quality of faculty worklife - university of hawaii · 2003-02-06 · 2 quality of faculty worklife...

Linda Johnsrud, Ph.D.Jocelyn M. Surla, Project Assistant

October 2002

HAWAI‘I EDUCATIONAL POLICY CENTERI n f o r m i n g t h e E d u c a t i o n C o m m u n i t y

QUALITY OF FACULTY WORKLIFEat the University of Hawai‘i

HAWAI‘I EDUCATIONAL POLICY CENTER

The Hawai‘i Educational Policy Center (HEPC) is an independent policy researchorganization that provides timely, concise, relevant and objective policy briefs, reports,articles, studies, forums, and workshops that reflect the needs and requests of Hawai‘ipolicymakers. HEPC strives to become a trusted partner with policymakers in efforts tounderstand, nurture, improve, and adopt the best and most appropriate policies for ourlife-long learners in Hawai‘i.

The Hawai‘i Educational Policy Center…

� Works with policymakers to identify what information they need.

� Reviews, collects and distributes information on existing research on issues relevant toHawai‘i.

� Provides concise, objective, independent analysis of research.

� Provides timely, targeted, interpreted data, briefings and testimony for policymakers.

� Maintains a website with links to cutting-edge research and policy.

� Commissions a range of policy briefs, articles, studies and reports that generate newknowledge and insights that inform policy decisions.

� Conducts, facilitates, and participates in educational forums and workshops.

� Initiates research on emerging and enduring issues that affect the quality of schoolsand the quality of learning.

C o n t a c t U s

THE HAWAI‘I EDUCATIONAL POLICY CENTER1776 University Avenue, UES 103 • Honolulu, HI 96822-2463

Phone: (808) 956-9563 • Fax: (808) 956-5665Email: [email protected] • Website: www.hawaii.edu/hepc

2

QUALITY OF FACULTY WORKLIFE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I

Summary of the Findings In the spring of 2002, the All Campus Council of Faculty Senate Chairs (ACCFSC) requested that a survey be conducted to measure the quality of faculty worklife at the University of Hawai‘i. This is the second time this study has been conducted; the first administration was in fall 1998. Complete results of the survey conducted in 1998 are available on the web: http://www.hawaii.edu/ovppp/faculty.pdf. The instrument was adapted from a morale survey that had been conducted by the Mānoa Faculty Senate every few years since 1984. The instrument was revised in 1998 to reflect the concerns of all members of the faculty (i.e., instructors, researchers, specialists, agents and librarians) affiliated with each of the three institutional types represented within the system (i.e., research university, baccalaureate granting, and community colleges). Approval for the research protocol was granted by the UH Committee on Human Studies. The study included all 2,991 members of the UH faculty. Three separate mailings yielded 1,437 responses for a 48% return rate. Twenty-five instruments were not useable; analyses were conducted on the remaining 1,412.

The data were analyzed to answer the following questions:

Χ How do faculty perceive the quality of worklife at UH?

Χ How are faculty members spending their time and how would they prefer to spend it?

Χ What is the current morale of faculty?

Χ How do faculty members perceive that their morale has changed over time, and in the case of UH-Mānoa, how have perceptions changed since the first administration of the survey in 1984?

Χ How likely are faculty members to leave their position or their institution?

Χ Are there differences in the quality of worklife, morale, change of morale, or likelihood to leave by campus or faculty group (i.e., classification, academic rank, 9 or 11 month appointment period, sex, and race/ethnicity)?

Χ And finally, have perceptions regarding the quality of worklife, morale, change in morale

or likelihood to leave changed since 1998? The following narrative serves to explain the attached tables and appendices in answer to the study’s questions. Tables 1-3 provide the demographic data on the respondents. The remaining tables provide the results of the survey by major units and campus units. The appendices

http://www.hawaii.edu/ovppp/faculty.pdf

3 provide a more detailed breakdown of the results by campus, faculty group and, in the case of UH Mānoa, by locus of appointment. As these data constitute a census of all faculty members, the results are interpreted as true parameters versus parameter estimates. Thus, no t-values or probabilities are reported.

How do faculty members perceive the quality of worklife at UH? Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with 77 statements about the quality of their worklives. Appendix 1 a-d includes the means and standard deviations on each of the statements regarding quality of worklife. Faculty were then asked to list the three aspects of their worklives that are most negative and the three that are most positive. Across all faculty members at all campuses, the following received the largest proportion of the first, second or third choices: Most positive aspects of faculty worklife: Most negative aspects of faculty worklife:

1. Department/unit relations 1. Current salary 2. Undergraduate students 2. Facilities 3. Relations with department chair 3. Undergraduate teaching load 4. Community service 4. Clerical support 5. Physical work environment 5. Support for travel

Table 4 lists the most positive and negative aspects for each of the four major units as reported in 1998 and in 2002. Although the rank order varies by unit, collegial relations and students are the most positive aspects of faculty worklives. Current salary ranks first or second as the most negative aspect of faculty life in each of the four units in both 1998 and 2002. To create more global measures of the quality of worklife, scales were constructed from each substantive set of the 77 statements and analyzed to determine their internal consistency. Nine dimensions were judged reliable for further analysis (alpha coefficients are included in parentheses): professional worklife (.80), reward/evaluation system (.78), collegial relations (.86), students (.79), faculty governance (.89), personal issues (.84), support services (.80), advocacy for the faculty (.84), and confidence in the leadership (.82).

The range is 1 to 5, with “1” indicating the most negative response and “5” indicating the most positive response. The overall rank order of the nine quality of worklife dimensions for all UH faculty from most positive to most negative is as follows (means in parentheses):

4

2002

1998

Collegial relations (3.77) Collegial relations (3.80) Students (3.43) Students (3.33) Professional worklife (3.09) Personal issues (3.13) Confidence in the leadership (3.05) Professional worklife (3.07) Reward/evaluation system (3.04) Reward/evaluation system (3.04) Support services (2.93) Confidence in the leadership (2.87) Faculty governance (2.92) Support services (2.84) Personal issues (2.91) Faculty governance (2.81) Advocacy for the faculty (2.88) Advocacy for the faculty (2.75)

Table 5 provides the means and standard deviations on each of the nine dimensions by campus unit. Appendices 2-10 provide the means and standard deviations for faculty members on each of the nine quality of worklife scales by faculty classification, academic rank, appointment period, sex, and race/ethnicity. How are UH faculty members spending their time and how would they prefer to spend it? Faculty were asked to indicate how they allocate their time across typical faculty activities: teaching, research, professional growth, administration, consulting, and service. They were also asked how they would prefer to spend their time. As these activities are most appropriate to instructional faculty, the results reported here are for instructional faculty only. Table 6 provides the percentage of time spent and time preferred by the instructional faculty in each of the major units (responses that did not total 100% were recalculated to fit 100%). The time spent by instructional faculty in teaching activities varies by institutional type; that is, at Mānoa faculty report that they spend 39 percent of their time on teaching activities, while at UH Hilo faculty report 54 percent, UH West O‘ahu faculty report 48 percent, and the Community College faculty report 61 percent. All faculty, except those at West O‘ahu, indicate that they would like to spend less time on teaching activities with Hilo faculty preferring to spend about 6 percent less of their time on those activities relative to other activities. Instructional faculty at Mānoa spend about 25 percent of their time on research and scholarly activities and would prefer to increase that amount by 9 percent. Hilo and West O‘ahu faculty spend 14 percent on research and scholarly activities and would like to increase that by 6 to 9 percent. Community College faculty members spend about 6 percent in such activities and would prefer to allocate another 4 percent. Instructional faculty within all the major units report that they spend from 3 to 5 percent of their time on professional growth, and all indicate that they would like to spend slightly more. The opposite is true for administrative activities with faculty from all units indicating that they would like to spend less time than they are now. The amount of time spent on administrative activities ranges from a low of 14 percent at Hilo to a high of 23 percent at West O‘ahu. Less than 2

5 percent of instructional faculty members’ time is spent in outside consulting or freelance work, and faculty from all campuses prefer to spend slightly more. Finally, instructional faculty from all four major units spend between 11 and 14 percent of their time in service activities and would prefer to spend slightly less time engaged in these activities relative to others. What is the current morale of faculty? Faculty members were asked to assess their overall morale on a scale of 1 to 10, with “1” indicating low morale and “10” indicating high morale. The range is 1 to 10 with a midpoint of 5.5. As indicated on Table 7, the mean of morale of faculty on all campus units is 5.40, an increase from a mean of 5.16 in 1998. The means are above the midpoint on seven of the campus units and below the midpoint on four. The rank order of the eleven campus units by morale from the highest to the lowest (2002) is listed below. The morale reported in 1998 is also included with the percent of change.

