The Academic Strategic Planning Committee created an online Qualtrics survey to learn about members’ vision for the Division of Academic Affairs. The results of the survey, described in greater detail below, were used to inform the development of an Academic Affairs Strategic Plan that reflects the insights of members and identifies the unique mission, vision, and values of the Division.
The survey consisted primarily of ten open-ended questions, with two preliminary (filter) questions assessing a respondents’ eligibility to complete the survey (i.e., whether they worked in Academic Affairs and their work role). If a respondent indicated that they were not working within the Division of Academic Affairs, they did not receive the 10-question survey.
Questions addressed the following:
- how the respondent would describe SUNY Brockport to someone not familiar with the university
- what we do well in academics
- what shared values make us good at what we do
- what gives us a competitive advantage over other colleges and universities
- what other schools’ competitive advantages are over us
- what are our strengths within the Division of Academic Affairs
- what core vision should inform what Academic Affairs does moving forward
- what out priorities should be as a division
- what the division should look like in 5 years
- any additional comments on the vision for the division
The target population for the study included all non-student personnel employed within Academic Affairs. We obtained a list of all such persons from Human Resources (n=669) and sent each employee listed an email invitation to complete the survey. Therefore, we did not employ sampling in this study. Because some employees are split between Academic Affairs and other units, it is possible that some persons receiving the survey were not working primarily within Academic Affairs. The first two questions on the survey allowed us to filter out those persons who received the survey by accident.
The survey launched on December 2, 2022, and Academic Affairs employees who had not yet completed it were sent five separate email reminders spaced throughout the 15 days the survey was open.
322 employees responded to the survey for an overall survey response rate of 48.1%. All persons who started the survey, regardless of whether or not they received the 10 core questions comprising the survey, are counted in the tabulation of the survey response rate. 275 employees completed the survey for a 41.1% completion rate. We consider both the response rate and completion rate acceptable for an open-ended survey of this length (12 total questions, with 10 open-ended) and, given that we did not employ sampling in the study, we believe strongly that results are representative of the range of employee types within Academic Affairs.
Table 1 shows the range of positions within the Division held by respondents. 67.2% were fulltime faculty or librarians, 11.4% were UUP professional staff, 9.6% were part-time faculty or librarians, 8.6% were non-UUP staff, and 3.3% were administrators.
Table 1: Positions Held by Respondents
| Position | Percent (n) |
|---|---|
| Administrator | 3.3% (10) |
| Full-time faculty or librarian | 67.2% (203) |
| Professional staff, UUP | 11.4% (34) |
| Part-time faculty or librarian | 9.6% (29) |
| Staff, non-UUP | 8.6% (26) |
| Other | 0% (0) |
We used the Qualtrics TextiQ qualitative data analysis function to code thematically responses to the ten open-ended survey questions. What follows is a summary of the top themes we identified for each question. Tables for each question show the top themes/codes, and the percent and number of survey responses coded in that fashion. Please note that because some respondents skipped some questions, the number of respondents completing each question (and therefore the denominator used to calculate each percentage) varies from question to question. As is typical with open-ended survey questions, those appearing earlier in the survey have higher response rates than questions appearing later in the survey. Also, more than one code could apply to a single question response or portion of it. Therefore, percentages appropriately do not total to 100.
Table 2: Describe SUNY Brockport to someone not familiar with our university (200 responses)
| Code/Theme | % of responses w/ code (frequency) |
|---|---|
| State supported/SUNY | 38.0% (76) |
| Small/small town | 27.0% (54) |
| Liberal arts | 20.0% (40) |
| Location | 18.0% (36) |
| Comprehensive | 14.0% (28) |
| Medium-sized | 13.0% (26) |
| Regional | 12.5% (25) |
The most common way that respondents would describe SUNY Brockport to someone not familiar with the institution was as a state-supported, public, or SUNY institution (state supported/SUNY; 38%). The next most common description was that Brockport was a small college or university or located in a small town or rural area (small/small town; 27%). Respondents also described Brockport as a liberal arts (20%) college or a college or university with a core liberal arts foundation. Additionally, respondents referred to our location (18%) more generally in Upstate NY, Western NY, on the Erie Canal, in the Village of Brockport, in Monroe County, outside Rochester, or between Rochester and Buffalo. 14% of respondents described Brockport as a comprehensive institution using phrases such as “comprehensive college,” or making reference to the range of program offerings spanning the liberal arts, humanities, sciences, and professions. Although more respondents described Brockport as small, 13% described it as medium-sized or mid-sized. Finally, references to being a regional institution were also common (12.5%).
