|
|
% (N) |
% (N) |
Rate |
| Instructor |
|
|
|
| Assistant Professor |
|
|
|
| Associate Professor |
|
|
|
| Professor |
|
|
|
| No Response |
|
|
|
I1.1 Tenure amounts to a lifetime job. Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 21 15.1 15.6 15.6 Agree 2.00 36 25.9 26.7 42.2 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 21 15.1 15.6 57.8 Disagree 4.00 40 28.8 29.6 87.4 Strongly Disagree 5.00 17 12.2 12.6 100.0 No Response 9.00 4 2.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 135 Missing cases 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I1.2 Tenure is the foundation for academic freedom. Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 72 51.8 52.6 52.6 Agree 2.00 41 29.5 29.9 82.5 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 13 9.4 9.5 92.0 Disagree 4.00 9 6.5 6.6 98.5 Strongly Disagree 5.00 2 1.4 1.5 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 1 .7 Missing No Response 9.00 1 .7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 137 Missing cases 2 I1.3 Tenure is outmoded and should be replaced w/ long term contracts Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Agree 2.00 13 9.4 9.5 15.3 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 20 14.4 14.6 29.9 Disagree 4.00 40 28.8 29.2 59.1 Strongly Disagree 5.00 56 40.3 40.9 100.0 No Response 9.00 2 1.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 137 Missing cases 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I1.4 PTR adds important element to our department’s annual review Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 19 13.7 14.3 14.3 Agree 2.00 31 22.3 23.3 37.6 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 25 18.0 18.8 56.4 Disagree 4.00 31 22.3 23.3 79.7 Strongly Disagree 5.00 27 19.4 20.3 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 4 2.9 Missing No Response 9.00 2 1.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 133 Missing cases 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I1.5 Lingering concerns about PTR? Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 69 49.6 49.6 49.6 Yes 2.00 70 50.4 50.4 100.0 ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 139 Missing cases 0 II2.1 PTR was created due to pressures to increase accountability of university faculty Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 48 34.5 35.6 35.6 Agree 2.00 69 49.6 51.1 86.7 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 7 5.0 5.2 91.9 Disagree 4.00 4 2.9 3.0 94.8 Strongly Disagree 5.00 7 5.0 5.2 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 2 1.4 Missing No Response 9.00 2 1.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 135 Missing cases 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - II2.2 PTR developed to “weed out the deadwood.” Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 27 19.4 20.3 20.3 Agree 2.00 52 37.4 39.1 59.4 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 16 11.5 12.0 71.4 Disagree 4.00 26 18.7 19.5 91.0 Strongly Disagree 5.00 12 8.6 9.0 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 3 2.2 Missing No Response 9.00 3 2.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 133 Missing cases 6 II2.3 PTR developed due to financial pressures. Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 16 11.5 13.1 13.1 Agree 2.00 33 23.7 27.0 40.2 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 26 18.7 21.3 61.5 Disagree 4.00 36 25.9 29.5 91.0 Strongly Disagree 5.00 11 7.9 9.0 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 12 8.6 Missing No Response 9.00 5 3.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 122 Missing cases 17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - II2.4 Additional comments re PTR concept Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 87 62.6 62.6 62.6 Yes 2.00 52 37.4 37.4 100.0 ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 139 Missing cases 0 III3.1 PTR shoud only be used for folks who fail to perform at minimally aceptable levels during routine annual evaluations. Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 39 28.1 29.3 29.3 Agree 2.00 33 23.7 24.8 54.1 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 8 5.8 6.0 60.2 Disagree 4.00 25 18.0 18.8 78.9 Strongly Disagree 5.00 28 20.1 21.1 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 1 .7 Missing No Response 9.00 5 3.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 133 Missing cases 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - III3.2 PTR should focus on all activities (teaching, research and service.) Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 51 36.7 37.8 37.8 Agree 2.00 58 41.7 43.0 80.7 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 7 5.0 5.2 85.9 Disagree 4.00 11 7.9 8.1 94.1 Strongly Disagree 5.00 8 5.8 5.9 100.0 No Response 9.00 4 2.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 135 Missing cases 4 III3.3 PTR should primarily focus on teaching Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 18 12.9 13.6 13.6 Agree 2.00 32 23.0 24.2 37.9 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 10 7.2 7.6 45.5 Disagree 4.00 39 28.1 29.5 75.0 Strongly Disagree 5.00 33 23.7 25.0 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 1 .7 Missing No Response 9.00 6 4.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 132 Missing cases 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - III3.4 PTR should primarily focus on research Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 3 2.2 2.3 2.3 Agree 2.00 7 5.0 5.3 7.6 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 17 12.2 12.9 20.5 Disagree 4.00 55 39.6 41.7 62.1 Strongly Disagree 5.00 50 36.0 37.9 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 1 .7 Missing No Response 9.00 6 4.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 132 Missing cases 7 III3.5 PTR should primarily focus on service Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 2 1.4 1.5 1.5 Agree 2.00 11 7.9 8.3 9.8 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 15 10.8 11.4 21.2 Disagree 4.00 52 37.4 39.4 60.6 Strongly Disagree 5.00 52 37.4 39.4 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 1 .7 Missing No Response 9.00 6 4.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 132 Missing cases 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - III3.6 Additional comments re PTR operation Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 91 65.5 65.5 65.5 Yes 2.00 48 34.5 34.5 100.0 ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 139 Missing cases 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.1 PTR Stimulates improved teaching Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 12 8.6 8.8 8.8 Minor Benefit 2.00 20 14.4 14.6 23.4 No Benefit 3.00 51 36.7 37.2 60.6 Too Soon To Know 4.00 54 38.8 39.4 100.0 No Response 9.00 2 1.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 137 Missing cases 2 IV4.2 PTR Stimulates improved research Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 9 6.5 6.6 6.6 Minor Benefit 2.00 20 14.4 14.7 21.3 No Benefit 3.00 51 36.7 37.5 58.8 Too Soon To Know 4.00 56 40.3 41.2 100.0 No Response 9.00 3 2.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 136 Missing cases 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.3 PTR Stimulates improved service and outreach Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 8 5.8 5.9 5.9 Minor Benefit 2.00 17 12.2 12.5 18.4 No Benefit 3.00 55 39.6 40.4 58.8 Too Soon To Know 4.00 56 40.3 41.2 100.0 No Response 9.00 3 2.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 136 Missing cases 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.4 PTR Acts as a safeguard to tenure Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 10 7.2 7.5 7.5 Minor Benefit 2.00 12 8.6 9.0 16.5 No Benefit 3.00 53 38.1 39.8 56.4 Too Soon To Know 4.00 58 41.7 43.6 100.0 No Response 9.00 6 4.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 133 Missing cases 6 IV4.5 PTR Increases faculty accountability Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 17 12.2 12.6 12.6 Minor Benefit 2.00 37 26.6 27.4 40.0 No Benefit 3.00 37 26.6 27.4 67.4 Too Soon To Know 4.00 44 31.7 32.6 100.0 No Response 9.00 4 2.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 135 Missing cases 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.6 PTR Helps sustain senior faculty vitality Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 13 9.4 9.6 9.6 Minor Benefit 2.00 19 13.7 14.0 23.5 No Benefit 3.00 53 38.1 39.0 62.5 Too Soon To Know 4.00 51 36.7 37.5 100.0 No Response 9.00 3 2.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 136 Missing cases 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.7 PTR Increases opportunities for mid/late career transition and retirement planning. Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 4 2.9 3.0 3.0 Minor Benefit 2.00 13 9.4 9.7 12.7 No Benefit 3.00 56 40.3 41.8 54.5 Too Soon To Know 4.00 61 43.9 45.5 100.0 No Response 9.00 5 3.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 134 Missing cases 5 IV4.8 PTR Establishes development as expectation Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 25 18.0 18.7 18.7 Minor Benefit 2.00 34 24.5 25.4 44.0 No Benefit 3.00 30 21.6 22.4 66.4 Too Soon To Know 4.00 45 32.4 33.6 100.0 No Response 9.00 5 3.