Senate Exhibit C

The survey sought to obtain a broad and representative picture of faculty and staff opinions on the issue of the possible reorganization of academic programs at Western. It was the intent of UPC to extend to all faculty and staff/administration1 the opportunity to express their opinions, not only on proposed recommendations to-date, but also on their individual beliefs as to the possible merits and limitations of any reorganization. The survey was informed by two major sources: (1) The external consultant’s report entitled Study of the Organizational Structure of Academic Programs, submitted on May 9, 2001; and (2) the threaded discussion within the Office of the Provost that was begun in Spring 2001.

Response Rates

It is estimated that 518 faculty received the survey, and approximately 225 staff-administrative. The total number of surveys completed is 363. Of this number, 264 are identified as faculty and 99 as staff-administrative. We estimate a return rate for faculty of 49%, and a return rate for staff-administrative of 44%. The table below gives the response rates by College and Division, and for Staff-Administrative rank.

Response Rates by College/Division, and Staff-Administrative.

Staff/Administrative 50

Although it is possible to identify several results that are interesting and may be considered important (by different individuals or various segments within the university), three points are highlighted as best summarizing the overall results of the survey. They are:

· A clear majority (of all respondents) expressed strong satisfaction with the current program organization. A clear majority express satisfaction with the current program organization: Fully 50% state they are extremely or very satisfied with 36% stating they are somewhat satisfied. Only 14% stated they were not at all satisfied with the current organization.

· The breakdown of responses by College/Division and by Rank/Position is shown below. The colleges are arranged by the degree expressing Very/Extremely Satisfied. The College of Arts and Sciences leads all others with 71% expressing this level of satisfaction, following by the Western Libraries and Huxley College. Both Fairhaven and Fine/Performing Arts are significantly dissatisfied with the current organization. However, given the few number of responses, these percentages should be interpreted with caution.

Not at all Somewhat Very/Extremely

· The College of Arts and Sciences consistently views all of the problems as NOT serious issues that “may call for reorganization.” This is consistent with the finding that Arts and Sciences is the most satisfied with the current program organization.

This may be illustrated by comparing the frequencies of responses for each college that view the eight issues cited as “a major problem due to current program organization” – and that may call for reorganization. In the table below, the mean percent for all problems is given for each college/division. In addition, the mean deviation is given which shows the spread of responses around the mean'

The distinctiveness of the College of Arts and Sciences is noteworthy. The mean of 7.6 is significantly lower than all other colleges/divisions. Moreover, the mean deviation indicates that responses to all problems are very similar. In sum, (1) there is little to no belief that the problems cited are major issues related to current program organization, and which therefore call for reorganization; and (2) there is little variation in the level of response across the problems cited.

· The College of Arts and Sciences consistently views each dimension within each Options cited as bring harm (impact on: one’s professional life, one’s unit, the mission of the university, students).

[It is noteworthy that Huxley College joins Arts and Sciences as viewing the Options as involving harm. Huxley College may be particularly impacted from reorganization, and on balance is critical of the Options given. Yet this critical stance is reversed for Options 2 and 4: here Huxley is favorable. Options 2 involves a change that does not directly involve Huxley; hence, reorganization that yields improved conditions may come from altering the structure of other colleges, not one’s own. Option 4 impacts all units equally, and thus may be viewed in more positive terms.]

· The majority of responses assessed each Option for reorganization as involving great or slight harm rather than improvement.

· There is a distinction between an assessment of impact on one’s own professional life and work quality and on one’s unit – compared to an assessment of impact on the university’s mission and on students. The former are more immediate and tangible, a fact that may define the assessment as harmful. The latter, as more removed and more abstract, tend to be assessed as bringing improvement.

Option Self Unit Mission Students

Option 1 17 16 30 30

Option 2 17 27 28 26

Option 1: Create two new colleges from Arts and Sciences and Huxley.

Establish a College of Environmental and Natural Sciences comprising several existing departments now in the College of Arts and Sciences, in addition to Huxley, and

Establish a College of Humanities and Social Science comprising the remaining departments in the current College of Arts and Sciences.

Option 2: Create two or more colleges from the College of Arts and Sciences.

This would be specific to Arts and Sciences, dividing it in some way but not altering the composition or independence of other colleges.

This would comprise the departments of Engineering Technology, Computer Science, Communication Sciences, PEHR, and Journalism, and would include Huxley College as a part of the College of Arts and Sciences.

The new college would be administratively responsible for the academic program of a student’s first, and possibly second, year at Western, and

It would draw upon the faculty of the other undergraduate colleges for teaching and other activities assigned to this new structure.

· With regard to Rank/Position, an apparent “divide” is discernible between faculty and Staff/Administrative. For Staff-Administrative rank, the level of satisfaction with the current program organization is significantly lower than that for all faculty ranks. This includes non-tenure track positions that would be outside the tenure structure. These percent figures are given below.

Not at all Somewhat Very/Extremely Mean

Although Staff-Administrative are highest in declaring to be “not at all satisfied”, it remains that 80% are somewhat to very satisfied. A more refined view of their dissatisfaction may come from (1) the problems that “may call for reorganization,” and from (2) the open-ended question about such problems. Each is reviewed below.