Interestingly, most of the descriptors used in response to this question referred to our size, location and the fact that we are a state-supported institution, rather than to any unique characteristics tied to academics or other facets of campus culture or identity. This in and of itself may indicate that SUNY Brockport lacks a coherent identity that sets us apart from competitor institutions (especially from other SUNYs in the region). If members of Academic Affairs overwhelmingly fall back on location and other generic descriptors, it is hard to see how people outside the university (and therefore likely less familiar with it) would identify Brockport any differently.
Table 3: What we do well in academics (Q5, 201 responses)
| Code/Theme | % of responses w/ code (frequency) |
|---|---|
| Teaching | 34.3% (69) |
|
Variety of programs |
17.4% (35) |
| Research | 15.4% (31) |
| Experiential learning | 15.4% (31) |
| Nursing | 12.4% (25) |
Teaching (34.3%), including both the high quality of teaching at Brockport as well as faculty commitment to teaching, was by far the most common item mentioned in response to the question of what we do well in academics. References to “excellent teaching,” “excellent faculty,” “high quality faculty,” “great teachers,” “committed faculty,” and the like were frequent. Second, respondents cited the overall variety of programs (17.4%) we offer. This included references to the “broad selection,” “good mix,” “variety,” “range,” and “breadth” of academic programs or majors, as well as “strong majors” and “diverse” options. The third most commonly cited issue was research (15.4%), which included references both to the quality and quantity of faculty research, as well as opportunities for students to engage in research. Experiential learning (15.4%) was also cited as something we do well, and included references to undergraduate research, internships, clinical placements, education abroad opportunities, applied learning projects, and other high-impact practices. Of the specific academic programs mentioned in responses to this question, nursing (12.4%) and education (7.5%) were the most common.
Table 4: Shared values (Q6, 189 responses)
| Code/Theme | % of responses w/ code (frequency) |
|---|---|
| Care | 22.8% (43) |
| Student success | 20.6% (39) |
| DEI | 13.8% (26) |
| Student centered | 11.1% (21) |
| None | 10.6% (20) |
The most commonly mentioned shared value within Academic Affairs was an ethic of care (22.8%). This was evident in comments stating that “we care,” that “we all care about students,” or that “faculty care about students.” It was also evident in references to “concern” for and “commitment” to students and student success, to “caring faculty,” and less commonly, to “kindness.” Second, was valuing student success (20.6%), which included statements such as “we want our students to grow as professionals and to be prepared to be successful,” “everyone wants to help our students succeed,” “commitment to [the] success of each student,” and “helping students achieve educational and career goals.” Third was a focus on issues related to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI; 13.8%). Despite strong support for the value of DEI, some also recognized that “these values are not always enacted upon in everyday situations.” Related to the focus on student success, 11.6% of respondents also cited being student-centered as a shared value. Comments such as “the student is the center of what we do!” “meeting students where they are,” and “students are #1” demonstrate this key theme. Finally, a full 10.6% of respondents indicated that Academic Affairs had no shared values (none), which may speak to the distrust, disengagement, divisiveness, and/or general frustration sometimes present within the division.
Table 5: Competitive advantages over other schools (Q7, 190 responses)
| Code/Theme | % of responses w/ code (frequency) |
|---|---|
| Cost of attendance | 33.7% (64) |
| Faculty | 15.3% (29) |
| Small classes/size | 14.7% (28) |
| Quality of education | 10.0% (19) |
| Location | 8.4% (16) |
| Range of majors | 7.4% (14) |
| None | 7.4% (14) |
| Low student-faculty ratio | 6.8% (13) |
| Experiential learning | 5.8% (11) |
The most commonly cited competitive advantage Brockport has over other institutions was Brockport’s relatively low cost of attendance (33.7%), with respondents calling Brockport both a “financial bargain,” and “affordable.” The second most cited advantage over competitor schools was Brockport’s faculty (15.4%). Respondents described faculty as “high caliber,” “engaged,” “caring,” “devoted” and “accessible,” and touted faculty’s commitment to students. Small class size was noted as a competitive advantage by 14.7% of respondents who noted how smaller class sizes permit “personalized instruction,” “one on one individual or small group attention for students,” facilitate “frequent interaction with faculty,” and contribute to student retention. The overall quality of education received at Brockport was mentioned by 10.0% of respondents as an asset with comments such as “we provide an excellent education,” or noting our “strong academics.” Comments about quality were often couched in terms of value for the money. For example, one respondent noted our “very high-quality, boutique education, and at a very affordable price,” and another wrote that Brockport offered “a private school education at a public school price.” As in other question responses, Brockport’s wide range of majors (7.4%) and location (8.4%) were mentioned as competitive advantages, while the low student-faculty ratio (6.8%) and opportunities for experiential learning (5.8%) were also cited. However, 7.4% of respondents claimed that Brockport did not have any competitive advantages (none) over other colleges and universities.
