Submitted for external funding?

Frequency Percent

Zero 30 28.8%

One 14 13.5%

Two 11 10.6%

Three 7 6.7%

Four 5 4.8%

Five or more 14 13.5%

Missing 23 22.1%

Total 104 100%

Table 8.2

Had externally funded? Frequency Percent

Zero 38 36.5%

One 19 18.3%

Two 10 9.6%

Three 2 1.9%

Four 3 2.9%

Five or more 6 5.8%

Missing 26 25.0%

Total 104 100%

Table 8.3

Submitted for internal funding?

Frequency Percent

Zero 13 12.5%

One 17 16.3%

Two 9 8.7%

Three 8 7.7%

Four 11 10.6%


Missing 26 25.0%

Total 104 100%

Table 8.4

Had internally funded? Frequency Percent

Zero 12 11.5%

One 22 21.2%

Two 9 8.7%

Three 4 3.8%

Four 13 12.5%


Missing 27 26.0%

Total 104 100%


Figure 8

Answering the question, how many proposals have you submitted for funding?, for the

second part: While at AUC and BEFORE 2005 is as follows:

For “Submitted for external funding”, 25% of the respondents reported ‘Zero’, 8.7% reported

‘One’, 3.8% reported ‘Two’, 4.8% reported ‘Three’, 1.9% reported ‘Four’, 4.8% reported ‘Five or

more’ and 51% did not report this question.

For “Had externally funded”, 26.9% of the respondents reported ‘Zero’, 8.7% reported ‘One’,

3.8% reported ‘Two’, 4.8% reported ‘Three’,1 % reported ‘Four’, 3.8% reported ‘Five or more’

and 51% did not report this question.

For “Submitted for internal funding”, 24% of the respondents reported ‘Zero’, 2.9% reported

‘One’, 2.9% reported ‘Two’, 7.7% reported ‘Three’, 1.9% reported ‘Four’, 7.7% reported ‘Five or

more’ and 52.9% did not report this question.

For “Had internally funded”, 23.1% of the respondents reported ‘Zero’, 2.9 % reported ‘One’,

3.8% reported ‘Two’, 6.7% reported ‘Three’, 1.9% reported ‘Four’, 7.7% reported ‘Five or more’

and 53.8% did not report this question.

.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Submitted forexternal funding

Had externallyfunded

Submitted forinternal funding

Had internallyfunded

Number of proposals submitted while at AUC and since 2005

Zero

One

Two

Three

Four

Five or more


Table 9.1

Submitted for external funding?

Frequency Percent

Zero 26 25.0%

One 9 8.7%

Two 4 3.8%

Three 5 4.8%

Four 2 1.9%

Five or more 5 4.8%

Missing 53 51.0%

Total 104 100%

Table 9.2

Had externally funded? Frequency Percent

Zero 28 26.9%

One 9 8.7%

Two 4 3.8%

Three 5 4.8%

Four 1 1.0%

Five or more 4 3.8%

Missing 53 51.0%

Total 104 100%

Table 9.3

Submitted for internal funding?

Frequency Percent

Zero 25 24.0%

One 3 2.9%

Two 3 2.9%

Three 8 7.7%

Four 2 1.9%

Five or more 8 7.7%

Missing 55 52.9%

Total 104 100%

Table 9.4

Had internally funded? Frequency Percent

Zero 24 23.1%

One 3 2.9%

Two 4 3.8%

Three 7 6.7%

Four 2 1.9%

Five or more 8 7.7%

Missing 56 53.8%

Total 104 100%

Figure 9

.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Submitted forexternal funding

Had externallyfunded

Submitted forinternal funding

Had internallyfunded

Number of proposals submitted while at AUC and BEFORE 2005

Zero

One

Two

Three

Four

Five or more


Section VI

Cross tabulation questions

In the first part, we cross tabulated the different incentives as possible factors that

impact the faculty motivation to engage in scholarly work/research by the area of

affiliation.

Table 10A

Area of affiliation

My personal commitment to scholarly activity/research.

