Abstract
At the behest of the CAS Associate Dean, the purpose of the DJS Survey was to efficiently obtain more thoughtful and precise input on the Chairperson position and some related Department issues. The questionnaire was constructed to allow input from all full-time faculty and staff within the Department of Justice Studies.
The survey was emailed and made available to all current full-time Department faculty and staff from January 24-February 11, 2018 via the University’s Checkbox survey system. Five separate reminders were sent.
The response rate was 81 percent with 13 of 16 individuals participating. All respondents were anonymized. The system retained the email addresses of only non-respondents.
Summary of Select Results
The indications are that the next Department Chairperson should be a faculty member with the following characteristics.
1) A respectful, kind, and unbiased demeanor;
2) The ability to positively elevate the Department’s internal and external profile;
3) A consistent physical presence within the Department and on-campus;
4) Can gain more appropriate salaries for underpaid personnel and more Department resources;
5) Engender collegiality through effective communication and problem resolution;
6) Stimulate more active faculty engagement, productivity and accountability;
7) An internal candidate is highly preferred (87%) with Walsh-Haney listed significantly more often (35%) than anyone else, i.e., Thomas, Seay and Garcia (15% ea.), and Keller, McGaha, Sever and Barringer (5% ea.).
In terms of the Department:
1) Most respondents (69%) consider the level of collegiality within the Department “fair” or “average.”
2) Suggestions to improve collegiality are to retire/release some personnel; have periodic informal/social-type get-togethers; have more in-person meetings; and that faculty have more of an on-campus presence.
3) Most respondents (67%) think that we are able to move past any earlier animosities to better maximize our capacity as a Department but some reservations are evident. Overcoming past animosities requires individual and/or leadership-directed resolution.
4) The large majority (79%) agree the most productive way to meet is in-person once (62%) or twice (31%) during the academic year, and that firm date(s) should be set months in advance (77%). A majority (54%) think that attendance should be mandatory (for at least one annual meeting).
5) The large majority (83%) also agree that a rotating schedule of faculty to represent our Department at University functions should be applied.