Campus

2002

1998

Percent Change

Employment Training Center 6.71 6.47 +3.71% Windward Community College 6.38 6.46 -1.24% Leeward Community College 6.21 5.82 +6.70% Honolulu Community College 6.11 6.19 -1.30% UH Hilo 6.04 6.26 -3.51% Kapi‘olani Community College 5.67 6.07 -6.59% Maui Community College 5.66 6.09 -7.06% UH West O‘ahu 5.20 5.80 -10.34% UH Mānoa 5.17 4.63 +11.17% Kaua‘i Community College 5.13 5.94 -13.64% Hawai‘i Community College 4.56 5.08 -10.24%

Appendix 11, column #1, provides further detail for Mānoa faculty on overall morale by locus of appointment. Appendix 13 provides the means and standard deviations for faculty members on overall morale by faculty classification, academic rank, appointment period, sex, and race/ethnicity. Overall morale varies by faculty classification. Among the six classes of faculty, agents and specialists have the highest morale (means of 5.75 and 5.69, respectively), and researchers and librarians have the lowest morale (5.34 and 5.29, respectively). Assistant professors have the highest morale (mean of 5.68), instructors are lower (5.50), full professors even lower (5.31), and associate professors have the lowest morale (5.16). There is a small difference in morale by appointment period (9 month versus 11 month appointments). There is virtually no difference by sex, with the morale of female faculty at a mean of 5.46 and the morale of male faculty at mean of 5.44. Minority faculty members report higher morale (5.62) than non-minority faculty members (5.28).

6 How do faculty members perceive the change in their morale? Respondents were asked to indicate on a scale of “1” to “10” to what extent their morale has declined or improved since the time of the last survey (1998) or since they became a faculty member at the University of Hawai‘i. As reported on Table 8, “1” indicates a decline in morale, “5.5” is the midpoint or unchanged morale, and “10” indicates improved morale. Overall, faculty members perceive that their morale has declined with a mean of 4.92 across all campus units. One campus unit indicated an improvement in morale (mean greater than 5.5) and nine units indicated a decline (means less than 5.5). The rank order of the eleven campus units by perceived change in morale from the most improved morale to the most declined morale (2002) is listed below. Data from 1998 is provided for comparison.

Campus

2002

1998

Windward Community College 6.16 5.29 Employment Training Center 5.50 6.53 Leeward Community College 5.47 4.88 Honolulu Community College 5.27 5.11 Maui Community College 5.00 5.22 UH West O‘ahu 5.00 4.84 UH Mānoa 4.91 3.63 UH Hilo 4.87 5.61 Kapi‘olani Community College 4.73 5.09 Kaua‘i Community College 4.42 5.06 Hawai‘i Community College 3.82 4.50

Appendix 11, column #2, provides further detail on change in morale by locus of appointment at UH Mānoa, and Appendix 12 provides the change in faculty morale reported in past years for the Mānoa campus. How likely are faculty members to leave their institution? Faculty members were asked how likely they are to leave their current institution. Table 9 provides the means and standard deviations on the responses. The range is 1 to 5, with “1” indicating “not likely to leave” and “5” indicating very likely to leave. Overall, the likelihood of faculty to leave is lower than the midpoint of “3” at a mean of 2.57. None of the campus means are at or above the midpoint. The rank order of the eleven campus units by the likelihood of their faculty to leave from least likely to most likely is as follows (mean in parentheses):

7

2002

1998

Windward Community College (1.85) Honolulu Community College (1.88) UH Hilo (2.21) Maui Community College (2.02) Honolulu Community College (2.24) UH Hilo (2.11) Leeward Community College (2.29) Windward Community College (2.11) Kapi‘olani Community College (2.44) Kaua‘i Community College (2.29) Hawai‘i Community College (2.52) Hawai‘i Community College (2.29) Employment Training Center (2.54) Leeward Community College (2.35) UH West O‘ahu (2.55) Employment Training Center (2.37) Kaua‘i Community College (2.60) Kapi‘olani Community College (2.42) Maui Community College (2.61) UH Mānoa (2.81) UH Mānoa (2.71) UH West O‘ahu (2.87)

Appendix 11, column #3, provides further detail for Mānoa on the likelihood of faculty to leave their institution by locus of appointment. Further Analyses The analyses provided here are descriptive. Further analyses could be conducted with these data to answer such questions as: What combination of the nine quality of worklife scales explain the variation in morale, change in morale, or likelihood to leave? Do demographic variables such as sex or rank or race/ethnicity contribute to the explanation of variance? And finally, does the combination of worklife scales and demographics that explains variance hold across the three institutional types in the UH system? In other words, how does the quality of worklife measured in this study vary in its ability to explain morale or likelihood to leave for different faculty groups on different UH campuses?

Appendix 1

MEANS ON QUALITY OF WORKLIFE STATEMENTS FOR TOTAL FACULTY RESPONDENTS BY MAJOR UNITS

Item Overall Mānoa Hilo West O‘ahu UHCC’s

Professional worklife 0 0 0 0 0(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)

My undergraduate teaching load is appropriate. 3.13 3.64 3.45 3.76 2.31

(1.42) (1.20) (1.30) (1.44) (1.34)

My graduate teaching load is appropriate. 3.82 3.85 2.33 -- --

(1.05) (1.02) (1.03)

Committee load is evenly distributed in my unit. 2.90 2.93 2.90 2.58 2.84

(1.23) (1.24) (1.15) (1.54) (1.20)

Advising load is evenly distributed in my unit. 3.09 3.05 3.28 2.76 3.16

(1.20) (1.20) (1.18) (1.30) (1.17)

Service to my campus is rewarding for me. 3.63 3.51 3.54 3.60 3.86

(1.07) (1.07) (1.02) (1.10) (1.06)

Service to the community is rewarding for me. 4.15 4.08 4.04 4.11 4.29

(.86) (.90) (.82) (.81) (.77)

Consulting opportunities are available to me. 3.12 3.12 3.10 2.94 3.10

(1.22) (1.26) (1.05) (1.20) (1.16)

Support for my professional travel is adequate. 2.38 2.40 2.49 2.45 2.33

(1.24) (1.24) (1.22) (1.57) (1.22)

Graduate assistant support is available to me. 2.20 2.30 1.19 1.50 --

(1.23) (1.25) (.51) (.71)

I have sufficient clerical support. 2.68 2.61 2.65 2.25 2.83

(1.34) (1.33) (1.38) (.97) (1.36)

Institutional funds for research/scholarship are accessible. 2.46 2.44 2.75 1.95 2.48

(1.10) (1.10) (1.03) (1.10) (1.09)

2.69 2.77 2.79 2.10 2.50

(1.12) (1.17) (.92) (1.17) (1.02)

Opportunities for professional development are supported. 2.94 2.83 2.69 2.90 3.16

(1.16) (1.14) (1.15) (1.07) (1.16)

My physical work environment is pleasant. 3.25 3.12 3.39 3.60 3.45

(1.25) (1.26) (1.14) (1.05) (1.23)

My access to parking is adequate. 3.47 3.26 3.95 4.65 3.68

(1.29) (1.34) (.95) (.49) (1.20)

The reputation of UH is an asset to me. 3.09 2.93 3.00 3.05 3.40

(1.10) (1.11) (1.02) (.89) (1.01)Range is from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree

Access to extramural research funds for research/training is well-supported.

Appendix 1A

Item Overall Mānoa HiloWest O‘ahu UHCC’s

Reward/evaluation system 0 0 0 0 0(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)

My campus rewards teaching. 2.93 2.74 3.01 4.15 3.20(1.15) (1.11) (1.19) (.67) (1.13)

My campus rewards research/scholarship. 3.29 3.58 3.25 3.50 2.59(1.18) (1.14) (1.04) (1.05) (1.02)

My campus rewards service. 2.74 2.48 2.77 2.95 3.22(1.12) (1.05) (1.00) (1.23) (1.08)

I am provided appropriate feedback at contract rene 3.16 3.03 3.35 2.92 3.40time. (1.16) (1.15) (1.04) (1.19) (1.14)The process for tenure is fair. 3.21 3.21 3.38 3.53 3.20

(1.11) (1.09) (1.04) (.87) (1.12)The process for promotion is fair. 3.10 3.08 3.30 3.61 3.11

(1.12) (1.13) (1.09) (.78) (1.10)Post-tenure review is useful. 2.77 2.80 2.44 3.33 2.75

(1.22) (1.21) (1.12) (1.18) (1.25)

Collegial relationsI have good relations with my chair. 4.04 3.96 4.15 4.42 4.16

(1.08) 1.09 (1.03) (.69) (1.03)I receive support for my career from my chair. 3.68 3.60 3.75 4.21 3.83

(1.20) 1.22 (1.27) (.85) (1.13)My social fit with my department/unit is good. 3.82 3.72 3.96 3.85 3.96

(1.03) 1.01 (1.19) (1.09) (1.03)My intellectual fit with my department/unit is good. 3.82 3.74 3.82 3.75 3.96

(1.01) 1.01 1.22 (1.07) (.97)Relations within my department/unit are collegial. 3.65 3.55 3.77 3.80 3.85

(1.14) 1.15 (1.22) (1.01) (1.08)Relations among faculty on my campus are collegial 3.58 3.50 3.54 3.15 3.74

(.94) (.91) (.89) (1.18) (.95)

StudentsUndergraduate students are enthusiastic. 3.35 3.17 3.63 4.11 3.53

(1.02) (1.04) (.73) (1.10) (.94)Graduate students are enthusiastic. 3.88 3.90 3.43 -- --

(.82) (.81) (.98)Undergraduate students are prepared for my classe 2.72 2.76 2.80 2.94 2.65