Total

Not a factor Somewhat

a factor Neutral A factor

A big factor


1 0 0

4 17 22

100% 33.3% 25.8% 26.2%


0 1 2 5 34 42

33.3% 100% 41.7% 51.5% 50.0%


0 1

0 1 11 13

33.3% 8.3% 16.7% 15.5%

Library Faculty 0 0 0 1 1 2

8.3% 1.5% 2.4%

Other 0 1

0 1 3 5

33.3% 8.3% 4.5% 6.0%

Total 1 3 2 12 66 84

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 10B

Area of affiliation

To enhance/maintain my reputation among the community of scholars Total



A big factor


1 0

4 10 7 22

50.0% 33.3% 34.5% 18.9% 26.5%


1 3 4 16 18 42

50.0% 100% 33.3% 55.2% 48.6% 50.6%


0 0 1 2 10 13

8.3% 6.9% 27.0% 15.7%

Library Faculty 0 0 0 1

0 1

3.4% 1.2%

Other 0 0 3

0 2 5

25.0% 5.4% 6.0%

Total 2 3 12 29 37 83

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Table 10C

Area of affiliation

To provide students with opportunities Total



A big factor


1

0

2 13 6 22

12.5% 14.3% 34.2% 33.3% 26.8%


6 1 9 17 9 42

75.0% 25.0% 64.3% 44.7% 50.0% 51.2%


0 3 3 5 1 12

75.0% 21.4% 13.2% 5.6% 14.6%

Library Faculty 0 0 0 1

0 1

2.6% 1.2%

Other

1

0 0

2 2 5

12.5% 5.3% 11.1% 6.1%

Total

8 4 14 38 18 82

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 10D

Area of affiliation

To improve the quality of my teaching Total



A big factor

Science and Engineering Faculty 0

4 5 9 4 22

40.0% 38.5% 28.1% 15.4% 26.2%


2 4 4 16 16 42

66.7% 40.0% 30.8% 50.0% 61.5% 50.0%


0

2 3 4 4 13

20.0% 23.1% 12.5% 15.4% 15.5%

Library Faculty

1

0 0

1

0

2

33.3% 3.1% 2.4%

Other 0 0

1 2 2 5

7.7% 6.3% 7.7% 6.0%

Total

3 10 13 32 26 84

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Table 10E

Area of affiliation

To improve favorable decisions for merit increases

Total



A big factor


4

0

6 8 4 22

44.4% 30.0% 27.6% 25.0% 26.2%


4 8 8 15 7 42

44.4% 80.0% 40.0% 51.7% 43.8% 50.0%


1 1 4 3 4 13

11.1% 10.0% 20.0% 10.3% 25.0% 15.5%

Library Faculty 0 1

0 1

0 2

10.0% 3.4% 2.4%

Other 0 0 2 2 1 5

10.0% 6.9% 6.3% 6.0%

Total

9 10 20 29 16 84

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 10F

Area of affiliation

To achieve my overall career objectives Total

Not a factor Somewhat a

factor Neutral A factor

A big factor


1

0

3 9 9 22

100% 37.5% 31.0% 22.0% 26.5%


0

2 1 16 23 42

50.0% 12.5% 55.2% 56.1% 50.6%


0

2 2 2 7 13

50.0% 25.0% 6.9% 17.1% 15.7%

Library Faculty 0 0

1

0 0

1

12.5% 1.2%

Other 0 0

1 2 2 5

12.5% 6.9% 4.9% 6.0%

Total

1 4 8 29 41 83

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Table 10G

Area of affiliation It is valued by my department.

