Using Data to Shift the Campus Conversation

In the spring 2013 semester, the Purdue University Calumet administration notified the faculty that it should prepare to deal with looming financial difficulties. In particular, the provost asked departments to draft two separate plans to cut 10 percent and 15 percent of all course offerings. No mention was made of cuts to faculty ranks; the emphasis was on cuts to courses. Faculty from each department suggested course cuts in line with the request, in some cases emphasizing that following through on the cuts would be financially suicidal. Then, at the end of the semester, we were notified that cuts to the faculty ranks would take place—largely to continuing lecturers, who are full-time employees, but also to limited-term lecturers, who are generally part-time employees working on semester-to-semester contracts. About a dozen continuing lecturers—some of whom had been working on year-to-year contracts for decades—were not renewed. These cuts were made in addition to a dozen or so continuing lecturer positions that had been terminated the previous year.

In fall 2013, the administration announced further cuts, this time without even the semblance of meaningful faculty input. Six tenure-track faculty members and one continuing lecturer were sent letters of nonrenewal. The stated reason? A financial crisis that required immediate redress. However, other factors indicated that something else was going on: the university continued to hire administrative and athletic support staff, and the administration would not label the issue as one of “financial exigency,” probably because the athletics budget was growing at the same time.

These shocking actions by the administration led to efforts to mobilize the faculty by forming a chapter of the AAUP on campus. After electing officers, the chapter got to work. In less than a month, we went from not existing as a chapter to being one of the largest chapters in Indiana. We assisted numerous faculty members affected by the cuts in filing grievances and loudly questioned whether faculty cuts paired with administrative hiring really constituted a financial “crisis.” In short order, the fall (but not the spring) nonrenewal letters were rescinded.

It became clear, however, that we faced a major impediment: the administration had more data than we did (or so we thought).

October 2013 Survey

We set out as a chapter to overcome our disadvantage by collecting our own data about what was happening on campus. Our first survey, on faculty working conditions, was rolled out in October 2013. We used Qualtrics, an online research tool, to conduct the survey, and we delivered it to our colleagues using the campus e-mail list.

The results were anonymous, but we did collect some information about respondents. In all, ninety-three individuals, most of them faculty members, completed the survey. The survey questions focused on how respondents viewed the campus and their role within it. All responses were on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Analysis of this survey produced several interesting— and some startling—findings. Respondents had few good things to say about communication and input within the university (except at the departmental level), expressed quite negative views about the compensation systems in place, felt overworked, and believed that policies were generally not equitable. Surprisingly, most respondents thought that the institution generally adhered to academic freedom principles, despite the attempts to reduce the tenure-track ranks. Respondents judged the newly formed AAUP chapter the most effective advocate on behalf of faculty interests.

The results pointed to a pervasive sense of mistrust, unhappiness, and lack of institutional pride on campus. In addition, we found broad consensus about the lack of adequate transparency and responsiveness, especially above the departmental level. These results helped the chapter to press more forcefully for the inclusion of faculty in the decision-making process and to raise awareness among those faculty members who had not yet become involved in campus affairs that we, as a chapter, were doing so on behalf of the faculty. In the ensuing months, a faculty budget study group was set up to provide input into budgetary allocations. In addition, we generated some positive press through a few articles and a radio interview in which we discussed these results.

January 2014 Survey

During the fall 2013 semester, the provost notified deans that sabbaticals and research releases—normally awarded in a competitive process—would not be available. In addition, many course maximums were raised, resulting in a double-squeeze on faculty, who were now teaching more courses with more students in each course. In order to better understand the effects of this increasing teaching demand, we invited tenured and tenure-track faculty to participate in a second survey in January 2014. Seventy faculty members provided responses to questions about teaching, time allocation, and job satisfaction, focusing specifically on the fall 2013 semester (when releases were no longer in place and course sizes had expanded) and how it compared with previous semesters.

We found that faculty members had experienced a significant increase in teaching load from fall 2012 (when they taught a mean of 3.25 courses) to fall 2013 (when the mean was 3.57 courses). In addition, many faculty members (39 percent) reported more teaching preparations than in previous semesters, and most (56 percent) reported larger class sizes. Some faculty members reported changing their teaching behavior: 13 percent said they gave easier exams (3 percent made exams harder), and 32 percent said they gave easier homework assignments (2 percent made homework harder).

A related set of questions asked faculty members how their use of time in the fall 2013 semester had changed in various categories compared with previous semesters. Most reported having less time to start new scholarly projects (80 percent), working less on scholarly activities (79 percent), and spending less time reading and reviewing scholarly journals (75 percent); fewer reported decreases in time spent improving their courses (39 percent) and meeting with students (35 percent). Nearly half (46 percent) reported spending more time teaching, and nearly a third (31 percent) reported spending more time preparing for classes.

We also assessed satisfaction with six areas of activity: overall quality of teaching, research, service, personal growth, professional growth, and job satisfaction. Satisfaction in all areas declined substantially during the fall 2013 semester; significant majorities (at least 63 percent) of faculty reported declining quality of research, personal growth, professional growth, and overall job satisfaction. Our findings were consistent with an already prevalent pattern: faculty satisfaction decreased as a result of increased class size, increased teaching load, and resulting inability to devote more time to scholarly and service activities.

