The mean response from UW Tacoma tenure-stream faculty on the 12 items within this thematic area was 2.92, at the bottom of 30% of comparison institutions and all participating institutions.
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
This item categorizes appreciation and recognition in 12 categories. Five of these categories are recognition in particular areas: teaching (2.91), advising (2.51), scholarship (2.91), service (2.80), and outreach (2.72). Four of them deal with recognition from colleagues (2.94), VCAA (2.66), Dean/Director (2.31), and Department Head or Program Coordinator (3.08). In all these categories, UW Tacoma fell below its comparison institutions and all participating institutions. As detailed in COACHE Provost’s Report, within UW Tacoma groups, associate professors emerged as a particularly dissatisfied group in terms of appreciation and recognition. Tenured faculty and faculty of color also indicate clear dissatisfaction with regard to recognition of faculty’s outreach work. Less than half of the who responded to the survey agree with a statement that the VCAA cares about the quality of life of faculty.
Lack of appreciation and recognition affects many core values of UW Tacoma. It means collegiality and respect are not strongly situated values in our UW Tacoma community. Many activities that reflected core values, in teaching excellence, research productivity, interdisciplinary work and collaboration, were not recognized. Neither transparent nor accountable mechanisms for appreciation and recognition of faculty activities were fully implemented and executed. It may be especially true that faculty who are perhaps introverted or did not have many chances to express their activities were less recognized and appreciated by unit program leaders. The lack of appreciation and recognition is another factor showing ineffective and unstable leadership.
Faculty, at all ranks, just like everyone else, want to be recognized and appreciated for the primary aspects of their works by colleagues and their leaders.
Regularly Assess[In a Year]
Assess units for what type of practices they do for faculty recognition.
Regularly survey faculty to learn about their assessment of recognition and appreciation at the campus.
Institute [In 1-3 Years]
Cultivate a culture of recognition by offering opportunities for students, faculty, and campus leaders to highlight the accomplishment of our faculty.
Make opportunities to showcase faculty work in each school or college regularly.
Celebrate faculty work in each school or college at some point every year.
[Best Practices from UWT and Other Universities]
University of Washington Human Resources, Employee Recognition Appreciation Awards Ideas, retrieved on April 17, 2014 from http://www.washington.edu/admin/hr/roles/mgr/ee-recognition/award-ideas
March 2009 Recognition for iSchool Faculty, Alumni, and Students, retrived April 17, 2014 from http://ischool.uw.edu/alumni/timeline/march-2009-recognition-ischool-faculty-alumni-and-students
North Carolina Central University, Employee Senate, retrieved on April 24, 2014 from
North Carolina Central University, Quality Service Initative, , retrieved on April 24, 2014 from http://www.nccu.edu/formsdocs/proxy.cfm?file_id=155
SUNY-Buffalo State College, Faculty and Staff Recognition Ceremony, retrieved on April 24, 2014
University of Massachusetts- Lowell, Employee Recognition Program, retrieved on April 24, 2014 from
University of North Carolina - Greensboro, Supervisory Recognition Program, retrieved on April 24, 2014 from
University of North Carolina - Greensboro, Staff Appreciation Day, retrieved on April 24, 2014 from
University of Saint Thomas (MN), Employee Recognition Programs, retrieved on April 24, 2014 from
G) Departmental Engagement
Since faculty work in departments, the departmental culture has the most impact on faculty satisfaction and morale. There are three broad areas in which faculty judge their departments: 1) department collegiality (3.39), how well the department encourages faculty to get along with each other, 2) departmental engagement (2.97), how well the department encourages faculty to be engaged in their discussions on teaching, research, and service, and 3) departmental quality (3.29), how well the department keeps teaching and scholarship high on the list of priorities and improves the performance of teaching and scholarship, which supports retention and which may lead to excellent faculty hiring/retention. Among them, departmental engagement received the weakest mean.
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
The mean response from UW Tacoma tenure-stream faculty on the items within this thematic area was 2.97, at the bottom of 30% of comparison institutions and all participating institutions. The score of UW Tacoma’s departmental engagement was the lowest among all of COACHE participants.
This thematic issue combines several items:
Discussions of undergraduate student learning (3.21)
Discussions of graduate student learning (2.39)
Discussions of effective teaching practices (3.14)
Discussions of effective use of technology (2.93)
Discussions of current research methods (2.42)
Amount of professional interaction with pre-tenure faculty (3.58)
Amount of professional interaction with tenured faculty (3.16)
As detailed in the COACHE Provost’s Report, among UW Tacoma faculty, male associate professors show distinctively lower satisfaction about departmental engagement. Discussions of graduate student learning and research methods show very low engagement.
The low level of departmental engagement is a detriment to many core values since it shows that many faculty members feel that many activities in their department are neither strongly transparent nor are leaders held to account. Due to the rapid growth of UW Tacoma, many new hires happened. For example, the Institute of Technology hired seven new full-time lecturers, two assistant professors, and two full professors among a total of 22 faculty in the last two years. This means that 50% new faculty joined the unit. This means that faculty offices were spread across several buildings on campus. Without the faculty’s ability, and proximity, to effectively share expertise and experience, it is hard to improve many core values such as teaching excellence, research productivity, and community engagement. Department leadership needs to pay attention to the effectiveness and stability of departmental engagement.
Ask units to develop a faculty development committee.
Foster interdisciplinary communities within and across departments and colleges, leading to an engaged faculty.
Develop departmental faculty leadership development programs, which are open to all faculty members, for implementing, managing, and improving departmental engagement.
[Best Practices from UWT and Other Universities]
Departmental faculty development programs for improving departmental
University of Massachusetts - Lowell, Faculty Development Committee, Retrieved on April 24, 2014 from
University of North Carolina - Greensboro, HR Professional Development, Retrieved on April 24, 2014 from
University of Saint Thomas (MN), Faculty Development, Retrieved on April 24, 2014 from
Departmental faculty leadership development programs,
Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), Academic Leadership Development, Retrieved on April 24, 2014 from
Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), Department Executive Officers (DEO) Seminar, Retrieved on April 24, 2014 from
North Carolina Central University, Annual Faculty Senate Workshop, Retrieved on April 24, 2014 from
1 See the appendix for a summary of these results. More detailed results are available in COACHE Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey Provost’s Report can be found in the Faculty Assembly Folder in the shared drive.