Total



A big factor


2

0

8 9 3 22

20.0% 57.1% 23.1% 21.4% 26.5%


6 4 3 23 6 42

60.0% 66.7% 21.4% 59.0% 42.9% 50.6%


1 2 3 4 3 13

10.0% 33.3% 21.4% 10.3% 21.4% 15.7%

Library Faculty 0 0 0

1

0

1

2.6% 1.2%

Other

1

0 0

2 2 5

10.0% 5.1% 14.3% 6.0%

Total

10 6 14 39 14 83

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 10H

Area of affiliation

It is valued by the School Total



A big factor


2 1 6 9 4 22

22.2% 20.0% 50.0% 25.0% 23.5% 27.8%


5 3 3 20 7 38

55.6% 60.0% 25.0% 55.6% 41.2% 48.1%


1 1 2 5 4 13

11.1% 20.0% 16.7% 13.9% 23.5% 16.5%


1

0

1

2.8% 1.3%

Other 1

0 1 1 2 5

11.1% 8.3% 2.8% 11.8% 6.3%

Total

9 5 12 36 17 79

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


In the second part, we cross tabulated the different barriers as possible factors that

impact the faculty motivation to engage in scholarly work/research by the area of

affiliation.

Table 11A

Area of affiliation Not enough time due to teaching load

Total Not a factor

Somewhat a factor

Neutral A factor A big factor

Science and Engineering Faculty 3

0 0 7 11 21

42.9% 35.0% 22.9% 25.6%


3 3 1 11 24 42

42.9% 75.0% 33.3% 55.0% 50.0% 51.2%


0 1

0 1 11 13

25.0% 5.0% 22.9% 15.9%


0 0 1

33.3% 1.2%

Other 1

0 1 1 2 5

14.3% 33.3% 5.0% 4.2% 6.1%

Total 7 4 3 20 48 82

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

X2=40.3, df=16, sig=.001

Table 11B

Area of affiliation

Not enough time due to administrative (committee) load Total



A big factor


4 1 4 5 7 21

40.0% 100% 33.3% 18.5% 21.9% 25.6%


4

0

5 17 15 41

40.0% 41.7% 63.0% 46.9% 50.0%


2

0 0

2 9 13

20.0% 7.4% 28.1% 15.9%

Library Faculty 0 0

1 1

0

2

8.3% 3.7% 2.4%

Other 0 0

2 2 1 5

16.7% 7.4% 3.1% 6.1%

Total

10 1 12 27 32 82

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Table 11C

Area of affiliation

Not enough time due to advising load Total



A big factor


7 1 6 6 1 21

24.1% 33.3% 26.1% 31.6% 14.3% 25.9%


16 1 7 11 6 41

55.2% 33.3% 30.4% 57.9% 85.7% 50.6%


5 1 6 1

0

13

17.2% 33.3% 26.1% 5.3% 16.0%

Library Faculty 0 0

1

0 0

1

4.3% 1.2%

Other

1

0

3 1

0

5

3.4% 13.0% 5.3% 6.2%

Total

29 3 23 19 7 81

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 11D

Area of affiliation

Too much redtape within the School Total



A big factor


7 2 4 6 2 21

22.6% 40.0% 21.1% 33.3% 28.6% 26.3%


19 2 6 10 4 41

61.3% 40.0% 31.6% 55.6% 57.1% 51.3%


3 1 5 2 1 12

9.7% 20.0% 26.3% 11.1% 14.3% 15.0%

Library Faculty 0 0

1

0 0

1

5.3% 1.3%

Other

2

0

3

0 0

5

6.5% 15.8% 6.3%

Total

31 5 19 18 7 80

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Table 11E

Area of affiliation Too much redtape within the Administration

Total Not a factor

Somewhat a factor



5 1 5 6 4 21

17.9% 12.5% 31.3% 40.0% 30.8% 26.3%


18 4 4 7 7 40

64.3% 50.0% 25.0% 46.7% 53.8% 50.0%


3 3 3 2 2 13

10.7% 37.5% 18.8% 13.3% 15.4% 16.3%

Library Faculty 0 0

1

0 0

1

6.3% 1.3%

Other

2

0

3

0 0

5

7.1% 18.8% 6.3%

Total

28 8 16 15 13 80