(1.01) (1.01) (.88) (1.14) (1.02)Graduate students are prepared for my classes. 3.58 3.60 3.25 -- --

(.88) (.88) (1.26)My campus supports undergraduates. 3.58 3.25 3.87 4.37 4.00

(.93) (.91) (.80) (.50) (.79)My campus supports graduate students. 3.34 3.33 3.20 -- --

(.97) (.97) (1.06)Range is from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree

Appendix 1B

Item Overall Mānoa Hilo West O‘ahu UHCC’s

Faculty Governance 0 0 0 0 0(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)

Faculty input at the department level is adequate for:

academic decisions 3.61 3.56 3.84 4.29 3.64

(1.08) (1.12) (1.10) (.77) (1.02)

budget decisions 2.85 2.78 3.19 3.00 2.94

(1.22) (1.21) (1.33) (1.46) (1.21)

personnel decisions 3.34 3.33 3.51 4.00 3.31

(1.16) (1.16) (1.22) (1.06) (1.14)

Faculty input at the college/unit level is adequate for:


(1.07) (1.03) (1.11) (.97) (1.09)


(1.05) (1.01) (1.10) (1.26) (1.09)


(1.07) (1.03) (1.12) (1.37) (1.11)

Faculty input at the university level is adequate for:


(1.03) (1.00) (1.14) (1.22) (1.04)


(.94) (.92) (.85) (1.03) (.96)


(1.00) (.97) (1.05) (1.28) (1.02)

Protection of academic freedom is ensured. 3.38 3.32 3.48 3.79 3.47

(.89) (.88) (.88) (.85) (.90)

Personal FactorsMy housing is adequate for my needs. 3.65 3.54 4.15 3.55 3.82

(1.16) (1.17) (.90) (1.39) (1.08)

My standard of living is adequate. 3.24 3.17 3.68 2.90 3.36

(1.22) (1.22) (1.12) (1.37) (1.17)

I am satisfied with my current salary. 2.31 2.27 2.42 2.15 2.40

(1.17) (1.17) (1.09) (1.35) (1.18)

Fringe benefits meet my needs. 2.89 2.83 2.99 2.70 2.98

(1.20) (1.20) (1.13) (1.42) (1.17)

Retirement benefits meet my expectations. 2.45 2.37 2.54 2.30 2.60

(1.15) (1.14) (1.02) (1.26) (1.15)Range is from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree

Appendix 1C


Support Services 0 0 0 0 0(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)

Library resources are adequate to support my work. 3.25 3.16 3.04 2.95 3.48(1.11) (1.13) (1.23) (1.32) (.99)

Research support services are sufficient. 2.75 2.68 2.68 2.40 3.05(1.09) (1.09) (1.05) (1.39) (1.02)

Instructional support services are adequate. 3.11 3.11 2.82 2.75 3.19(1.04) (1.02) (1.01) (1.25) (1.04)

Technological support services are adequate. 2.97 2.98 2.72 2.65 2.98(1.14) (1.10) (1.02) (1.23) (1.20)

Facilities are repaired & maintained. 2.29 2.12 2.45 3.35 2.56(1.17) (1.11) (1.09) (1.04) (1.23)

Computing facilities meet my needs. 3.13 3.17 3.28 3.50 3.03(1.14) (1.07) (1.10) (1.24) (1.23)

WorklifeI feel appreciated for my work. 3.08 3.06 3.14 2.74 3.13

(1.24) (1.24) (1.20) (1.28) (1.23)I am enthusiastic about my work. 4.24 4.22 4.44 4.15 4.25

(.83) (.86) (.65) (.59) (.80)I am intellectually stimulated by my work. 4.17 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.05

(.85) (.85) (.64) (.79) (.87)I enjoy my faculty position 4.00 3.93 4.11 3.90 4.13

(.91) (.95) (.85) (.91) (.81)I share a common purpose with my colleagues. 3.66 3.56 3.63 3.55 3.84

(1.03) (1.05) (.96) (1.05) (.97)I have sufficient autonomy in my work. 4.06 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.00

(.90) (.88) (.81) (.97) (.93)My work responsibilities are well-balanced 3.09 3.18 3.23 2.85 2.95

(1.22) (1.21) (1.12) (1.50) (1.25)CampusThere is a sense of community on my campus. 2.75 2.36 3.27 3.35 3.33

(1.19) (1.04) (1.04) (1.14) (1.19)I am loyal to this campus. 3.71 3.50 3.85 4.25 4.02

(1.02) (1.07) (.73) (.97) (.87)My campus is a good place to work. 3.47 3.28 3.80 3.85 3.75

(1.00) (.99) (.67) (.93) (.96)This campus values the faculty. 2.88 2.63 3.08 3.45 3.28

(1.10) (1.03) (1.04) (1.36) (1.10)This campus supports my scholarly goals. 2.97 2.92 2.97 2.70 3.07

(1.04) (1.02) (1.01) (1.17) (1.05)This is a fair campus. 3.02 2.93 3.23 3.15 3.16

(1.01) (.95) (1.07) (1.27) (1.07)I am proud to work at this campus. 3.54 3.35 3.66 3.60 3.84

(.98) (.97) (.91) (1.05) (.93)Range is from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree

Appendix 1D


0 0 0 0 0(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)

Your Department/Division Chair 3.64 3.55 3.95 4.00 3.80(1.36) (1.38) (1.24) (1.33) (1.30)

Your Dean/Director 3.39 3.50 3.09 4.20 3.27(1.31) (1.30) (1.31) (1.10) (1.28)

Central Administration 2.65 2.53 2.42 2.56 2.90(1.10) (1.06) (1.16) (1.09) (1.12)

Your Chancellor 2.90 3.08 2.75 3.15 2.67(1.23) (1.16) (1.32) (1.39) (1.24)

University President 3.44 3.32 3.11 3.67 3.70(1.19) (1.22) (1.05) (1.03) (1.08)

Board of Regents 2.23 2.01 2.43 2.42 2.59(1.04) (1.00) (1.08) (.90) (1.00)

Legislature 1.85 1.74 2.32 1.85 1.99(.90) (.87) (1.00) (1.09) (.90)

Governor 1.37 1.32 1.45 1.75 1.44(.72) (.68) (.79) (.85) (.76)

Community Members 2.91 2.72 3.22 2.95 3.17(1.06) (1.05) (.86) (1.18) (1.00)

College Senate 3.34 3.26 3.44 3.43 3.45(1.02) (1.02) (.99) (1.09) (1.02)

Campus Senate 3.43 3.34 3.31 3.63 3.61(1.03) (.99) (1.04) (.76) (1.06)

Collective Bargaining Unit 3.40 3.33 3.42 2.95 3.55(1.23) (1.27) (1.18) (1.27) (1.16)

Please rate the confidence** you have in the leadership exhibited by:Your Department/Division Chair 3.56 3.46 3.86 4.00 3.71

(1.41) (1.43) (1.28) (1.24) (1.35)Your Dean/Director 3.36 3.51 2.90 4.00 3.20

(1.33) (1.31) (1.30) (1.00) (1.34)Central Administration 2.61 2.53 2.28 2.64 2.81

(1.10) (1.05) (1.08) (.93) (1.17)Your Chancellor 2.91 3.14 2.74 3.25 2.58

(1.23) (1.15) (1.39) (1.37) (1.23)University President 3.48 3.38 3.03 3.45 3.74

(1.16) (1.18) (1.08) (1.23) (1.07)Board of Regents 2.23 2.01 2.36 2.16 2.61

(1.05) (1.02) (.95) (.69) (1.01)College Senate Exec. Committee 2.98 2.89 2.78 3.40 3.18

(1.01) (1.03) (.96) (.97) (.96)Campus Senate Exec. Committee 3.08 2.96 2.90 3.39 3.31

(1.02) (1.02) (1.02) (.85) (1.00)Collective Bargaining Unit 3.06 2.97 3.03 2.79 3.24

(1.25) (1.27) (1.17) (1.40) (1.20)*Range is 1-5, 1 is weak advocacy and 5 is strong advocacy**Range is 1-5, 1 is low level of confidence and 5 is high level of confidence.