Our second survey revealed the tangible effects of increasing teaching loads and class sizes: reduced scholarly and service work, decreased quality of teaching, lowered job satisfaction, and lack of confidence in the administration. However, we quickly recognized a gap in our knowledge: what had happened to continuing lecturers, the people most directly affected by the spring 2013 cuts?

January–March 2014 Survey

 In addition to being concerned about what had happened to continuing lecturers at our campus (who, according to the then-current constitution, are not even considered faculty), we had also been hearing that many of the terminated continuing lecturers were being rehired as limited-term lecturers, essentially doing the same work for substantially reduced pay. In order to better understand what had happened to the affected faculty, we set out to conduct our third survey in January 2014. We quickly learned, however, that the administration did not maintain a list of e-mail addresses for limited-term lecturers. Only after much effort did we finally persuade the administration to set up and provide access to such a list.

We conducted the survey between January and March 2014 and received responses from 106 faculty members, seventeen of whom were working on contingent appointments. We again found that teaching loads were affecting other professional activities: large portions of the faculty said that teaching loads did not allow adequate time for research and scholarly activity (83 percent), for service activities (63 percent), and for teaching preparation (43 percent). In addition, when compared to our previous, yearlong strategic planning process, the development of the more recent strategic plan (which occurred in a matter of months and was not even noticed by many faculty and staff members) was judged less transparent and less informed by input from all members of the campus community. Unfortunately, we received only a small number of responses from continuing lecturers. Of the sixteen who responded, five had received a nonrenewal letter, and three of those five were offered reemployment as a limited-term lecturer (one was rehired as a continuing lecturer). Most of those rehired felt compelled for economic reasons to accept the offer, even though they expected that their treatment by the university would negatively affect their teaching. Half had seen their compensation reduced by at least 25 percent, and nearly half had seen their compensation cut by at least 75 percent.

Our third survey also again found that teaching loads were having a negative impact on scholarly and service activities, that morale remained low, and that the recent strategic plan had been developed without meaningful faculty input. The absence of any mechanism for communication between different groups of faculty was troubling, and the rationale for maintaining such silence was even worse. Our demands for transparency ultimately persuaded the administration to change the management of faculty e-mail lists and, in one case, to create a new list—a testament to the effectiveness of organizing through an AAUP chapter.

June 2014 Survey

In late February 2014, our campus chancellor dropped a bombshell: Purdue University Calumet was going to merge with another Purdue regional campus some thirty-five miles away. The initial reason provided for the merger was to reduce administrative costs and to redirect the savings to the faculty and students. (Hearing this rationale from an administrator who had been dedicated to reducing faculty ranks, and expanding administrative ranks, for several years running was quite a shock.) The chancellors of the two affected campuses repeatedly claimed that the merger was their initiative, but rumors that it was a top-down directive from the board of trustees or the Purdue president (who appointed most of the board) were widespread.

In order to understand the effects of this merger—which was presented as a fait accompli— we conducted our fourth survey, in June 2014. We sent this survey to faculty e-mail lists on the two affected campuses. Forty individuals responded. Our questions this time focused on the merger and the unification process and on the nature of the expected changes.

Overall, the results painted a grim picture. Respondents expressed little confidence in the unification process, or in those overseeing it, and no sense that faculty input was being sought. Respondents gave administrators low marks for providing information about the merger, with most viewing the information that was provided as inaccurate, untimely, and not useful. Even more troubling were the responses to questions about whose interests were represented in the merger. Overwhelmingly, respondents thought that administrative views were adequately represented (91 percent); no other group achieved even 50 percent. Respondents also viewed administrators, perhaps not surprisingly, as the primary beneficiaries of the merger, followed by the other campus; faculty were viewed as least likely to benefit. Finally, the results about responsibility for the merger were astonishing. The chancellors’ claims that they—and not the board of trustees or the president— were primarily responsible for the merger was overwhelmingly discounted, and most of the responsibility was attributed to the president, followed by the board.

Shifting the Campus Conversation

How can the results of such surveys be used to influence a campus conversation? At the start of this process—when the administration was attempting to reduce faculty ranks while hiring more administrators— our chapter was in a defensive mode, largely reacting to events as they unfolded. As we began to collect data, we became more effective in challenging administrative claims by citing contradictory data. Administrative arguments that the faculty cuts in the past year would have no effect on faculty and staff morale, or on teaching quality, are undercut by the survey results showing that morale is in steep decline and that teaching quality is being sacrificed.

What has also become apparent is that administrators’ claims that they made decisions on the basis of data were unwarranted. To date, the administration has provided no clear documentation of the alleged budget crisis and no justification for the pattern of budgetary allocations beyond a stock answer: “It’s for the good of the university.” Our chapter has recently pushed for further documentation of the financial windfall attributed to our athletics department, which appears to be a result of accounting gimmicks rather than actual financial improvement. The administration has acknowledged that it needs to provide a rationale beyond “trust me” for diversions of money that would otherwise go to academic programs.

As the late Senator Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying, one is entitled to one’s own opinion but not to one’s own facts. The use of data both to test and, at times, to refute administrative claims is a key tool in the arsenal of AAUP chapters, especially chapters like ours that do not have collective bargaining rights. Chapters that gather data related to areas of interest or particular concern on their campus can use their findings to challenge administrative pronouncements that are unsupported by the facts.

David P. Nalbone is associate professor of social psychology at Purdue University Northwest. He is the past president and external liaison of the Purdue University Northwest AAUP chapter and was just elected secretary of the Indiana AAUP conference.