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 134 Missing cases 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.9 PTR Improves collegiality Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 2 1.4 1.5 1.5 Minor Benefit 2.00 9 6.5 6.8 8.3 No Benefit 3.00 77 55.4 58.3 66.7 Too Soon To Know 4.00 44 31.7 33.3 100.0 No Response 9.00 7 5.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 132 Missing cases 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.10 PTR Increases involvement in dept. planning Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 12 8.6 9.0 9.0 Minor Benefit 2.00 19 13.7 14.2 23.1 No Benefit 3.00 57 41.0 42.5 65.7 Too Soon To Know 4.00 46 33.1 34.3 100.0 No Response 9.00 5 3.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 134 Missing cases 5 IV4.11 PTR Links dept. goals with personal professional plans. Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 6 4.3 4.5 4.5 Minor Benefit 2.00 21 15.1 15.7 20.1 No Benefit 3.00 60 43.2 44.8 64.9 Too Soon To Know 4.00 47 33.8 35.1 100.0 No Response 9.00 5 3.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 134 Missing cases 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.12 PTR Focuses attention and rigor on annual review process. Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 14 10.1 10.5 10.5 Minor Benefit 2.00 23 16.5 17.3 27.8 No Benefit 3.00 54 38.8 40.6 68.4 Too Soon To Know 4.00 42 30.2 31.6 100.0 No Response 9.00 6 4.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 133 Missing cases 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.13 PTR Increases public confidence in higher education Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 19 13.7 14.2 14.2 Minor Benefit 2.00 24 17.3 17.9 32.1 No Benefit 3.00 34 24.5 25.4 57.5 Too Soon To Know 4.00 57 41.0 42.5 100.0 No Response 9.00 5 3.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 134 Missing cases 5 IV4.14 PTR Forstalls further external review Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 15 10.8 11.3 11.3 Minor Benefit 2.00 28 20.1 21.1 32.3 No Benefit 3.00 30 21.6 22.6 54.9 Too Soon To Know 4.00 60 43.2 45.1 100.0 No Response 9.00 6 4.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 133 Missing cases 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.15 PTR Invasion of professional autonomy Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 23 16.5 17.0 17.0 Minor Problem 2.00 27 19.4 20.0 37.0 No Problem 3.00 62 44.6 45.9 83.0 Too Soon To Know 4.00 23 16.5 17.0 100.0 No Response 9.00 4 2.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 135 Missing cases 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.16 PTR Process viewed as threat to tenure Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 34 24.5 24.8 24.8 Minor Problem 2.00 37 26.6 27.0 51.8 No Problem 3.00 41 29.5 29.9 81.8 Too Soon To Know 4.00 25 18.0 18.2 100.0 No Response 9.00 2 1.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 137 Missing cases 2 IV4.17 PTR will cause Excessive paperwork Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 43 30.9 31.6 31.6 Minor Problem 2.00 47 33.8 34.6 66.2 No Problem 3.00 28 20.1 20.6 86.8 Too Soon To Know 4.00 18 12.9 13.2 100.0 No Response 9.00 3 2.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 136 Missing cases 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.18 PTR will take Excessive time Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 40 28.8 29.6 29.6 Minor Problem 2.00 46 33.1 34.1 63.7 No Problem 3.00 32 23.0 23.7 87.4 Too Soon To Know 4.00 17 12.2 12.6 100.0 No Response 9.00 4 2.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 135 Missing cases 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.19 PTR will result in an Erosion of collegiality Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 30 21.6 22.2 22.2 Minor Problem 2.00 30 21.6 22.2 44.4 No Problem 3.00 45 32.4 33.3 77.8 Too Soon To Know 4.00 30 21.6 22.2 100.0 No Response 9.00 4 2.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 135 Missing cases 4 IV4.20 PTR will have a Negative effect on risk taking and scholarly pursuit of controversial areas of inquiry. Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 26 18.7 19.7 19.7 Minor Problem 2.00 20 14.4 15.2 34.8 No Problem 3.00 47 33.8 35.6 70.5 Too Soon To Know 4.00 39 28.1 29.5 100.0 No Response 9.00 7 5.