Please rate the way you view the advocacy* for University of Hawai‘i faculty by:

Appendix 2

QUALITY OF PROFESSIONAL WORKLIFE BY CLASSIFICATION AND RANK

Grand Total Mānoa Hilo West O‘ahu UHCC

Subtotal Hawai‘i Honolulu Kapi‘olani Kaua‘i Leeward Maui Windward ETC0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)

Instructional 3.03 2.96 3.08 2.95 3.12 2.96 3.15 3.04 3.31 3.07 3.17 3.27 3.49(.62) (.63) (.60) (.45) (.61) (.57) (.56) (.68) (.49) (.58) (.57) (.73) (.39)

Researcher 3.24 3.23 2.66 0 ** 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0(.69) (.67) (.49)

Specialist 3.22 3.21 3.54 2.63 3.19 2.84 0 3.43 0 ** 0 0 0(.62) (.61) (.53) (.78) (.70) (.74) (.87)

Librarian 3.21 3.13 3.75 ** 3.24 ** 3.51 2.95 3.39 3.60 2.36 3.17 0(.48) (.45) (.35) (.49) (.60) (.31) (.39) (.12) (.08) (.20)

Agent 3.22 3.19 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0 ** 0 0(.49) (.49)

Split 3.16 3.19 3.42 0 2.89 0 3.04 2.73 0 2.55 ** 0 0(.60) (.58) (.58) (.67) (.76) (1.15) (.13)

Other 3.40 3.29 0 ** 3.40 3.34 3.68 3.24 3.82 3.26 3.32 ** **(.69) (.84) (.61) (.72) (.57) (.67) (.36) (.52) (.91)

Instructor 3.16 3.14 2.85 3.07 3.22 3.29 3.23 2.96 3.54 3.08 3.48 3.53 3.29(.63) (.66) (.36) (.96) (.59) (.77) (.62) (.68) (.29) (.45) (.87) (.09) (.30)

Assistant 3.11 3.04 3.41 2.82 3.18 3.11 3.45 3.24 3.46 2.95 3.13 2.88 3.33(.58) (.61) (.51) (.51) (.54) (.49) (.34) (.53) (.65) (.60) (.65) (.38) (.24)

Associate 3.04 3.02 3.04 2.24 3.08 2.94 3.25 3.19 3.16 2.90 2.97 2.97 3.60(.62) (.59) (.79) (.15) (.65) (.71) (.58) (.65) (.57) (.78) (.40) (.90) (.57)

Full 3.05 3.05 2.91 2.96 3.10 2.84 3.14 3.05 3.09 3.14 3.00 3.48 **(.60) (.60) (.53) (.11) (.62) (.39) (.62) (.70) (.17) (.52) (.84) (.70)

*Range 1-5, 1 is most negative response, 5 is most positive response **Indicates that only one individual responded; confidentiality may be compromised.

(95)

(135)

(52)

(20)

Classification(N)

Demographic

(827)

(366)

(40)

(192)

(180)

(288)

Rank(58)

Appendix 2continued

QUALITY OF PROFESSIONAL WORKLIFE BY APPOINTMENT PERIOD, SEX, AND RACE/ETHNICITY

Grand Total Mānoa Hilo

West O‘ahu

UHCC Subtotal Hawai‘i Honolulu Kapi‘olani Kaua‘i Leeward Maui Windward ETC

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)

9-month 3.00 2.96 3.08 2.92 3.05 2.89 3.11 2.99 3.18 3.05 3.09 3.25 0(.62) (.64) (.59) (.44) (.61) (.62) (.51) (.70) (.43) (.58) (.58) (.82)

11-month 3.18 3.12 3.21 3.53 3.31 3.23 3.43 3.27 3.57 3.19 3.16 3.30 3.47(.61) (.60) (.62) (1.19) (.60) (.54) (.72) (.64) (.63) (.55) (.65) (.25) (.37)

Female 3.10 3.06 3.28 3.16 3.12 3.05 3.31 2.96 3.48 2.99 3.04 3.35 3.49(.64) (.66) (.56) (.79) (.61) (.52) (.66) (.67) (.46) (.54) (.59) (.61) (.41)

Male 3.11 3.08 3.06 2.96 3.18 2.80 3.11 3.29 3.35 3.23 3.21 3.16 3.39(.62) (.61) (.62) (.44) (.62) (.66) (.55) (.68) (.46) (.57) (.58) (.72) (.19)

Minority 3.18 3.14 3.25 3.29 3.22 3.04 3.30 3.19 3.32 3.15 3.22 3.39 3.53(.63) (.64) (.74) (.91) (.59) (.62) (.58) (.67) (.48) (.53) (.53) (.62) (.37)

Non-minority 3.04 3.02 3.08 2.96 3.07 2.97 3.10 3.04 3.42 2.99 3.06 3.19 3.38(.61) (.64) (.46) (.57) (.63) (.55) (.62) (.69) (.49) (.62) (.63) (.71) (.37)

*Range 1-5, 1 is most negative response, 5 is most positive response

(565)

(738)

Race/Ethnicity

(744)

(613)

(585)

(630)

Demographic

(N)

Appointment

Sex

Appendix 3

QUALITY OF REWARD/EVALUATION SYSTEM BY CLASSIFICATION AND RANK

DemographicGrand Total Mānoa Hilo

West O‘ahu


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(N) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)

ClassificationInstructional 3.04 2.97 3.03 3.45 3.10 2.99 3.15 3.07 2.90 3.12 3.20 3.40 3.07

(826) (.77) (.74) (.74) (.69) (.81) (.82) (.78) (.88) (.88) .74 (.76) (.88) (.78)Researcher 0.05 3.02 3.21 0 ** 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0

(92) (.73) (.71) (.30)Specialist 2.99 2.99 3.26 2.98 2.87 2.57 0 3.27 0 ** 0 0 0

(135) (.72) (.74) (.55) (.32) (.60) (.61) (.46)Librarian 3.21 3.23 3.67 ** 3.09 ** 3.50 2.95 2.97 3.62 1.75 2.96 0

(51) (.73) (.76) (.47) (.73) (.65) (.28) (.24) (.40) (1.06) (.31)Agent 3.01 3.00 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0 ** 0 0

(20) (.39) (.39)Split 3.07 3.08 3.13 0 3.00 0 3.42 2.67 0 2.83 ** 0 0

(39) (.78) (.77) (.51) (.99) (.59) (1.89) (1.18)Other 3.13 2.91 0 ** 3.17 2.95 3.39 3.15 3.75 2.82 3.52 ** **

(58) (.86) (.87) (.84) (.84) (.93) (.72) (.35) (.86) (.79)

RankInstructor 3.08 3.09 2.68 3.62 3.10 3.02 3.41 2.79 3.16 3.17 3.35 3.21 2.80

(189) (.80) (.84) (.81) (.97) (.74) (.72) (.68) (.92) (.63) (.59) (.60) (.64) (.73)Assistant 3.17 3.09 3.20 3.60 3.27 3.27 4.17 3.16 3.06 3.27 3.08 2.86 3.98

(179) (.72) (.67) (.67) (.57) (.79) (.70) (.52) (.63) (.60) (.87) (1.03) (.40) (.98)Associate 2.96 2.91 2.74 2.87 3.05 2.78 3.07 3.61 2.73 2.88 2.79 3.00 3.75

(288) (.79) (.74) (.80) (.70) (.86) (.92) (.72) (.66) (.87) (.98) (.55) (1.30) (.35)Full 3.02 3.01 3.06 3.45 3.02 2.75 2.86 3.19 3.10 3.00 2.90 3.57 **

(366) (.70) (.68) (.46) (.41) (.80) (.76) (.75) (.81) (1.45) (.71) (1.05) (.51)*Range 1-5, 1 is most negative response, 5 is most positive response **Indicates that only one individual responded; confidentiality may be compromised.

Appendix 3continued

QUALITY OF REWARD/EVALUATION SYSTEM BY APPOINTMENT PERIOD, SEX, AND RACE/ETHNICITY


West O‘ahu



Appointment9-month 3.03 3.00 3.05 3.47 3.04 2.87 3.10 2.99 2.81 3.08 3.15 3.35 0

(742) (.77) (.74) (.71) (.66) (.82) (.87) (.75) (.85) (.89) (.76) (.78) (.96)11-month 3.06 3.00 3.11 3.42 3.21 3.07 3.39 3.35 3.19 2.86 3.05 3.09 3.23

(609) (.76) (.73) (.68) (.64) (.81) (.68) (.77) (.84) (.75) (.90) (.88) (.50) (.85)

SexFemale 3.09 3.05 3.11 3.42 3.13 2.99 3.33 3.09 3.18 3.07 3.10 3.47 3.05

(581) (.76) (.75) (.72) (.54) (.78) (.73) (.81) (.89) (.80) (.74) (.73) (.43) (.82)Male 3.01 2.98 3.00 3.63 3.06 2.68 3.07 3.22 2.81 2.98 3.02 3.13 3.90

(628) (.77) (.73) (.72) (.72) (.86) (.85) (.77) (.89) (.93) (.79) (.80) (1.07) (.70)

Race/EthnicityMinority 3.04 3.02 2.92 3.57 3.07 2.83 3.12 3.17 2.79 3.03 3.13 3.22 3.51

(563) (.77) (.75) (.78) (.63) (.80) (.78) (.77) (.93) (.84) (.71) (.63) (.72) (.78)Non-minority 3.05 3.00 3.15 3.42 3.13 3.07 3.27 3.12 3.27 3.01 3.05 3.36 2.86

(734) (.75) (.72) (.64) (.66) (.83) (.79) (.79) (.80) (.77) (.89) (.89) (.98) (.86)*Range 1-5, 1 is most negative response, 5 is most positive response

Appendix 4

QUALITY OF COLLEGIAL RELATIONS BY CLASSIFICATION AND RANK


West O‘ahu




(821) (.84) (.84) (.94) (.71) (.80) (.70) (.62) (.87) (.99) (.62) (.73) (.84) (1.14)Researcher 3.79 3.76 4.33 0 ** 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0

