Dale Moore (Chair), Dr. Michelle Visio, Dr. Wes Scroggins, Teresa Steele, Sara Clark, Ladonna Hansen
Absent: Jana Estergard
The minutes of the March 6 meeting were read and approved. Sara Clark will post on the web.
Sara showed the Work/Life survey mock-up on the web, using a laptop and projector. She suggested printing out each web page and then editing on the hard copy for incorporation onto the web version. The draft survey will only be available on campus or via VPN.
The first page of the survey explains the purpose of the survey, and a “continue” button. The next screen has the privacy statement and two buttons, one to start the survey and one to decline. If the decline button is chosen, the user will be taken back to the Work Life home page.
Dale asked if there might be any issues that need to be addressed prior to submitting to the IRB, and everyone felt it should be okay, especially since the user has the option of declining to answer.
LaDonna suggested that we keep a tally of how many people decline to take the survey.
Wes expressed concern that it was not obvious enough that they can choose not to answer individual questions. It was suggested that we could put a reminder at the top of each web page. It was also suggested to be put as a reminder at the beginning of the pre-filled demographic section.
Michelle handed out an amended survey that blended the staff and the faculty into one survey. (Skip Phelps had suggested this when she was a guest at the last meeting.) Michelle also added a paragraph to the introductory letter, which she felt would incorporate a more caring tone.
One obstacle to be taken care of was how to know whether or not someone who feels an item is important would actually use the service. It was suggested that when a respondent chooses “quite important” or “very important”, another set of questions could show up asking the likelihood of use.
It was also pointed out that the respondents will need to be reminded that they are voting on the importance to the university community, not for themselves. Sara suggested that words such as “to the university community” be added to the choices at the top of the grid.
On questions 15 and 16 of the survey that Michelle provided, it was apparent that a definition of “reduced appointment” was needed. Also needed was the phrase “for reduced benefits.” The group decided to combine both questions into one. It will read “Temporary reduced time faculty appointment for personal reasons.”
On question 21, it was decided that “training” was the same as “professional development”, so “training” will be removed.
On question 22, the group felt that something should be done to include staff.
Next meeting: April 10, 2007 at 3:30 in Siceluff 290.
Executive Assistant to the Associate Vice President