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 132 Missing cases 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.21 PTR problems include Unevenness in application of criteria Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 32 23.0 23.7 23.7 Minor Problem 2.00 17 12.2 12.6 36.3 No Problem 3.00 39 28.1 28.9 65.2 Too Soon To Know 4.00 47 33.8 34.8 100.0 No Response 9.00 4 2.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 135 Missing cases 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.22 PTR problems include Unreasonable demands on univ. to support faculty improvement plans. Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 15 10.8 11.3 11.3 Minor Problem 2.00 12 8.6 9.0 20.3 No Problem 3.00 52 37.4 39.1 59.4 Too Soon To Know 4.00 54 38.8 40.6 100.0 No Response 9.00 6 4.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 133 Missing cases 6 IV4.23 PTR will produce No positive change over long term Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 17 12.2 12.8 12.8 Minor Problem 2.00 10 7.2 7.5 20.3 No Problem 3.00 15 10.8 11.3 31.6 Too Soon To Know 4.00 91 65.5 68.4 100.0 No Response 9.00 6 4.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 133 Missing cases 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.24 PTR problems include Insufficient development funds Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 55 39.6 41.4 41.4 Minor Problem 2.00 23 16.5 17.3 58.6 No Problem 3.00 15 10.8 11.3 69.9 Too Soon To Know 4.00 40 28.8 30.1 100.0 No Response 9.00 6 4.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 133 Missing cases 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.25 PTR problems include Insufficient training Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 38 27.3 28.1 28.1 Minor Problem 2.00 24 17.3 17.8 45.9 No Problem 3.00 28 20.1 20.7 66.7 Too Soon To Know 4.00 45 32.4 33.3 100.0 No Response 9.00 4 2.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 135 Missing cases 4 IV4.26 PTR problems include Reduction of professionalism Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 23 16.5 17.0 17.0 Minor Problem 2.00 20 14.4 14.8 31.9 No Problem 3.00 55 39.6 40.7 72.6 Too Soon To Know 4.00 37 26.6 27.4 100.0 No Response 9.00 4 2.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 135 Missing cases 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.27 PTR problems include Forcing early retirement Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 15 10.8 11.2 11.2 Minor Problem 2.00 13 9.4 9.7 20.9 No Problem 3.00 51 36.7 38.1 59.0 Too Soon To Know 4.00 55 39.6 41.0 100.0 No Response 9.00 5 3.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 134 Missing cases 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV4.28 Additional comments re PTR consequences Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 102 73.4 73.4 73.4 Yes 2.00 37 26.6 26.6 100.0 ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 139 Missing cases 0 V5.1 Contemplated retirement? Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 134 96.4 96.4 96.4 Yes 2.00 5 3.6 3.6 100.0 ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 139 Missing cases 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V5.2 Comtemplated other employment? Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 131 94.2 94.2 94.2 Yes 2.00 8 5.8 5.8 100.0 ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 139 Missing cases 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V5.3 Changed professorial habits? Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 128 92.1 92.1 92.1 Yes 2.00 11 7.9 7.9 100.0 ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 139 Missing cases 0 V5.3.1 Teaching activities Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Not altered 1.00 7 5.0 53.8 53.8 Increased 2.00 4 2.9 30.8 84.6 Decreased 3.00 2 1.4 15.4 100.0 NA/No Response 9.00 126 90.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 13 Missing cases 126 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V5.3.2 Research activities Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Not altered 1.00 4 2.9 30.8 30.8 Increased 2.00 7 5.0 53.8 84.6 Decreased 3.00 2 1.4 15.4 100.0 No Response 9.00 126 90.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 13 Missing cases 126 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V5.3.3 Service activities Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Not altered 1.00 6 4.3 46.2 46.2 Increased 2.00 4 2.9 30.8 76.9 Decreased 3.00 3 2.2 23.1 100.0 No Response 9.00 126 90.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 13 Missing cases 126 V5.3.4 Other activites Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Not altered 1.00 7 5.0 63.6 63.6 Increased 2.00 2 1.4 18.2 81.8 Decreased 3.00 2 1.4 18.2 100.0 No Response 9.00 128 92.1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 11 Missing cases 128 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V5.4 How active in development of PTR standards? Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very active 1.00 48 34.5 34.8 34.8 Moderately active 2.00 36 25.9 26.1 60.9 Passive participant 3.00 23 16.5 16.7 77.5 Did not participate 4.00 31 22.3 22.5 100.0 No Response 9.00 1 .7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 138 Missing cases 1 V5.5 We had a Thoughtful discussion of tenure Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 24 17.3 21.4 21.4 Agree 2.00 47 33.8 42.0 63.4 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 14 10.1 12.5 75.9 Disagree 4.00 16 11.5 14.3 90.2 Strongly Disagree 5.00 11 7.9 9.8 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 2 1.4 Missing No Response 9.00 25 18.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 112 Missing cases 27 V5.6 Have been evaluated by PTR? Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 122 87.8 89.1 89.1 Yes 2.00 15 10.8 10.9 100.0 No Response 9.00 2 1.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 137 Missing cases 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V5.6.1 The Process was fair. Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 2 1.4 13.3 13.3 Agree 2.00 9 6.5 60.0 73.3 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 3 2.2 20.0 93.3 Disagree 4.00 1 .7 6.7 100.0 NA/No Response 9.00 124 89.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 15 Missing cases 124 V5.6.2 The Process was of little value Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 4 2.9 26.7 26.7 Agree 2.00 6 4.3 40.0 66.7 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 1 .7 6.7 73.3 Disagree 4.00 3 2.2 20.0 93.3 Strongly Disagree 5.00 1 .7 6.7 100.0 No Response 9.00 124 89.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 15 Missing cases 124 V5.6.3 The process helped identify own strengths Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 1 .7 7.1 7.1 Agree 2.00 3 2.2 21.4 28.6 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 3 2.2 21.4 50.0 Disagree 4.00 3 2.2 21.4 71.4 Strongly Disagree 5.00 4 2.9 28.6 100.0 No Response 9.00 125 89.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 14 Missing cases 125 V5.6.4 The process helped identify own needs Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 1 .7 7.1 7.1 Agree 2.00 4 2.9 28.6 35.7 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 2 1.4 14.3 50.0 Disagree 4.00 2 1.4 14.3 64.3 Strongly Disagree 5.00 5 3.6 35.7 100.0 No Response 9.00 125 89.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 14 Missing cases 125 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V5.6.5 Received Formal Feedback Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 9 6.5 56.3 56.3 Yes 2.00 7 5.0 43.8 100.0 NA/No Response 9.00 123 88.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 16 Missing cases 123 V5.6.6 Recieved Informal Feeback Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 13 9.4 81.3 81.3 Yes 2.00 3 2.2 18.8 100.0 9.00 123 88.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 16 Missing cases 123 V5.7 Participated in review of others Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 88 63.3 63.8 63.8 Yes 2.00 50 36.0 36.2 100.0 9.00 1 .7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 138 Missing cases 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V5.7.1 Process was fair Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 17 12.2 34.7 34.7 Agree 2.00 23 16.5 46.9 81.6 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 5 3.6 10.2 91.8 Disagree 4.00 4 2.9 8.2 100.0 No Response 9.00 90 64.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 49 Missing cases 90 V5.7.2 Process helped me Appreciate Colleagues more Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 6 4.3 12.2 12.2 Agree 2.00 11 7.9 22.4 34.7 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 16 11.5 32.7 67.3 Disagree 4.00 9 6.5 18.4 85.7 Strongly Disagree 5.00 7 5.0 14.3 100.0 No Response 9.00 90 64.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 49 Missing cases 90 V5.7.3 Process helped me identify areas of my professional role that I need to strengthen. Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 3 2.2 6.1 6.1 Agree 2.00 10 7.2 20.4 26.5 Neither Agree nor Di 3.00 15 10.8 30.6 57.1 Disagree 4.00 11 7.9 22.4 79.6 Strongly Disagree 5.00 10 7.2 20.4 100.0 No Response 9.00 90 64.