(93) (.76) (.75) (.24)Specialist 3.80 3.78 4.08 3.67 3.78 3.17 0 4.11 0 ** 0 0 0

(134) (.73) (.72) (1.12) (.24) (.78) (.71) (.84)Librarian 3.82 3.86 ** ** 3.75 ** 4.25 3.33 3.58 3.50 3.46 3.83 0

(49) (.69) (.73) (.67) (.88) (.47) (.59) (1.01) (.41) (.29)Agent 3.55 3.56 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0 ** 0 0

(20) (.45) (.47)Split 3.81 3.89 3.96 0 3.43 0 3.92 2.83 0 3.75 ** 0 0

(39) (.81) (.69) (1.19) (1.07) (.12) (1.89) (1.30)Other 4.04 3.96 0 ** 4.04 3.62 4.23 4.16 4.25 3.88 3.88 ** **

(59) (.76) (.72) (.78) (1.36) (.65) (.80) (.12) (.60) (.85)

RankInstructor 3.80 3.71 3.60 4.06 3.93 3.67 4.09 3.90 3.45 4.46 3.77 4.32 3.29

(191) (.92) (.88) (1.17) (.69) (.93) (1.23) (.88) (.95) (.76) (.47) (1.04) (.57) (1.26)Assistant 3.92 3.85 4.13 4.42 3.98 4.06 4.47 3.95 3.57 3.94 3.85 3.92 4.42

(178) (.77) (.75) (.57) (.82) (.81) (.60) (.52) (.88) (1.16) (.89) (.83) (.35) (.82)Associate 3.70 3.66 3.48 3.67 3.79 3.72 4.10 3.90 3.27 3.80 3.84 3.44 3.25

(284) (.79) (.74) (1.22) (.44) (.82) (.88) (.49) (.73) (1.13) (.97) (.59) (1.04) (1.06)Full 3.76 3.64 3.85 3.63 4.01 3.52 4.10 4.08 3.83 4.09 3.95 4.23 **

(364) (.79) (.82) (.70) (.50) (.68) (.66) (.54) (.80) (.50) (.58) (.72) (.53)*Range 1-5, 1 is most negative response, 5 is most positive response **Indicates that only one individual responded; confidentiality may be compromised.

Appendix 4continued

QUALITY OF COLLEGIAL RELATIONS BY APPOINTMENT PERIOD, SEX, AND RACE/ETHNICITY

Demographic Grand Total Mānoa Hilo West O‘ahu UHCC


(N) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)


(738) (.84) (.82) (.97) (.74) (.83) (.90) (.61) (.88) (1.00) (.67) (.77) (.93)11-month 3.78 3.71 4.02 4.04 3.93 3.71 4.10 4.10 3.87 3.60 3.87 4.01 3.70

(606) (.77) (.77) (.89) (.66) (.75) (.80) (.62) (.75) (.74) (.75) (.54) (.36) (1.12)

SexFemale 3.80 3.71 3.97 3.78 3.91 3.97 4.22 3.72 3.66 4.10 3.78 4.24 3.55

(577) (.81) (.81) (1.05) (.72) (.77) (.62) (.54) (.85) (.98) (.66) (.78) (.45) (1.20)Male 3.78 3.70 3.76 3.98 3.94 3.25 4.07 4.08 3.57 4.01 4.03 3.87 4.28

(627) (.82) (.80) (.88) (.78) (.84) (.99) (.68) (.84) (.86) (.83) (.65) (.96) (.63)


(565) (.80) (.79) (1.03) (.90) (.77) (.93) (.52) (.87) (.92) (.64) (.52) (.58) (.95)Non-minority 3.76 3.67 3.91 3.78 3.92 3.90 4.10 3.96 3.49 3.99 3.94 3.85 3.19

(738) (.82) (.81) (.90) (.67) (.80) (.60) (.72) (.78) (.98) (.85) (.80) (.92) (1.21)*Range 1-5, 1 is most negative response, 5 is most positive response

Appendix 5

PERCEPTIONS OF UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE STUDENTS BY CLASSIFICATION AND RANK


West O‘ahu




(812) (.70) (.72) (.58) (.71) (.67) (.57) (.71) (.66) (.59) (.82) (.59) (.50) (.50)Researcher 3.53 3.53 3.33 0 ** 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0

(83) (.71) (.72) (.47)Specialist 3.63 3.60 3.54 ** 3.97 3.58 0 4.22 0 ** 0 0 0

(121) (.66) (.67) (.49) (.54) (.12) (.69)Librarian 3.69 3.58 ** ** 3.77 ** 4.25 3.50 4.25 3.39 3.75 3.33 0

(47) (.59) (.57) (.55) (.29) (.71) (.00) (.79) (.35) (.33)Agent 3.39 3.44 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0 ** 0 0

(8) (.53) (.55)Split 3.34 3.41 3.31 0 3.05 0 3.50 2.33 0 3.17 ** 0 0

(40) (.65) (.62) (.68) (.78) (.24) (1.41) (.24)Other 3.77 3.78 0 ** 3.78 3.60 3.81 4.08 3.00 3.48 4.00 ** **

(56) (.77) (.73) (.80) (.82) (.71) (.77) (.00) (.92) (.82)

RankInstructor 3.56 3.56 3.21 5.00 3.55 3.70 3.56 3.66 3.36 3.19 3.72 3.77 3.67

(180) (.78) (.81) (.62) (.00) (.72) (.76) (.79) (.79) (.68) (.70) (.18) (.70) (.72)Assistant 3.46 3.47 3.67 4.00 3.39 3.49 3.65 3.45 3.32 3.18 3.37 2.83 **

(171) (.64) (.65) (.46) (1.41) (.64) (.63) (.50) (.76) (.64) (.74) (.46) (.24)Associate 3.36 3.34 3.14 3.22 3.42 3.39 3.18 3.58 3.58 3.24 3.64 3.38 **

(274) (.71) (.69) (.78) (.84) (.74) (.55) (.76) (.61) (.62) (1.23) (.71) (.40)Full 3.39 3.35 3.32 4.00 3.45 3.51 3.46 3.52 3.28 3.25 3.39 3.71 **

(351) (.71) (.74) (.62) (.37) (.66) (.53) (.63) (.66) (.54) (.76) (.95) (.58)*Range 1-5, 1 is most negative response, 5 is most positive response **Indicates that only one individual responded; confidentiality may be compromised.

Appendix 5continued

PERCEPTIONS OF UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE STUDENTS BY APPOINTMENT PERIOD, SEX, AND RACE/ETHNICITY


West O‘ahu




(737) (.70) (.71) (.63) (.70) (.68) (.52) (.68) (.69) (.66) (.85) (.57) (.54)11-month 3.57 3.54 3.35 4.42 3.64 3.72 3.64 3.70 3.43 3.32 3.82 3.65 3.65

(558) (.68) (.68) (.59) (1.01) (.66) (.64) (.73) (.72) (.53) (.68) (.57) (.63) (.47)

SexFemale 3.54 3.55 3.59 4.09 3.49 3.54 3.62 3.44 3.43 3.28 3.62 3.63 3.67

(555) (.69) (.68) (.64) (.56) (.70) (.62) (.77) (.77) (.61) (.81) (.56) (.39) (.50)Male 3.36 3.35 3.31 3.83 3.38 3.34 3.19 3.62 3.28 3.15 3.37 3.60 **

(604) (.71) (.72) (.59) (.82) (.70) (.55) (.60) (.68) (.63) (.88) (.66) (.65)


(530) (.73) (.78) (.64) (.60) (.68) (.57) (.77) (.68) (.56) (.71) (.65) (.61) (.50)Non-minority 3.44 3.43 3.38 4.07 3.43 3.43 3.38 3.42 3.47 3.14 3.55 3.81 3.89


Appendix 6

ADEQUACY OF FACULTY GOVERNANCE BY CLASSIFICATION AND RANK


West O‘ahu




(815) (.75) (.74) (.75) (.62) (.77) (.71) (.69) (.86) (.84) (.68) (.80) (.57) (.69)Researcher 2.92 2.91 2.55 0 ** 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0

(84) (.76) (.74) (.78)Specialist 2.87 2.87 3.05 2.90 2.73 2.18 0 2.97 0 ** 0 0 0

(131) (.73) (.71) (.89) (1.27) (.88) (.68) (1.11)Librarian 2.91 2.95 ** ** 2.68 ** 2.93 2.40 2.58 2.93 1.65 2.67 0

(49) (.72) (.67) (.62) (.75) (.85) (.12) (.07) (.78) (.58)Agent 2.96 2.96 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0 ** 0 0

(20) (.79) (.81)Split 2.79 2.81 2.80 0 2.71 0 3.50 ** 0 2.65 ** 0 0

(38) (.80) (.75) (.73) (1.17) (.14) (1.77)Other 2.98 2.93 0 ** 2.98 2.66 3.27 2.96 4.04 2.71 2.90 ** **

(58) (.98) (1.06) (.97) (1.13) (.74) (1.01) (1.18) (1.16) (.30)

RankInstructor 2.95 2.92 2.62 3.40 3.01 3.08 3.00 2.72 3.40 2.94 3.23 3.57 2.88

(189) (.81) .78 (.88) (1.40) (.83) (.86) (.81) (.98) (.66) (.75) (1.07) (.49) (.62)Assistant 2.97 2.93 3.24 ** 2.99 2.89 3.43 2.99 3.46 2.97 2.83 2.40 2.69

(172) (.74) .75 (.52) (.75) (.44) (.62) (.79) (1.13) (.93) (.60) (.28) (1.25)Associate 2.85 2.86 2.60 2.97 2.85 2.80 3.18 2.69 2.71 2.71 2.87 3.15 2.39

(283) (.73) (.69) (.90) (.22) (.79) (.85) (.65) (.74) (.79) (.98) (.87) (.40) (1.15)Full 2.93 2.89 2.82 2.92 3.05 2.82 3.15 2.73 3.07 3.31 3.25 3.39 **

(362) (.72) (.74) (.46) (.39) (.73) (.74) (.65) (.75) (1.14) (.61) (.71) (.67)*Range 1-5, 1 is most negative response, 5 is most positive response **Indicates that only one individual responded; confidentiality may be compromised.

