Table 1. Faculty rankings of five restructuring options.............................................6

Table 2. Staff rankings of five restructuring options................................................7

Table 3. Distribution of faculty rankings...................................................................8

Table 4. Distribution of staff rankings.......................................................................8

Table 5. Borda and plurality analyses of faculty and staff rankings........................10

Table 6. Distribution of faculty by division and years of service............................14

Table 7. Distribution of faculty rankings by years of service..................................15

Table 8. Distribution of faculty rankings by division..............................................16

Table 9. Distribution of staff by office and years of service...................................18

Table 10. Distribution of staff rankings by years of service....................................19

Table 11. Distribution of staff rankings by office....................................................20

Table 12. Distribution of faculty rankings with No Change option deleted............22

Table 13. Distribution of faculty rankings with Minor Repair Model deleted........22

Section I: Summary of Analyses

The Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Restructuring (AHCAR) first convened on April 27, 2006. The committee was charged with advising the President on issues related to the possible academic restructuring of Truman State University.

In partial fulfillment of the charge, AHCAR held three open forums in late October and early November of 2006, in which the details of four possible restructuring models were presented and audience discussions were conducted. After completion of the forums, AHCAR distributed surveys on restructuring to 360 members of the Truman faculty and 435 members of the staff. The surveys consisted of two sections. Section one asked for a linear ranking of five restructuring models in order of preference; the list included four new restructuring models along with the present structure, listed as “No Change.” Section two asked for discussions of the first and last rankings, and provided one additional question where respondents were free to include any additional information that they deemed important for the committee to consider. This document contains complete lists of faculty and staff responses to section one of the surveys, followed by the committee’s analyses of those responses.

As an advisory group, the committee’s primary goal was to obtain a clear understanding of faculty and staff preferences from the survey results. With five models under consideration, the task of identifying faculty and staff preferences is potentially complex. Prior to the distribution of the surveys, the committee discussed this challenge at length and agreed on a list of different procedures that would be used to analyze the ranked responses in section one. The list included a simple plurality analysis, a Borda count, and a Condorcet analysis; these analyses are described in the final section of this document for the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with them. Additional analyses were in line to be used if the primary analyses did not produce a clear, consistent set of results. Through the use of multiple analyses with comparison of the results, the committee hoped to obtain a more complete and balanced understanding of faculty and staff preferences.

The committee found a compelling consistency between faculty and staff preferences; there is no evidence of strong support for significant academic restructuring at this time within either group. As is explained in detail in Section V of this report, both the Borda and Condorcet analyses of the ranked data identify the Minor Repair Model—a model that proposes cautious, incremental change to the present structure—as the first preference of both faculty and staff. Significantly, the No Change option finishes in second place in both groups. The three options representing increasing magnitudes of change, Models 2, 3 and 4, finish third, fourth and last, respectively.

A more complete understanding of faculty and staff preferences may be obtained by correlating the written responses in section two with the ranked data of section one. Many respondents provided carefully reasoned and unusually detailed answers to the questions in section two of the survey; the members of AHCAR are grateful for the investment of time and consideration these responses represent. Every response has been read, and the information has been incorporated into the final analysis.

The written responses indicate that the Minor Repair Model and the No Change option were not uniformly seen as distinct, independent choices. Fully 93% of the respondents who ranked No Change as their first choice assigned a second place ranking to the Minor Repair Model. A significant number of comments associated a vote for No Change with some form of dissatisfaction with the restructuring process.

The preceding point is amplified through the emergence of the following three general themes. (1) Financial questions. Financial considerations appeared in various forms in 75 faculty responses. Respondents discussed the inability to make informed judgments about the models in the absence of analyses of cost. Many expressed concern over the investment in administration and reorganization in a time of reduced state support for higher education and non-competitive faculty and staff salaries. (2) Assessment. Discussions of the lack of assessment and evidence appeared in various forms in 74 faculty responses. Some members of this group stated that they were not yet convinced that restructuring is necessary. (3) Institutional History. At least 25 faculty surveys included a statement to the effect that the present academic structure has proven its worth through the many phases of the institution’s history, including the dynamic era that surrounded the mission change.

In summary, the Minor Repair Model earned significant support and very little opposition among the Truman faculty and staff and emerges as the first preference from among the five options. Considering the broader implications of this result, the endorsement of the incremental changes proposed in the Minor Repair Model must be balanced against the strong second place finish of the No Change model. The detailed comments provided by the 103 faculty and staff members who ranked the No Change option in first place indicate a measure of dissatisfaction with the restructuring process. There is evidence for lack of support for any change that proceeds beyond the prescriptions of the Minor Repair Model when that change is not grounded in assessment.

More detailed numerical evidence in support of these summary remarks is provided in the following sections.

Section II: Population Parameters

The committee distributed surveys to 360 members of the Truman faculty and 435 members of the staff.

The committee received 254 completed faculty surveys for a faculty response rate of 70.6%.

The committee received 83 completed staff surveys for a staff response rate of 19.1%.

Eight faculty surveys contained incomplete responses and/or ties in the ordinal rankings of section one, forcing their exclusion from the numerical analyses that were used. There were 246 valid faculty surveys used in the analyses. Written responses from section two were used from all 254 surveys.

For similar reasons, four staff surveys could not be included in the analyses of section one, resulting in a total of 79 valid staff surveys. Section two responses were used from all 83 completed staff surveys.