Table 6: Other schools’ competitive advantages over us (Q8, 191 responses)
| Code/Theme | % of responses w/ code (frequency) |
|---|---|
| Prestige/reputation | 23.5% (45) |
| More money | 17.8% (34) |
| Better facilities | 11.5% (22) |
| Location | 9.9% (19) |
| Campus culture | 6.7% (13) |
| Faculty support | 6.7% (13) |
| Available majors | 6.3% (12) |
| Better marketing | 6.3% (12) |
| Leadership | 5.8% (11) |
The most commonly identified competitive advantage other colleges and universities have over SUNY Brockport was more prestige or a better overall reputation (prestige/reputation; 23.5%). Some noted the frequency of “bad” news stories about Brockport in the media, but more often respondents were referring to academic reputation. Additionally, respondents identified other institutions’ access to more money, funding, larger endowments, and other fiscal resources as a key advantage (17.8%). Other institutions’ better facilities ranked third (11.5%), which included buildings; specific facilities such as libraries, residence halls, and classrooms; specialized laboratory equipment or technology; computer technology; and a nicer campus in general. Interestingly, even though in the prior question Brockport’s location was touted as an advantage, other institutions’ location (9.9%) was also cited here as an advantage over Brockport. This usually was explained in terms of other schools’ closer proximity to urban areas with better cultural amenities, opportunities for student employment or internships, and transportation options. References to other institutions’ advantageous campus culture (6.7%) included such things as evening activities and clubs for students; friendly and supportive students, faculty and staff; references to campus “feel” or “vibe”; student involvement on campus; and campus “community” more generally. Faculty support (6.7%) was also cited as better at competitor institutions and included references to “respect” and “appreciation” for faculty, acknowledging and rewarding faculty accomplishments, more financial and in-kind support for research and teaching, and administrators who listen to faculty. The availability of a range of majors (available majors; 6.7%) or programs of study was cited as a competitive advantage of other institutions, although this did not always note what specific programs they offered. Often, it was a reference to the range of majors offered. The perception that other institutions had better marketing (6.3% of responses) was often linked to the issue of prestige and reputation, but also to recruiting efforts and to external communication about newsworthy accomplishments of faculty and students. Finally, other institutions were perceived as having better leadership (5.8%) or more forward-thinking administrators.
Table 7: Strengths of Academic Affairs (Q9, 164 responses)
| Code/Theme | % of responses w/ code (frequency) |
|---|---|
| Faculty/teaching | 39.6% (65) |
| Care | 12.2% (20) |
| Strong majors/programs | 9.1% (15) |
| Leadership | 7.3% (12) |
| Collegiality/professionalism | 7.3% (12) |
| Dedication/hard work/resilience | 6.7% (11) |
The most commonly cited strength of the division was faculty/teaching, noted in a full 39.5% of responses. Caring or care was also noted as a strength in 12.2% of responses. Strong majors/programs (9.1%) and division and school leadership (7.3%) were also noted by many, as was collegiality/professionalism (7.3%) and the broad characteristics of dedication/hard work/resilience (6.7%). The former characteristics were most commonly attributed to faculty and staff.
Table 8: Core vision for Academic Affairs (Q10, 160 responses)
| Code/Theme | % of responses w/ code (frequency) |
|---|---|
| Liberal arts | 9.4% (15) |
| Student success | 8.1% (13) |
| Student support | 6.9% (11) |
| Career preparation | 5.0% (8) |
| Liberal arts with professional programs | 5.0% (8) |
The liberal arts (9.4%) was the most widely cited item in responses concerning what core vision should inform the division moving forward. Comments included “sustaining the liberal arts core,” and “devotion to the liberal arts.” Calls to create “well rounded” students and to “educate the whole person” were also included in this category. A separate code reflected comments that emphasized both a commitment to the liberal arts with professional programs (5.0%) as part of the core vision. Student success (8.1%) was again noted in this question as part of what should constitute the core vision for the division, as was student support (6.9%) and career preparation (5.0%).