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 11F

Area of affiliation

Inadequate facilities Total



A big factor


5 4 2 5 5 21

14.3% 50.0% 15.4% 35.7% 45.5% 25.9%


22 3 5 7 4 41

62.9% 37.5% 38.5% 50.0% 36.4% 50.6%


6 1 4 1 1 13

17.1% 12.5% 30.8% 7.1% 9.1% 16.0%

Library Faculty 0 0

1

0 0

1

7.7% 1.2%

Other

2

0

1 1 1 5

5.7% 7.7% 7.1% 9.1% 6.2%

Total

35 8 13 14 11 81

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Table 11G

Area of affiliation Inadequate equipment

Total Not a factor

Somewhat a factor



6 3 3 4 5 21

13.3% 50.0% 21.4% 50.0% 62.5% 25.9%


30 1 5 3 2 41

66.7% 16.7% 35.7% 37.5% 25.0% 50.6%


7 1 5

0 0

13

15.6% 16.7% 35.7% 16.0%

Library Faculty 0 0

1

0 0

1

7.1% 1.2%

Other

2 1

0

1 1 5

4.4% 16.7% 12.5% 12.5% 6.2%

Total

45 6 14 8 8 81

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 11H

Area of affiliation

Is too labor intensive Total



A big factor


10 2 6 3

0

21

24.4% 22.2% 37.5% 27.3% 26.3%


24 4 4 7 1 40

58.5% 44.4% 25.0% 63.6% 33.3% 50.0%


4 3 5

0

1 13

9.8% 33.3% 31.3% 33.3% 16.3%

Library Faculty 0 0

1

0 0

1

6.3% 1.3%

Other

3

0 0

1 1 5

7.3% 9.1% 33.3% 6.3%

Total

41 9 16 11 3 80

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Table 11I

Area of affiliation

Not rewarding Total



A big factor


16 1 2 1 0

20

26.2% 33.3% 50.0% 11.1% 25.0%


35 2 1 2 1 41

57.4% 66.7% 25.0% 22.2% 33.3% 51.3%


7 0 0

5 1 13

11.5% 55.6% 33.3% 16.3%

Library Faculty 1

0 0 0 0 1

1.6% 1.3%

Other 2

0 1 1 1 5

3.3% 25.0% 11.1% 33.3% 6.3%

Total 61 3 4 9 3 80

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 11J

Area of affiliation

Lack of collaboration opportunities in my department

Total



A big factor


10 3 4 2 2 21

27.8% 27.3% 25.0% 18.2% 28.6% 25.9%


19 7 7 5 3 41

52.8% 63.6% 43.8% 45.5% 42.9% 50.6%


4 1 3 3 2 13

11.1% 9.1% 18.8% 27.3% 28.6% 16.0%

Library Faculty

1

0 0 0 0

1

2.8% 1.2%

Other

2

0

2 1

0

5

5.6% 12.5% 9.1% 6.2%

Total

36 11 16 11 7 81

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Table 11 K

Area of affiliation

Lack of collaboration opportunities across the School

Total



A big factor


9 4 6 1 1 21

23.7% 36.4% 37.5% 10.0% 20.0% 26.3%


23 5 5 5 3 41

60.5% 45.5% 31.3% 50.0% 60.0% 51.3%


4 2 3 2 1 12

10.5% 18.2% 18.8% 20.0% 20.0% 15.0%

Library Faculty

1

0 0 0 0

1

2.6% 1.3%

Other

1

0

2 2

0

5

2.6% 12.5% 20.0% 6.3%

Total 38 11 16 10 5 80

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 11L

Area of affiliation

Inadequate budget for professional travel Total



A big factor


10 1 6 2 2 21

32.3% 14.3% 54.5% 10.5% 16.7% 26.3%


14 6 2 11 7 40

45.2% 85.7% 18.2% 57.9% 58.3% 50.0%


4 0

2 5 2 13

12.9% 18.2% 26.3% 16.7% 16.3%

Library Faculty 1

0 0 0 0 1

3.2% 1.3%

Other 2

0 1 1 1 5

6.5% 9.1% 5.3% 8.3% 6.3%

Total 31 7 11 19 12 80

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Table 11M

Area of affiliation

Lack of departmental support Total



A big factor


11 1 6

0

3 21

25.6% 20.0% 33.3% 30.0% 25.9%


23 4 7 3 4 41

