This first grassroots survey of the ASC Faculty was executed using SurveyMonkey in the time period 16 – 30 November, 2015. The very striking results, including all the written comments submitted by the respondents, can be found on this blog. We are continuing to analyze these results, as are others, so we expect the list of survey products to grow over time.
The survey consisted of 9 indirect questions concerning the trajectory of ASC and OSU during the last 5 years or more, and a final query on the academic title of the respondent. For seven of the nine questions the respondent was presented with an assertion and then asked to strongly disagree, disagree, remain neutral, agree or strongly agree with that assertion. In the remaining two questions (Q6 and Q7) the respondent was asked to complete the sentence.
For each question the first possible response presented in the survey (corresponding to the left‐most bar of the bar chart) is the most negative result or opinion, and the last possible response (and the bar to the right) is the most positive. So all the plots have a similar polarity.
In the table below we aggregate negative and very negative opinions, and positive and very positive opinions, so as to highlight the degree of consensus. We reorder the question sequence in this table so as to reflect the degree of faculty consensus expressed in response to the queries.
|Query||negative (%)||neutral (%)||positive (%)|
There is extremely strong faculty consensus on Q5 in that more than 90% of the respondents disagree or strongly disagree with the suggestion that OSU is a business and should be run using corporate strategies and practices. A consensus of roughly equal strength is associated with Q6 in that 89.9% of the respondents agree that during the last 5 years the bureaucracy at OSU has increased or greatly increased. The table above indicates that for 8 of the 9 questions negative responses outnumbered neutral and positive responses combined. This was not true for Q2; there is essentially no consensus at all on whether the research environment has degraded, remained unchanged, or improved during the last five years.