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 49 Missing cases 90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V5.8 Additional comments re PTR experiences Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 81 58.3 58.3 58.3 Yes 2.00 58 41.7 41.7 100.0 ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 139 Missing cases 0 V5.8.1 Comments from those reviewed Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Yes 2.00 3 2.2 100.0 100.0 NA/No Response 9.00 136 97.8 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 3 Missing cases 136 V5.8.2 Comments from reviewers Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 1 .7 10.0 10.0 Yes 2.00 9 6.5 90.0 100.0 9.00 129 92.8 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 10 Missing cases 129 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V5.9 Comments re general issues Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 118 84.9 84.9 84.9 Yes 2.00 21 15.1 15.1 100.0 ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 139 Missing cases 0 YEARS Number of years on faculty Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent 1.00 2 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.50 1 .7 .7 2.2 2.00 8 5.8 6.0 8.2 3.00 3 2.2 2.2 10.4 3.50 2 1.4 1.5 11.9 4.00 3 2.2 2.2 14.2 5.00 6 4.3 4.5 18.7 5.50 1 .7 .7 19.4 6.00 4 2.9 3.0 22.4 7.00 7 5.0 5.2 27.6 8.00 8 5.8 6.0 33.6 9.00 12 8.6 9.0 42.5 10.00 9 6.5 6.7 49.3 11.00 3 2.2 2.2 51.5 12.00 2 1.4 1.5 53.0 13.00 1 .7 .7 53.7 14.00 1 .7 .7 54.5 15.00 2 1.4 1.5 56.0 16.00 4 2.9 3.0 59.0 17.00 3 2.2 2.2 61.2 18.00 6 4.3 4.5 65.7 19.00 2 1.4 1.5 67.2 20.00 2 1.4 1.5 68.7 21.00 3 2.2 2.2 70.9 22.00 1 .7 .7 71.6 22.50 1 .7 .7 72.4 23.00 3 2.2 2.2 74.6 24.00 7 5.0 5.2 79.9 25.00 6 4.3 4.5 84.3 26.00 2 1.4 1.5 85.8 27.00 3 2.2 2.2 88.1 28.00 7 5.0 5.2 93.3 29.00 3 2.2 2.2 95.5 30.00 3 2.2 2.2 97.8 32.00 1 .7 .7 98.5 33.00 1 .7 .7 99.3 34.00 1 .7 .7 100.0 . 5 3.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 134 Missing cases 5 LOAD Current Academic Load Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent .00 3 2.2 2.3 2.3 1.00 1 .7 .8 3.1 2.00 1 .7 .8 3.8 3.00 2 1.4 1.5 5.4 4.00 1 .7 .8 6.2 6.00 16 11.5 12.3 18.5 9.00 29 20.9 22.3 40.8 10.00 3 2.2 2.3 43.1 12.00 64 46.0 49.2 92.3 13.00 2 1.4 1.5 93.8 13.50 1 .7 .8 94.6 14.00 1 .7 .8 95.4 15.00 2 1.4 1.5 96.9 18.00 2 1.4 1.5 98.5 20.00 1 .7 .8 99.2 36.00 1 .7 .8 100.0 . 9 6.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 130 Missing cases 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GRADINS Graduate level instruction Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 48 34.5 36.4 36.4 Yes 2.00 84 60.4 63.6 100.0 No Response 9.00 7 5.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 132 Missing cases 7 DOCINS Doctoral Level instruction Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 68 48.9 84.0 84.0 Yes 2.00 13 9.4 16.0 100.0 NA/No Response 9.00 58 41.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 81 Missing cases 58 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TENURED Tenured Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 26 18.7 19.3 19.3 Yes 2.00 109 78.4 80.7 100.0 No Response 9.00 4 2.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 135 Missing cases 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RANK Academic Rank Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Instructor 1.00 2 1.4 1.5 1.5 Assistant Professor 2.00 33 23.7 24.8 26.3 Associate Professor 3.00 46 33.1 34.6 60.9 Full Professor 4.00 52 37.4 39.1 100.0 No Response 9.00 6 4.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 133 Missing cases 6 UNIT Academic Unit Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent College of Ars and S 1.00 64 46.0 49.2 49.2 College of Education 2.00 37 26.6 28.5 77.7 College of Business 3.00 17 12.2 13.1 90.8 College of Criminal 4.00 7 5.0 5.4 96.2 Newton Gresham Libra 5.00 5 3.6 3.8 100.0 No Response 9.00 9 6.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 130 Missing cases 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GENDER Gender Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Female 1.00 45 32.4 34.6 34.6 Male 2.00 85 61.2 65.4 100.0 No Response 9.00 9 6.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 130 Missing cases 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RACE Race/Ethnicity Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent White 1.00 113 81.3 87.6 87.6 Black/Af.Am 2.00 3 2.2 2.3 89.9 Hispanic 3.00 2 1.4 1.6 91.5 Asian American 4.00 5 3.6 3.9 95.3 Other 5.00 6 4.3 4.7 100.0 No Response 9.00 10 7.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 139 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 129 Missing cases 10