Appendix 6continued

ADEQUACY OF FACULTY GOVERNANCE BY APPOINTMENT PERIOD, SEX, AND RACE/ETHNICITY


West O‘ahu




(730) (.76) (.75) (.75) (.60) (.79) (.70) (.66) (.87) (.79) (.81) (.83) (.59)11-month 2.93 2.87 3.19 3.60 3.04 2.97 3.22 2.92 3.55 3.01 3.00 3.06 2.91

(594) (.76) (.74) (.65) (1.17) (.79) (.92) (.73) (.84) (.79) (.80) (.70) (.64) (.73)

SexFemale 2.90 2.84 2.83 3.17 2.98 2.96 3.17 2.84 3.32 2.88 2.92 3.34 2.90

(564) (.76) (.77) (.83) (.76) (.74) (.56) (.68) (.86) (.76) (.72) (.81) (.47) (.70)Male 2.95 2.94 2.89 3.02 2.98 2.56 3.07 2.83 2.94 3.25 3.19 3.12 2.96

(617) (.77) (.72) (.73) (.87) (.87) (1.04) (.73) (.93) (1.03) (.87) (.69) (.55) (1.00)


(548) (.78) (.79) (.80) (.58) (.76) (.85) (.63) (.85) (.95) (.72) (.62) (.65) (.71)Non-minority 2.91 2.89 2.80 3.13 2.96 2.84 3.15 2.72 3.14 3.12 3.03 3.17 2.87


Appendix 7

QUALITY OF PERSONAL LIFE BY CLASSIFICATION AND RANK


West O‘ahu




(819) (.92) (.93) (.77) (1.06) (.90) (.86) (.90) (.93) (.78) (.87) (.96) (.97) (.66)Researcher 2.98 2.95 3.30 0 ** 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0

(94) (.92) (.91) (.42)Specialist 3.14 3.14 3.58 2.50 2.92 2.60 0 2.77 0 ** 0 0 0

(135) (.90) (.89) (1.07) (1.56) (.77) (.85) (.64)Librarian 2.86 2.68 ** ** 3.02 ** 3.21 3.00 2.95 3.65 1.80 2.87 0

(50) (.78) (.74) (.67) (.43) (.28) (.78) (.84) (.28) (.12)Agent 3.45 3.49 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0 ** 0 0

(20) (.66) (.65)Split 2.91 2.81 3.60 0 2.89 0 3.00 3.60 0 1.43 ** 0 0

(40) (.98) (.91) (.43) (1.41) (1.41) (1.70) (.25)Other 3.12 2.86 0 ** 3.19 3.44 3.42 3.05 3.80 2.85 2.90 ** **

(59) (.92) (.84) (.94) (.89) (1.06) (.57) (.00) (1.16) (.90)

RankInstructor 2.86 2.79 2.88 2.67 2.95 3.27 3.03 2.63 3.43 2.95 2.56 3.08 2.97

(191) (.90) (.89) (.75) (2.02) (.87) (.97) (.95) (.88) (.61) (.90) (1.19) (.36) (.70)Assistant 2.86 2.75 3.21 2.50 2.98 3.29 3.14 3.14 3.38 2.43 2.50 2.40 4.30

(179) (.92) (.86) (1.00) (1.56) (.96) (.98) (.53) (.97) (.56) (.95) (.79) (1.70) (.99)Associate 2.81 2.74 2.90 1.40 2.96 3.12 3.01 3.05 2.88 2.80 2.87 2.59 3.40

(284) (.92) (.90) (.86) (.53) (.92) (1.00) (.99) (.78) (.42) (1.21) (1.08) (.67) (.28)Full 3.02 2.96 3.08 3.03 3.14 3.23 3.03 3.04 2.93 3.19 3.37 3.25 **

(364) (.92) (.96) (.73) (1.09) (.83) (.72) (.91) (.90) (1.51) (.71) (.91) (.89)*Range 1-5, 1 is most negative response, 5 is most positive response **Indicates that only one individual responded; confidentiality may be compromised.

Appendix 7continued

QUALITY OF PERSONAL LIFE BY APPOINTMENT PERIOD, SEX, AND RACE/ETHNICITY


West O‘ahu



Appointment9-month 2.80 2.68 3.03 2.55 2.94 3.14 3.04 2.91 3.02 2.83 2.71 2.89 3.40

(738) (.94) (.94) (.76) (1.08) (.93) (1.00) (.82) (.96) (.81) (.96) (.90) (1.09) (.79)11-month 3.04 2.97 3.44 3.40 3.16 3.43 3.18 2.92 3.59 3.21 3.09 3.13 3.40

(607) (.89) (.88) (.69) (1.49) (.88) (.71) (1.07) (.88) (.28) (.85) (1.06) (.36) (.79)

SexFemale 2.98 2.87 3.50 2.98 3.09 3.34 3.23 3.04 3.36 2.93 2.89 2.84 3.19

(579) (.94) (.94) (.52) (1.31) (.93) (.94) (.98) (.95) (.61) (1.01) (.97) (.67) (.68)Male 2.84 2.82 2.93 2.45 2.88 2.87 2.92 2.77 3.04 2.88 2.66 3.05 4.20

(627) (.91) (.92) (.80) (1.04) (.89) (.84) (.87) (.84) (.97) (.85) (.99) (1.03) (.72)


(558) (.90) (.92) (.83) (1.03) (.86) (.90) (.82) (.84) (.83) (.98) (.90) (.73) (.75)Non-minority 2.84 2.78 3.08 2.72 2.94 3.28 3.03 2.85 3.22 2.83 2.68 3.03 3.04

(734) (.94) (.93) (.72) (1.26) (.96) (.91) (1.03) (1.01) (.66) (.88) (.97) (1.04) (.74)*Range 1-5, 1 is most negative response, 5 is most positive response

Appendix 8

QUALITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES BY CLASSIFICATION AND RANK


West O‘ahu




(819) (.80) (.77) (.85) (.74) (.82) (.67) (.67) (.89) (.71) (.97) (.79) (.86) (.62)Researcher 2.88 2.88 1.83 0 ** 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0

(94) (.80) (.77) (.47)Specialist 3.14 3.17 3.15 2.50 2.78 2.75 0 3.01 0 ** 0 0 0

(135) (.69) (.68) (.74) (1.65) (.58) (.12) (.75)Librarian 2.91 3.02 ** ** 2.56 ** 2.66 2.18 3.83 2.79 1.50 2.34 0

(50) (.75) (.57) (.85) (.71) (.02) (.24) (.55) (.24) (1.24)Agent 3.01 3.02 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0 ** 0 0

(20) (.59) (.60)Split 2.80 2.79 3.17 0 2.60 0 3.10 2.40 0 2.33 ** 0 0

(40) (.73) (.74) (.71) (.70) (.71) (.57) (1.18)Other 3.19 2.89 0 ** 3.26 2.82 3.69 3.21 3.33 3.02 3.00 ** **

(58) (.88) (.95) (.83) (.77) (.78) (.84) (.47) (.83) (.71)

RankInstructor 3.01 3.01 2.50 3.22 3.07 2.98 2.97 3.18 3.48 2.93 2.94 3.27 2.80

(191) (.81) (.81) (.66) (1.77) (.80) (.62) (.82) (.91) (.69) (.88) (.73) (.73) (.68)Assistant 3.04 3.03 2.91 3.25 3.06 2.63 3.43 3.13 3.63 2.75 3.04 3.25 4.17

(179) (.74) (.65) (.94) (.59) (.84) (.77) (.89) (.73) (.44) (.89) (.91) (.59) (1.18)Associate 2.90 2.89 2.65 2.83 2.95 2.70 3.18 3.28 2.94 2.74 2.90 2.41 3.30

(284) (.75) (.69) (.83) (.93) (.82) (.73) (.71) (.82) (.80) (.95) (.89) (.69) (.99)Full 2.85 2.77 2.84 3.03 3.03 2.56 3.24 3.17 3.72 3.19 2.63 2.53 **

(363) (.78) .77 (.63) (.63) (.82) (.75) (.69) (.71) (.25) (.83) (.95) (1.06)*Range 1-5, 1 is most negative response, 5 is most positive response **Indicates that only one individual responded; confidentiality may be compromised.