53.5% 80.0% 38.9% 60.0% 40.0% 50.6%


6

0

4 1 2 13

14.0% 22.2% 20.0% 20.0% 16.0%

Library Faculty

1

0 0 0 0

1

2.3% 1.2%

Other

2

0

1 1 1 5

4.7% 5.6% 20.0% 10.0% 6.2%

Total

43 5 18 5 10 81

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 11N

Area of affiliation

Lack of my Dean's support Total



A big factor


11 1 5 3 2 22

23.4% 25.0% 35.7% 37.5% 22.2% 26.8%


25 1 8 3 4 41

53.2% 25.0% 57.1% 37.5% 44.4% 50.0%


7 2 1 1 2 13

14.9% 50.0% 7.1% 12.5% 22.2% 15.9%

Library Faculty

1

0 0 0 0

1

2.1% 1.2%

Other

3

0 0

1 1 5

6.4% 12.5% 11.1% 6.1%

Total

47 4 14 8 9 82

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Table 11O

Area of affiliation

Lack of Administration support Total



A big factor


7 3 4 2 5 21

21.9% 50.0% 26.7% 25.0% 41.7% 28.8%


18 3 7 2 6 36

56.3% 50.0% 46.7% 25.0% 50.0% 49.3%


4

0

4 3

0

11

12.5% 26.7% 37.5% 15.1%

Library Faculty

1

0 0 0 0

1

3.1% 1.4%

Other

2

0 0

1 1 4

6.3% 12.5% 8.3% 5.5%

Total

32 6 15 8 12 73

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Cross tabulation question

We cross tabulated the publication history by how long the respondents have been at AUC. (Years of service have been combined as per table 12)

Table 12

How long have you been at AUC?

Frequency Percent

Less than 1year-6 49 47.1%

7-10 years 15 14.4%

11-20 11 10.6%

More than 20 years 5 4.8%

Missing 24 23.1%

Total 104 100%

Table 13A

Years of service at AUC

How many peer reviewed publications (e.g., journal articles) have you had since 2005?

Total


or more

Less than 1year-6

9 6 7 5 2 7 3 1 1

0

3 44

20.5% 13.6% 15.9% 11.4% 4.5% 15.9% 6.8% 2.3% 2.3% 6.8% 100%

7-10 years

0 0 3 2 2 1

0 1

0 1 3 13

23.1% 15.4% 15.4% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 23.1% 100%

11-20

1

0

1

0 0

1

0 0

1 2 3 9

11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 22.2% 33.3% 100%

More than 20 years

1 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

1 3

33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100%

Total

11 6 11 7 4 10 3 2 2 3 10 69

15.9% 8.7% 15.9% 10.1% 5.8% 14.5% 4.3% 2.9% 2.9% 4.3% 14.5% 100%


Table 13B


How many books have you published since 2005?

Total

One Two Three Four Eleven or more

Less than 1year-6

9 1

0

1 1 12

75.0% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 100%

7-10 years

3

0

1 1

0

5

60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100%

11-20

1 1

0

1

0

3

33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100%

Total

13 2 1 3 1 20

65.0% 10.0% 5.0% 15.0% 5.0% 100%

Table 13C


How many edited books have you published since 2005?

Total

One Two Three Five Eleven or more

Less than 1year-6

8 3

0

2 1 14

57.1% 21.4% 14.3% 7.1% 100%

7-10 years

2

0 0 0 0

2

100% 100%

11-20

2 1 1

0 0

4

50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100%

More than 20 years

0

1

0

1

0

2

50.0% 50.0% 100%

Total

12 5 1 3 1 22

54.5% 22.7% 4.5% 13.6% 4.5% 100%


Table 13D


How many book chapters have you published since 2005?