Staff-Administrative view the eight problems cited in the survey that “may call for reorganization” as a major problem due to current program organization significantly more than all other faculty ranks. This is consistent with their high level of dissatisfaction with the current program organization. In the table below, the mean percent that declare the eight issues a “major problem” is shown, as well as the mean deviation. The latter indicates the spread of the percentages around that mean, indicating how consistent (or varied) their responses are.

Clearly, the Staff-Administrative assess the eight issues presented in the survey as “major problems” more than all faculty ranks. However, the mean deviation is not particularly high, as is that for non-tenured, limited term faculty. This suggests a consistency in assessments across all eight problems.

Of the eight issues, three are viewed by Staff-Administrative as particularly problematic: (a) inadequate instructional programs for the first and second years, and the decline in freshman retention; (b) inequities in resource allocation; and (c) slow GUR reform. It is worth noting that the issues of freshman retention and slow GUR reform rank high for the non-tenured, limited term faculty only. For the three faculty ranks, the top issues are (a) inequities in resource allocation, (b) disparities in teaching loads; and (c) imbalance in size among existing colleges. This apparent difference between Staff-Administrative and faculty ranks is revealed more by responses to the open-ended question on problems that may call for reorganization.

Question 6 in the survey allowed respondents to “note one or more major problems that [they believed] may call for reorganization.” The open-ended comments were categorized into two categories that collapse three or more topical issues that are very close to each other. The first category encompasses (a) imbalance in the size of colleges; (b) resource inequities across colleges; (c) coordination of units across colleges. The second category encompasses (a) freshman retention; (b) problems with General Education/GURs; (c) problems with course access, and advising. The first category may be labeled Academic Organization; the second may be labeled Student Organization.

The distribution of responses (percentages) for these two major categories is shown for the four faculty ranks and Staff-Administrative position. In addition, the “response rate” for each rank/position is given. This indicates the percent of that rank/position who offered comments to this open-ended question.

The most evident contrast is between Staff-Administrative and Professor. The figures suggest that academic issues are more salient for faculty within the tenure structure, and indeed become more salient with advancement. Moreover, with advancement to Professor the issues and problems relating to students become less salient. For Staff-Administrative, however, the majority of issue and problems cited pertain to problems with student advising, general education and the first two years at Western.

One interpretation of this contrast is that Staff-Administrative are more proximate to the problems faced by students than are faculty. The concrete matters of course access, advisement about majors, are likely assumed most by staff and administration. The problems “that may call for reorganization” are, accordingly, more centered around the problems faced by students. To accommodate and correct these problems might be seen as the primary goal of reorganization.

RECOMMENDATIONS

I. Consideration of the Options presented in the survey, and/or alternative Options remains open. However, the formulation of any new proposal for reorganization should detail how it relates to (a) potential opportunities; (b) identifiable problems that the proposal would correct; and should outline (c) the means and costs of implementing the change.

Rationale: The results of the survey strongly suggest that little support exists for any of the Options presented. This lack of support should not, by itself, be interpreted as a rejection of reorganization. While necessarily underscoring the absence of support, the Council acknowledges that assessment of each Option presented is complicated by the minimum of specific details, and/or the vagueness of how it may be implemented.

II. The formulation of any proposal(s) for reorganization should give detailed attention to whether the proposal would address issues of student advising, the structure of the GURs, and access to classes.

Rationale: The results of the survey revealed the prominence of issues pertaining to General Education, the GUR’s, student access to courses and the advisement of students during their first two years.

III. The Council strongly recommends that any subsequent proposal for reorganization draw on and integrate existing sources of evidence and policy recommendations advanced by faculty/staff committees.

grp.fs.allchairs; grp.fs.alldeans; grp.fs.acaddirex; grp.RO; grp.AAS.Advising; grp.ADM; grp.CSC; grp.eesp; grp.SummerSession; grp.fs.w1; grp.EOC; grp.ITS.ATUS; grp.SSS; grp.Space.OldMain; grp.FS.Assts-Depts.

grp.fs.a1; grp.fs.a2a; grp.fs.a2b; grp.fs.a3; grp.fs.a4; grp.fs.a5; grp.fs.a6; grp.fs.a7; grp.FS.Assts-Depts; grp.fs.b1; grp.fs.b2; grp.fs.b3a; grp.fs.b3b; grp.fs.b4a; grp.fs.b4ab; grp.fs.b4b; grp.fs.b5; grp.fs.c1a; grp.fs.c1b; grp.fs.c2a; grp.fs.c2b; grp.fs.c3; grp.fs.c4; grp.fs.c4a; grp.fs.c4b; grp.fs.c5; grp.fs.c6; grp.fs.c7; grp.fs.d1; grp.fs.d2; grp.fs.d3; grp.fs.d4; grp.fs.e1; grp.fs.e2; grp.fs.e3; grp.fs.e4; grp.fs.f1; grp.fs.g1a; grp.fs.g1b; grp.fs.h1a; grp.fs.h1b; grp.fs.h1c; grp.fs.h2a; grp.fs.h2b; grp.fs.h2c; grp.fs.h2d; grp.fs.h2e; grp.FS.Senators.

1 The criterion for selecting Staff and Administrative for inclusion in the survey was their proximity to or involvement in the academic programs of the university. The list of groups receiving the survey, both faculty and staff, is given in the Appendix.

February 15, 2002

SUMMARY