Unlike prior questions in which at least some key themes appeared in 20% or more of responses, no single coded response to the question of what the core vision for Academic Affairs should be moving forward received percentages in the double digits. All codes appeared in under 10% of responses, reflecting greater variability in (and therefore more disagreement on) what respondents felt should comprise the core vision for the division.
Table 9: Priorities for Division (Q11, 168 responses)
| Code/Theme | % of responses w/ code (frequency) |
|---|---|
| Support students | 7.1% (12) |
| Support faculty | 7.1% (12) |
| Academic Standards/rigor | 6.0% (10) |
| Career prep | 6.0% (10) |
| Scholarship/research | 6.0% (10) |
| Student retention | 6.0% (10) |
| Update/change curriculum | 6.0% (10) |
Support for students and support for faculty were each cited in 7.1% of responses as things that Academic Affairs should prioritize. However, academic standards/rigor, career preparation, scholarship/research, student retention, and updating or changing the curriculum were each cited in 6.0% of responses. Similar to the prior question on the core vision for the division, coded responses to the question about priorities for the division were more diffuse and did not cluster around any one theme. This again reflects greater variability (and less agreement on) what division priorities should be.
Table 10: What Academic Affairs should look like in 5 years (Q12, 150 responses)
| Code/Theme | % of responses w/ code (frequency) |
|---|---|
| More collaboration btwn. units | 9.3% (14) |
| Student-focused | 8.7% (13) |
| More diverse | 6.7% (10) |
| More faculty support | 6.7% (10) |
| Balance btwn LA & prof’l programs | 6.7% (10) |
As with the last two questions, response to the question about what Academic Affairs should look like in five years were more variable, with no single code appearing in even 10% of responses. The code appearing in the highest number of responses was more collaboration between units (9.3%), with student-focused (8.7%) a close second. This was followed by more diverse, more faculty support, and balance between liberal arts and professional programs, which each appeared in 6.7% of responses.
Finally, the last question on the survey provided an opportunity for respondents to include additional comments. Eighty-eight people provided some comment. However, examination of the comments did not reveal any new insights. Rather, the key themes or codes that emerged from the additional comments had all been noted as key themes in prior questions. Thus, we do not include a table of the most popular codes/themes for this question. Also, similar to the last three questions, there was tremendous variability across comments such that no single code/theme appeared in more than five responses.
Appendix 1: ASP Survey
Thank you for your willingness to complete this Academic Strategic Plan survey. This anonymous voluntary survey is designed to help the academic strategic planning committee learn about your vision for the Division of Academic Affairs. This will help the committee develop an academic strategic plan that reflects the insights of division members. When responding to the survey questions, please consider the Division of Academic Affairs generally, as well as your own unit’s role within the division.
The survey consists primarily of 12 questions. We estimate that the survey should take approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete. However, it may take more or less time depending on how detailed your responses are to the open-ended questions.
Your voluntary completion of this survey constitutes consent to participate.
- In what division are you primarily employed?
- Academic Affairs [delivered Qs 2-end]
- Administration & Finance [delivered 1B]
- Enrollment Management and Student Affairs [delivered 1B]
- Advancement or the Brockport Foundation [delivered 1B]
- Other [delivered 1B]
1B. The Academic Strategic Plan survey is primarily designed for members of the Division of Academic Affairs. Based on your position at SUNY Brockport, it appears that you are not among the primary audience for this survey. We nevertheless appreciate your willingness to complete the survey. [SURVEY END]
- Which of the following best describes your position at SUNY Brockport?
- Full-time Faculty or Librarian (tenured, tenure-track, instructor, lecturer, visiting, etc.)
- Part-time Faculty or Librarian (adjunct or other part-time designation)
- Professional Staff, UUP
- Staff, non-UUP
- Administrator
- How would you describe SUNY Brockport to someone not familiar with our University?
- What does SUNY Brockport do well in the area of academics?
- What shared values make us good at what we do at SUNY Brockport?
- What do we do at SUNY Brockport that gives us a competitive advantage over other colleges and universities?
- What are out strengths within the Division of Academic Affairs?
- What core vision should inform what we do as the Division of Academic Affairs moving forward?
- What should Academic Affairs prioritize as a division?
- What should the Division of Academic Affairs look like in five years?
- Please include below any other comments you would like to share with us about your vision for the Division of Academic Affairs.