Total

One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Eleven

or more

Less than 1year-6

13 3 4 2 1

0 0 0 0

2 25

52.0% 12.0% 16.0% 8.0% 4.0% 8.0% 100%

7-10 years

4 4

0

1

0

1

0

1 1

0

12

33.3% 33.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 100%

11-20

3

0

1

0 0 0

1

0

1

0

6

50.0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 100%

More than 20 years

1

0 0 0 0 0 0

1

0 0

2

50.0% 50.0% 100%

Total

21 7 5 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 45

46.7% 15.6% 11.1% 6.7% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 100%

Table 13E


How many articles in conference proceedings have you had since 2005?

Total


or more

Less than 1year-6

6 2 8 5 5 2 2 1 1 6 1 39

15.4% 5.1% 20.5% 12.8% 12.8% 5.1% 5.1% 2.6% 2.6% 15.4% 2.6% 100%

7-10 years

2

0

2 3 2 1

0

1

0 0

1 12

16.7% 16.7% 25.0% 16.7% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 100%

11-20

2

0 0 0

1 2

0 0

1 1 1 8

25.0% 12.5% 25.0% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5% 100%

More than 20 years

0 0 0 0

1

0 0 0 0

1 1 3

33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100%

Total

10 2 10 8 9 5 2 2 2 8 4 62

16.1% 3.2% 16.1% 12.9% 14.5% 8.1% 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 12.9% 6.5% 100%


Table 13F


How many newspaper or magazine articles have you had since 2005?

Total

One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Eleven

or more

Less than 1year-6

3 5 2 5 2 1 1

0

1 20

15.0% 25.0% 10.0% 25.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 100%

7-10 years

2

0 0 0

2

0 0

2 2 8

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100%

11-20 0

1 2

0 0 0 0 0

1 4

25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 100%

More than 20 years

2 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3

66.7% 33.3% 100%

Total

7 7 4 5 4 1 1 2 4 35

20.0% 20.0% 11.4% 14.3% 11.4% 2.9% 2.9% 5.7% 11.4% 100%

Table 13G


How many creative works or exhibits have you had since 2005?

Total

One Two Three Four Seven Eleven

or more

Less than 1year-6

7 1 3 1 1

0

13

53.8% 7.7% 23.1% 7.7% 7.7% 100%

7-10 years 0 0

1

0 0 0

1

100% 100%

11-20 0 0 0 0 0

1 1

100% 100%

More than 20 years

0

1

0 0 0 0

1

100% 100%

Total

7 2 4 1 1 1 16

43.8% 12.5% 25.0% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 100%


Table 13H


How many patents have you had since

2005? Total

One

Less than 1year-6

6 6

100% 100%

7-10 years

1 1

100% 100%

More than 20 years

1 1

100% 100%

Total

8 8

100% 100%

Table 13I


How many other publications (exclusive of conference proceedings and abstracts) have you had since 2005?

Total


or more

Less than 1year-6

4 3 3 4 1 1 2

0

1

0

2 21

19.0% 14.3% 14.3% 19.0% 4.8% 4.8% 9.5% 4.8% 9.5% 100%

7-10 years

1 2

0 0 0

3 1 1

0

1 1 10

10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 100%

11-20 0 0 0 0 0

1

0 0

1

0 0

2

50.0% 50.0% 100%

More than 20 years

0 0 0

2 1

0 0 0 0 0 0

3

66.7% 33.3% 100%

Total

5 5 3 6 2 5 3 1 2 1 3 36

13.9% 13.9% 8.3% 16.7% 5.6% 13.9% 8.3% 2.8% 5.6% 2.8% 8.3% 100%


Table J


How many other publications (exclusive of conference proceedings and abstracts) have you had PRIOR to 2005?