Appendix 8continued

QUALITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES BY APPOINTMENT PERIOD, SEX, AND RACE/ETHNICITY


West O‘ahu




(737) (.82) (.80) (.85) (.70) (.83) (.74) (.73) (.89) (.70) (.88) (.74) (.85)11-month 2.98 2.94 3.02 3.58 3.06 2.87 3.17 3.13 3.75 2.69 2.75 3.04 3.14

(608) (.75) (.72) (.63) (1.58) (.81) (.65) (.71) (.81) (.44) (.84) (.95) (.91) (.80)

SexFemale 2.93 2.92 2.69 3.11 2.94 2.59 3.14 2.97 3.43 2.81 3.01 2.92 2.92

(578) (.82) (.81) (.97) (1.05) (.81) (.78) (.74) (.86) (.55) (.83) (.83) (.88) (.64)Male 2.98 2.88 2.94 2.81 3.21 2.62 3.10 3.46 3.67 3.25 2.97 2.86 3.94

(627) (.76) (.72) (.71) (.79) (.82) (.66) (.75) (.81) (.60) (.87) (.78) (.79) .92


(557) (.78) (.77) (.87) (.99) (.78) (.68) (.75) (.72) (.70) (.84) (.78) (.92) (.83)Non-minority 2.85 2.82 2.79 2.84 2.95 2.55 3.00 3.10 3.37 3.01 2.92 2.58 2.77


Appendix 9

STRENGTH OF ADVOCACY FOR UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI`I FACULTY BY CLASSIFICATION AND RANK




Instructional 2.88 2.78 2.91 2.91 3.01 2.68 3.07 2.96 3.13 2.99 3.28 3.15 3.11(.68) (.69) (.64) (.57) (.65) (.59) (.61) (.65) (.53) (.62) (.66) (.75) (.64)

Researcher 2.82 2.79 3.29 0 ** 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0(.72) (.71) (.06)

Specialist 2.89 2.88 3.51 2.21 2.71 2.29 0 3.01 0 ** 0 0 0(.66) (.66) (.31) (.58) (.59) (.18) (.73)

Librarian 2.93 2.88 ** ** 2.98 ** 3.07 3.17 2.82 2.93 3.03 3.07 0(.55) (.61) (.44) (.80) (.24) (.26) (.31) (.47) (.21)

Agent 2.90 2.90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(.59) (.59)

Split 2.96 3.03 3.05 0 2.62 0 2.77 2.65 0 2.14 ** 0 0(.69) (.70) (.43) (.75) (.09) (1.28) (.90)

Other 3.01 2.81 0 ** 3.05 2.84 3.21 3.04 3.37 2.72 3.23 ** **(.79) (.99) (.71) (.71) (.81) (.61) (.75) (.71) (.53)

Instructor 2.96 2.89 2.58 3.09 3.09 3.01 3.25 2.88 3.05 3.12 3.19 3.21 3.12(.62) (.61) (.70) (1.12) (.58) (.44) (.62) (.76) (.36) (.52) (.77) (.16) (.36)

Assistant 2.95 2.88 3.11 2.73 3.03 2.85 3.22 3.08 3.06 2.69 3.40 2.42 3.33(.64) (.68) (.35) (.15) (.62) (.47) (.58) (.52) (.96) (.65) (.48) (.00) (1.65)

Associate 2.84 2.79 2.85 2.89 2.90 2.55 2.94 3.08 3.16 2.71 3.03 3.04 **(.64) (.66) (.76) (.74) (.59) (.60) (.55) (.43) (.37) (.73) (.40) (.94)

Full 2.83 2.75 2.95 2.96 2.99 2.62 3.03 2.92 3.47 3.04 3.22 3.25 **(.66) (.68) (.46) (.36) (.62) (.70) (.47) (.61) (.60) (.65) (.56) (.68)

*Range 1-5, 1 is most negative response, 5 is most positive response **Indicates that only one individual responded; confidentiality may be compromised.

(88)

(131)

(51)

(19)

Classification(N)

Demographic

(805)

(360)

(40)

(187)

(176)

(280)

Rank(58)

Appendix 9continued

STRENGTH OF ADVOCACY FOR UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I FACULTY BY APPOINTMENT PERIOD, SEX, AND RACE/ETHNICITY


West O‘ahu



9-month 2.85 2.76 2.83 2.89 2.96 2.62 3.03 2.93 3.04 2.94 3.26 3.14 0(.69) (.71) (.61) (.53) (.66) (.56) (.60) (.66) (.55) (.66) (.67) (.88)

11-month 2.92 2.86 3.13 3.06 3.07 2.81 3.20 3.10 3.24 2.73 3.16 2.98 3.20(.63) (.63) (.72) (1.04) (.59) (.61) (.68) (.61) (.39) (.52) (.43) (.28) (.70)

Female 2.94 2.86 3.08 2.93 3.03 2.71 3.23 3.01 3.20 2.88 3.11 3.39 3.20(.67) (.69) (.79) (.70) (.61) (.54) (.58) (.62) (.63) (.59) (.60) (.40) (.58)

Male 2.84 2.79 2.80 3.01 2.97 2.52 2.95 3.03 3.06 2.96 3.31 2.84 3.19(.67) (.67) (.47) (.55) (.68) (.65) (.64) (.69) (.36) (.72) (.55) (.76) (1.19)

Minority 2.97 2.89 3.12 2.93 3.05 2.67 3.14 3.13 3.20 2.87 3.27 3.15 3.41(.67) (.69) (.75) (.72) (.62) (.62) (.69) (.54) (.39) (.64) (.52) (.40) (.85)

Non-minority 2.83 2.77 2.82 2.92 2.97 2.71 3.03 2.90 3.03 2.94 3.18 3.10 2.96(.66) (.67) (.52) (.63) (.65) (.52) (.57) (.71) (.66) (.66) (.60) (.89) (.42)


(550)

(720)

Race/Ethnicity

(730)

(592)

(569)

(613)

Demographic

(N)

Appointment

Sex

Appendix 10

LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN LEADERSHIP BY CLASSIFICATION AND RANK




Instructional 3.04 2.98 2.83 3.13 3.15 2.84 3.22 3.08 3.31 3.09 3.43 3.29 3.27(.78) (.81) (.73) (.68) (.73) (.68) (.70) (.70) (.76) (.70) (.84) (.74) (.54)

Researcher 2.99 2.96 3.67 0 ** 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0.84 (.84) (.47)

Specialist 3.09 3.09 3.46 2.17 2.93 2.39 0 3.20 0 ** 0 0 0(.74) (.75) (.40) (.24) (.67) (.08) (.82)

Librarian 3.14 3.10 ** ** 3.14 ** 3.28 3.57 3.05 3.13 2.88 3.00 0(.70) (.78) (.51) (.90) (.45) (.28) (.33) (.64) (.12)

Agent 2.96 2.96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(.74) (.74)

Split 3.18 3.23 3.18 0 2.98 0 3.16 3.06 0 2.61 ** 0 0(.68) (.66) (.53) (.90) (.38) (1.81) (1.02)

Other 3.24 3.30 0 ** 3.21 3.02 3.68 3.19 3.17 2.68 3.30 ** **(.78) (.78) (.78) (.78) (.68) (.80) (.24) (.73) (.71)

Instructor 3.20 3.20 2.46 3.47 3.27 3.11 3.43 2.97 3.31 3.34 3.66 3.26 3.34(.80) (.81) (.70) (1.27) (.76) (.60) (.55) (.91) (.52) (.82) (1.49) (.41) (.46)

Assistant 3.11 3.06 3.41 3.17 3.15 2.98 3.69 3.31 2.73 2.79 3.30 2.78 3.44(.66) (.68) (.32) (1.18) (.64) (.33) (.82) (.52) (1.03) (.67) (.38) (.16) (1.57)

Associate 3.00 2.95 2.71 3.49 3.08 2.66 3.23 3.28 3.43 2.75 3.16 3.22 **(.75) (.77) (.63) (.85) (.71) (.74) (.74) (.47) (.67) (.57) (.61) (1.09)

Full 2.96 2.91 2.87 3.11 3.06 2.84 3.09 2.96 3.46 3.10 3.36 3.26 **(.73) (.77) (.55) (.42) (.65) (.81) (.39) (.68) (.85) (.72) (.66) (.53)

*Range 1-5, 1 is most negative response, 5 is most positive response **Indicates that only one individual responded; confidentiality may be compromised.(360)

(40)

(191)

(178)

(282)

Rank(58)

Classification(N)

Demographic

(815)

(91)

(134)

(51)

(19)

Appendix 10continued

LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN LEADERSHIP BY APPOINTMENT PERIOD, SEX, AND RACE/ETHNICITY


West O‘ahu



9-month 3.00 2.93 2.80 3.14 3.12 2.74 3.23 3.09 3.30 3.09 3.38 3.27 0(.79) (.82) (.76) (.70) (.73) (.67) (.69) (.66) (.75) (.66) (.83) (.93)

11-month 3.11 3.08 3.05 3.13 3.21 3.05 3.45 3.24 3.21 2.70 3.27 3.06 3.38(.72) (.73) (.70) (1.13) (.71) (.69) (.71) (.76) (.59) (.73) (.70) (.29) (.61)