Section III: Faculty and Staff Rankings of the Five Models

In section one of the survey, faculty and staff were asked to provide ordinal data by ranking five restructuring options in order of preference. The results are presented compactly in alphanumeric order in Tables 1 and 2 below. The options are listed in the same order in which they appeared on the survey.

For example, a ranking of No Change 2^nd Minor Repair 5^th College of Arts and Sciences Model 4^th Schools Model 1^st Single College Model 3^rd

would appear in the following table as the sequence 25413. This is a source of possible confusion if not read carefully, so let us emphasize the point. The sequence 25413 must not be interpreted as a first place vote for the second option (Minor Repair), a second place vote for the fifth option (The Single College Model), and so forth. The first number in a string always represents the ranking given to the No Change option, the second number always represents the ranking given to the Minor Repair Model, and so forth.

Table 1. Faculty rankings of five restructuring options

AHCAR Faculty Surveys
N=246 Valid Responses
Sequence	Frequency		Sequence	Frequency
12345	47		41325	4
12354	5		42135	1
12435	13		42315	5
12453	1		43125	3
12534	3		43215	2
12543	1		43512	1
13245	4		45312	2
13254	1		45321	3
14235	1
			51234	2
21345	32		51243	1
21354	1		51324	1
21435	8		51423	1
21453	2		51432	1
21543	6		52134	2
23145	1		52143	2
23415	1		53124	3
23541	2		53142	1
25314	1		53214	4
			53421	1
31245	12		54123	6
31452	2		54213	11
31542	1		54231	3
32145	11		54312	9
32154	1		54321	10
32415	5
32451	1
34215	1
34512	1
34521	1
35412	1

Table 2. Staff rankings of five restructuring options

AHCAR Staff Surveys
N=79 Valid Responses
Sequence	Frequency
12345	15
12435	9
12453	1
12543	1
13524	1
21345	12
21435	2
23145	2
25413	1
31245	3
31254	1
32145	4
32154	1
32415	1
32451	1
32541	1
42135	2
42531	1
43125	4
43215	4
43521	4
45321	1
53214	1
53412	1
54123	1
54213	1
54312	1
54321	2

Section IV: Tabular Summaries of Faculty and Staff Rankings

The modal class within each column is shaded in these and subsequent tables.

Table 3. Distribution of faculty rankings

Faculty Surveys
N = 246 Responses	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th
No Change	76	54	37	21	58
Minor Repair Model	74	98	24	43	7
College of Arts & Sci.	31	42	120	37	16
Schools Model	44	33	34	121	14
Single College Model	21	19	31	24	151

Table 4. Distribution of staff rankings

Staff Surveys
N=79 Responses	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th
No Change	27	17	12	16	7
Minor Repair	18	37	17	5	2
College of Arts & Sci.	14	10	31	16	8
Schools Model	10	13	14	38	4
Single College Model	10	2	5	4	58

There are 5! = 120 different possible ranking sequences of five options, but only 53 different sequences actually appeared in the 246 valid faculty surveys, and only 28 different sequences appeared in the 79 valid staff surveys. The 14 most frequently occurring sequences in the faculty surveys of Table 1 account for 180 responses or 73% of the faculty vote. These numbers provide some indication of the degree of clustering that occurred in the responses.

Section V: Analyses of Faculty and Staff Rankings

The members of AHCAR used three standard voting procedures to analyze faculty and staff rankings: (1) a simple plurality analysis, focusing exclusively on the first place choice of each respondent; (2) a Borda count; and (3) a Condorcet analysis. The Borda and Condorcet analyses provide more information about linear rankings of five options than the plurality analysis because each method takes into account all five rankings assigned by each respondent. The reader who is unfamiliar with these analyses will find brief descriptions in the last section of this document (Section VIII: Descriptions of Analyses).

It must be emphasized that the ordinal rankings given in the survey express only relative preferences. A ranking of 1^st does not necessarily indicate the respondent’s strong approval of a model; it only indicates a preference of that model over the other four on the ballot. Similar remarks hold for all other rankings. A third question was provided in section two where respondents could provide additional information to complement their ordinal rankings of section one. Many respondents provided information such as “I am completely opposed to the adoption of the models I ranked 3^rd , 4^th, and 5^th,” or “I see many strengths in each of Models 2, 3 and 4 and would actually rank them equally.” These remarks were taken into consideration as the committee analyzed the surveys.

Table 5 contains the Borda and plurality analyses of faculty and staff responses, presented together for ease of comparison. Please note that the maximum possible Borda score in the faculty table is 4 x 246 = 984 points. The corresponding maximum in the staff table is 4 x 79 = 315 points. In order to achieve these scores, one of the five options would have to be ranked first on every ballot.

Table 5. Borda and plurality analyses of faculty and staff rankings

Faculty Surveys
N = 246 Responses	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	Borda	Borda
						Score	Rank
No Change	76	54	37	21	58	561	2nd
Minor Repair Model	74	98	24	43	7	681	1st
College of Arts & Sci.	31	42	120	37	16	527	3rd
Schools Model	44	33	34	121	14	464	4th
Single College Model	21	19	31	24	151	227	5th

First Place Rankings	(%)		Last Place Rankings			(%)
No Change	30.9%		No Change			23.6%
Minor Repair	30.1%		Minor Repair			2.8%
College of Arts & Sci.	12.6%		College of Arts & Sci.			6.5%
Schools Model	17.9%		Schools Model			5.7%
Single College Model	8.5%		Single College Model			61.4%

Staff Surveys
N=79 Responses	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	Borda	Borda
						Score	Rank
No Change	27	17	12