Total


or more

Less than 1year-6

2 4 2 2 1 2 1

0 0

1 5 20

10.0% 20.0% 10.0% 10.0% 5.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 25.0% 100%

7-10 years 0

1 1

0

1 1

0

1 1

0

5 11

9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 9.1% 45.5% 100%

11-20 0

1

0 0 0

1 1

0 0 0

3 6

16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 50.0% 100%

More than 20 years

0 0 0 0

1

0 0 0 0 0

2 3

33.3% 66.7% 100%

Total

2 6 3 2 3 4 2 1 1 1 15 40

5.0% 15.0% 7.5% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 5.0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 37.5% 100%


Section VII

Methodology: The open ended question was analyzed using the word count function in MS Word. The words that appear most frequently were aggregated and then enumerated as dominant themes. Dominant theme: More workshops/conferences

Workshops and/or material that address technology and research tools.

The mechanical workshop is the best workshop available. It is directed by a very talented and

cooperative engineer. There are only two trained technicians there. The workshop had a lot of

facilities but lacks enough workers there. Right now, only two workers are there and this is not

enough. If you could afford to purchase all the facilities there, I suggest you complete your

investment by hiring more qualified workers there as well.

More workshops on writing proposals for external grants in the humanities would be very

welcome.

I think the Conference and Research Grants have been a wonderful opportunity for me. I have

been able to attend many writers' workshops and retreats that I would not have been able to

without the funding. AUC has funded some unconventional proposals. I am really grateful. The

opportunities have enriched and stimulated my work. I was also awarded a Paid Leave to work on

my literary projects; I was able to utilize the time. It proved very fruitful.

The improvements listed in the email (""increases in Faculty Support Grants, a Provost’s Lecture

series, a full-time Associate Provost for Research Administration without non-research

responsibilities, an improved Faculty Bulletin, new Research and Scholarly Communication

(RSC) Workshops, our first-ever Ph.D. program, a streamlined Institutional Review Board (IRB),

and most recently a better-funded annual AUC Research Conference"") are all fine and good, but

seem to have more direct benefit to research related to the humanities, and do not directly

improve the environment of applied scientific research here at AUC.

We should encourage instructors to conduct research by decreasing the teaching load and by

creating research pools in workshops or research conferences.

More conference funding

Dominant theme: Grants

I think an office of sponsored projects might be useful, where there are professionals to help with

writing all kinds of grants, not just institutional grants that will be presented by AUC. I had access

to these folks at previous institutions, and my friends told me they were very helpful (I didn't

actually use them then). I asked about it last year at AUC (Office of Sponsored Programs?) when

I did my external grant application (an individual grant, which was not funded), and I was told that

they had nothing to offer me.

Increase travel and conference grants.

The streamlined IRB process is helpful, however many more improvements are still needed. AUC

needs to be eligible for NSF and other external grants, this should be a high priority for the board

of trustees.

My impression is that they are not doing much about it. At the same time the new regulations for

internal grants have - rather than encouraging research - instead made it MUCH more difficult to

get internal funding.

The committee that makes the decisions does not read the proposals properly, and does not

have the ability to make informed decisions about the various scholarly topics - hence their

decisions are very random. Some people get full funding ($6,500) for a 1.5 or 2 page proposal,

while others write very long proposals and are then told they are not detailed enough. I was told


by one committee member that they did not fund my proposal because one person said that the

article that would result could not be assigned in a class they teach. This should not be the

criteria for assigning grants, (i.e. that faculty should chose topics to provide other faculty with

reading assignments). At the very least there needs to be an appeal process. The new grant

regulations have had the opposite effect of what was intended - rather than stimulating research,

they cause increased frustration and faculty to waste their time with an unnecessarily

cumbersome application process and a decreased likelihood of getting funded.

Sort out the problem with the STDF so we can apply for local funds that don't rely on establishing

collaborations with non-prestigious institutes and mediocre researchers in the Gulf.

You did not ask about grant funding prior to coming to AUC. Prior to AUC I obtained several

external grants with the excellent support of the grants office in my previous university, but after

coming to AUC I found the process more mysterious and also so many grant funders in my

specialization do not cover grants outside of the U.S.