Female 3.11 3.08 3.04 2.98 3.17 2.88 3.43 3.12 3.36 2.99 3.26 3.38 3.37(.75) (.77) (.89) (.85) (.69) (.57) (.64) (.68) (.88) (.56) (.89) (.44) (.47)

Male 3.03 3.00 2.81 3.43 3.14 2.61 3.15 3.23 3.27 3.12 3.37 3.10 3.44(.76) (.78) (.61) (.62) (.75) (.83) (.73) (.74) (.47) (.75) (.54) (.84) (1.11)

Minority 3.12 3.07 3.10 3.21 3.20 2.79 3.39 3.30 3.37 2.97 3.32 3.24 3.44(.74) (.78) (.74) (.70) (.68) (.74) (.77) (.59) (.40) (.61) (.69) (.42) (.76)

Non-minority 3.02 2.98 2.77 3.12 3.12 2.89 3.17 3.05 3.20 3.08 3.35 3.24 3.31(.77) (.77) (.67) (.80) (.76) (.59) (.62) (.78) (1.00) (.76) (.85) (.89) (.43)


(554)

(730)

Race/Ethnicity

(735)

(603)

(574)

(622)

Demographic

(N)

Appointment

Sex

Appendix 11

OVERALL MORALE, CHANGE IN MORALE, AND FUTURE PLANS BY LOCUS OF APPOINTMENTUH Mānoa

Overall Morale* Change in Likelihood to LeaveMorale** Institution***

0 0 0(SD) (SD) (SD)

Arts & Humanities 4.70 4.73 2.70(2.08) (2.41) (1.43)

Languages, Linguistics, & Literature 4.54 4.55 2.72(2.43) (2.69) (1.39)

Natural Sciences 4.93 4.96 2.51(2.51) (2.79) (1.25)

Social Sciences 5.11 5.16 2.61(2.64) (2.54) (1.38)

College of Business Administration 5.58 5.47 2.75(2.67) (2.85) (1.45)

Travel Industry Management 5.67 5.20 3.17(2.88) (2.49) (1.17)

College of Health Sciences & Social Welfare:School of Nursing 4.67 4.83 3.20

(2.34) (2.42) (1.47)School of Medicine 5.44 4.99 2.70

(2.54) (2.60) (1.38)School of Social Work 4.22 3.00 2.00

(2.99) (2.45) (1.00)Organized Research Units & Academic Affairs 5.94 5.53 2.78

(1.88) (2.38) (1.34)College of Education 5.79 5.33 2.51

(2.08) (2.31) (1.44)College of Engineering 5.47 4.72 2.74

(2.46) (2.08) (1.10)5.22 4.76 2.73

(2.29) (2.47) (1.50)School of Architecture 5.67 5.17 3.33

(1.63) (2.48) (1.63)School of Law 5.17 4.50 2.50

(2.14) (1.97) (1.38)Library Services 5.31 4.93 2.19

(2.09) (2.52) (1.30)Outreach College 6.00 4.57 3.43

(2.08) (1.99) (1.51)SOEST 4.85 4.98 3.10

(2.35) (2.71) (1.25)SHAPS 6.50 5.27 2.50

(2.28) (1.74) (1.38)Student Affairs 5.26 4.46 2.93

(2.71) (2.63) (1.41)Totals 5.18 4.92 2.74

(2.39) (2.53) (1.35)* range is from 1=low morale to 10=high morale (midpoint 5.5)

** range is from 1=declined to 10=improved (midpoint 5.5=unchanged)*** range is from 1=not likely to 5=very likely (midpoint 3.0)

College of Arts & Sciences:

Locus of Appointment

UH Mānoa

College of Tropical Ag. & Human Resources

Appendix 12

CHANGE IN MORALE OVER TIME*UH Mānoa

Year 1984 1985 1987 1990 1992 1994 1998 2002

Mean 3.2 3.8 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.3 3.6 4.9

Difference -2.3 -1.7 -.9 -.8 -.9 -1.2 -1.9 -.6From Midpoint*Range is 1-10, 1=declined, 10=improved, midpoint is 5.5=unchanged

Appendix 13

OVERALL FACULTY MORALE* BY CLASSIFICATION AND RANK




Instructional 5.40 5.02 5.86 4.93 5.85 4.93 6.12 5.66 5.08 6.56 5.89 6.60 6.58(2.41) (2.43) (2.30) (2.09) (2.33) (2.25) (2.02) (2.40) (2.67) (2.00) (2.45) (2.58) (2.02)

Researcher 5.34 5.26 7.50 0 ** 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0(2.38) (2.36) (.71)

Specialist 5.69 5.74 6.83 4.50 4.00 1.00 0 5.33 0 ** 0 0 0(2.30) (2.28) (2.14) (2.12) (2.45) (.00) (1.15)

Librarian 5.29 5.19 7.00 ** 5.06 ** 6.25 3.00 5.00 5.67 3.50 6.00 0(2.12) (2.15) (2.83) (1.89) (1.50) (1.41) (1.41) (2.31) (.71) (2.00)

Agent 5.75 5.74 0 0 ** 0 0 0 0 0 ** 0 0(1.97) (2.02)

Split 5.58 5.31 7.00 0 5.86 0 7.00 4.50 0 5.50 ** 0 0(2.29) (2.30) (1.63) (2.48) (.00) (4.95) (2.12)

Other 5.88 5.86 0 ** 5.80 5.00 7.00 5.18 5.50 5.70 5.25 ** **(2.49) (2.66) (2.41) (3.32) (2.11) (2.68) (.71) (2.21) (2.63)

Instructor 5.50 5.19 5.00 5.33 5.95 5.33 5.94 5.00 5.88 6.62 7.40 7.40 5.86(2.42) (2.53) (2.62) (3.21) (2.20) (3.27) (1.82) (2.58) (1.46) (1.94) (1.52) (1.52) (2.27)

Assistant 5.68 5.51 7.22 5.00 5.73 5.38 6.67 5.75 6.20 5.45 5.25 6.50 7.50(2.16) (2.24) (1.48) (1.41) (2.08) (2.43) (2.25) (1.94) (2.39) (2.25) (1.86) (2.12) (.71)

Associate 5.16 4.86 5.18 4.33 5.65 4.21 6.67 6.59 4.22 5.86 5.15 5.43 7.50(2.38) (2.32) (2.56) (1.53) (2.41) (2.32) (1.68) (2.22) (2.99) (2.21) (2.15) (3.05) (.71)

Full 5.31 5.12 5.67 5.00 5.68 4.20 5.75 5.59 3.00 6.65 5.71 6.75 **(2.37) (2.44) (1.50) (2.00) (2.32) (1.86) (2.22) (2.26) (2.65) (2.01) (3.04) (2.19)

*Range 1-5, 1 is most negative response, 5 is most positive response **Indicates that only one individual responded; confidentiality may be compromised.(364)

(40)

(191)

(179)

(287)

Rank(59)

Classification(N)

Demographic

(821)

(93)

(135)

(51)

(20)

Appendix 13continued

OVERALL FACULTY MORALE* BY APPOINTMENT PERIOD, SEX, AND RACE/ETHNICITY


West O‘ahu



9-month 5.28 4.93 6.02 4.75 5.62 4.33 6.00 5.54 4.57 6.52 5.84 6.13 0(2.42) (2.44) (2.27) (2.02) (2.37) (2.30) (2.05) (2.46) (2.52) (1.91) (2.44) (2.60)

11-month 5.53 5.34 6.10 7.00 5.92 5.19 6.35 5.86 6.30 5.31 5.35 6.78 6.71(2.29) (2.28) (2.10) (3.16) (2.27) (2.59) (2.06) (2.33) (2.31) (2.30) (2.29) (2.17) (1.90)

Female 5.46 5.27 6.78 5.82 5.54 4.59 6.44 4.98 5.40 5.95 5.37 6.67 6.55(2.38) (2.43) (2.17) (2.44) (2.28) (2.26) (1.93) (2.46) (2.50) (1.83) (2.44) (1.73) (2.11)

Male 5.44 5.19 5.65 4.50 5.97 4.41 5.73 6.19 5.18 6.75 5.93 6.62 7.332.38 (2.37) (2.16) (2.33) (2.37) (2.65) (2.12) (2.29) (2.56) (2.15) (2.28) (2.84) (.58)

Minority 5.62 5.33 6.46 4.80 5.92 4.48 6.56 5.74 5.53 6.36 5.82 6.38 7.13(2.37) (2.44) (2.43) (2.95) (2.19) (2.42) (1.89) (2.30) (2.18) (1.76) (2.04) (2.14) (2.17)

Non-minority 5.28 5.09 5.80 5.33 5.59 4.79 5.71 5.59 4.75 6.13 5.47 6.58 6.17(2.35) (2.34) (2.00) (2.26) (2.41) (2.36) (2.09) (2.45) (2.93) (2.36) (2.49) (2.71) (1.47)


(563)

(732)

Race/Ethnicity

(728)

(598)

(580)

(627)

Demographic

(N)

Appointment

Sex

quality of faculty worklife - university of hawaii · 2003-02-06 · 2 quality of faculty worklife...

Documents