1 / 63

2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants

2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants. Research and Graduate Studies Retreat Presentation March 1, 2007 Nancy Whelchel, PhD Assistant Director for Survey Research University Planning and Analysis http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/survey/faculty/. Overview. Survey background

felcia
Download Presentation

2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2006 Faculty Well-Being Survey: Contracts and Grants Research and Graduate Studies Retreat Presentation March 1, 2007 Nancy Whelchel, PhD Assistant Director for Survey Research University Planning and Analysis http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/survey/faculty/

  2. Overview • Survey background • Awareness of grant/contract activities • College and university pre- & post-award support • Overhead/indirect costs • Challenges to grant/contract related activities • Things to think about?

  3. Survey Population & Response Rate • On campus tenure/non-tenure track faculty/lecturers (including dept heads, music, PE, FYC) • FTE .75 AY04-05 & AY05-06 • Final population = 1,625 (No sampling) • 69.7% response rate • No significant differences in response rates among subgroups

  4. Contracts/Grants questions

  5. Contracts/Grants question • What are the biggest challenges you face related to grant/contract-related activities at NC State? (open-end)

  6. Awareness of grant/contract-related activities… • 25% or more said they had ‘insufficient experience’ to answer the questions about contracts/grants support • Awareness is higher for: • Pre-award support (compared to post-award) • College-level support (compared to university-level)

  7. Awareness of grant/contract-related activities… • Two-thirds or more said they had ‘insufficient experience’ to answer the questions about indirect costs

  8. (Un)Awareness pre-award support from college • By college • Most unaware (by far): • COM (58%), CHASS (53%), Design (46%) • Least unaware • COE (7%), COT (7%) • By tenure status • Non-tenured less aware than tenured • (also by gender and race/ethnicity)

  9. Satisfaction with pre- and post-award support • 60% - 69% ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with pre- & post-award support from college and university • Slightly more positive about • Pre-award support (compared to post-award) • College-level support (compared to university-level)

  10. Satisfaction with support for research activities • Faculty generally give lower ratings to support for research activities compared to other aspects of working at NC State.

  11. Pre-award support from college • Most likely to be “very satisfied” • CED (60%) • PAMS (29%) • CNR (25%)

  12. Post-award support from college • Most likely to be ‘very satisfied’ • CED (36%) • COT (20%)

  13. Comparisons of ratings for college pre- & post-award support, by college • More positive about pre-award than post-award (largest ‘gap’) • CHASS • Design • More positive about post-award than pre-award (largest ‘gap’) • CVM • PAMS

  14. Pre-award support from the university • Most likely to be ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ • By college • PAMS (74%), CED (74%), CNR (72%), CALS (68%), COE (64%) • By years at NC State • >25 years (71%), < 7 years (69%) • By race/ethnicity • Hispanic (75%), Asian (66%), White (63%)

  15. Post-award support from the university • Most likely to be ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ • By college • COM (85%) • By years at NC State • >25 years (69%), < 7 years (65%) • By race/ethnicity • Hispanic (75%), Asian (66%), White (59%)

  16. Comparisons of ratings for university pre- & post-award support, by college • More positive about pre-award than post-award (largest ‘gap’) • CED • PAMS • More positive about post-award than pre-award (largest ‘gap’) • COM • Design

  17. (Dis)Satisfaction with Indirect Costs • About two-thirds or more dissatisfied with indirect costs • Most dissatisfied with PI control over allocation (38% ‘very dissatisfied,’ 35% ‘dissatisfied’)

  18. Highest Dissatisfaction with Indirect Costs (by college) • Allocation to PI • COE (77%), PAMS (72%) • Allocation to department • PAMS (78%), COE (75%) • PI control over allocation • COE (85%), PAMS (76%), etc.

  19. Open-end comments: Biggest challenges to grant/contract-related activities • 521 respondents • Up to 3 coded comments each • 14 general categories • Support -- Accounting • Administration -- Obtaining funding • Workload -- Personal • Recognition/rewards -- Tech transfer, IP • Legal issues -- Funding agency • Political issues -- IRB • Miscellaneous/Other • Positive comments!

  20. Open-end comments: Biggest challenges to grant/contract-related activities • Most problematic • Support • Budgeting/Accounting

  21. Administrative Support

  22. Accounting System/Budgeting

  23. Administration/Bureaucracy

More Related