I can't speak about AUC in general, but in the ELI, few faculty engage in research, especially

externally-funded research. In my field (EFL/language testing), there are many fewer

opportunities for external funding than there are in other fields. More importantly, however,

because faculty in the ELI are instructors, it seems there is far less support for research activities

than there is in other departments. I am supposed to start work on an externally-funded project in

the fall, but I probably won't pursue other externallyfunded research opportunities after this

because it has been too much of a strain on my personal life and health trying to fit rigorous

research into a work-week that is already 60+ hours. There is much less pressure to conduct

research in the ELI, which generally translates into much less support. I love doing research, but I

am starting to question whether it is worth it when it's not valued or supported in my department.

Dominant theme: Teaching courses load

Reduce teaching and admin loads

The promised reduced teaching load will be a big help.

The teaching load is the BEGGIST obstacle for progress in research.

The extraordinarily heavy teaching load prevents any real research from being accomplished.

Negative comments

There is absolutely no transparency or consistency in awarding internal grants. There is also no

feedback given ever unless I chase it down. This is unprofessional.

I am HIGHLY INTERESTED ... I do not need anything to stimulate my interest. My only hope is

to be left alone so i can do some research. Period. I already have little in the way of personal life

(although I am a mother of 3) just coping with teaching and service. I am really disappointed by

the fact that I have not done research as I would like, as I also really enjoy doing it. Although

service is only counted as 20% of the tenure evaluation, I get the impression that it is not

acceptable to say "NO" to a committee nomination as long as you are non-tenured faculty.

My sizable external grant (~100k USD) was essentially wasted over the past year because of

bureaucratic roadblocks, inefficient purchasing procedures, lack of departmental support (e.g.

identification of qualified research assistants), etc. Until these problems are corrected, we will

never be a first rate scientific research institution. I question the legitimacy of degrees granted to

our new PhD students under these conditions."


General:

To save time, energy, and red tape, schools, depts. should allocate a flat yearly fund $3000 per

year to faculty. This is common practice at major US Research Universities. The faculty member

then submits reports, and expenses receipts. It saves time, energy and is more equitable.

As I am coordinating and teaching one of the most successful courses on research Methods for

Guiding Policies with a broad multidisciplinary approach, I would like to make this course

supportive to AUC teaching Departments as it constitutes the foundation for all graduate

education in AUC

More access to US funding such as NSF and NIH"

There is some confusion about the division of td spomsibilitors between OSP and Development

office

Raise awareness of Community of Science. Strengthen ties with STDF.

"International purchasing and procurement of scientific and laboratory equipment should not be

handled under the same protocol as standard international purchasing. The current organization

of the international purchasing office is abhorrent.

I believe Professional Development leaves are important to give faculty enough time, away from

the teaching obligations, to do research and publish. I applied for one, but haven't heard from the

School yet.

Suggestions:

The improvements listed in the email (""increases in Faculty Support Grants, a Provost’s Lecture

series, a full-time Associate Provost for Research Administration without non-research

responsibilities, an improved Faculty Bulletin, new Research and Scholarly Communication

(RSC) Workshops, our first-ever Ph.D. program, a streamlined Institutional Review Board (IRB),

and most recently a better-funded annual AUC Research Conference"") are all fine and good, but

seem to have more direct benefit to research related to the humanities, and do not directly

improve the environment of applied scientific research here at AUC.

We cannot apply for NSF or NEH. This is a problem. Continuation of a simple grant application

and reporting process is appreciated. A more helpful office that searches for external funding

opportunities would be most welcome. The current situation is very disappointing, at least for my

field.

We need more PhD programs at AUC (an economics PhD will be very rewarding to our

community and to AUC

Need support and mentoring from the department. Need support from the school. Need

appropriate research assistants. Need equipment. Need course relief. I have great interest in

research, but this is a teaching institution, not a research one.

Sending the signal that research is a priority is extremely easy. Formula us reduced teaching load

across the board+ real financial incentives for excellence in research = a world class research

institution with many competitive PhD and research programs. I have no doubt that this Provost

and Associate provost are committed to this goal, just please do it sooner rather than later before

the much feared brain drain sets in. Sometimes you have to spend money to make more money.

faculty research survey report - auc intranet research... · science and engineering faculty, 40.4%...

Documents