The C-Change Faculty Survey is fielded electronically and takes about 15 minutes to complete. The survey is hosted on a secure external website and administered by the C-Change team at Brandeis University to ensure confidentiality of responses and help achieve a high response rate. Data are provided to schools in aggregate form only to protect the anonymity of respondents. Most of the time, we accomplish at least a 70% response rate because of the trust in our confidentiality procedures and record.

C-Change works closely with medical schools to understand any unique needs they might have in survey adaptation or fielding, and administers the survey. C-Change works in collaboration with each institution to develop a strong communications plan to enable a high response rate. Depending on the size and analytic needs of the institution, C-Change can recommend and develop a sampling plan or field the survey to the full census of the faculty, as appropriate.

C-Change provides customized reports that include the scales representing Dimensions of the Culture and other analytic variables of interest, and prepares data tables with frequencies for all survey questions. Respondent data are analyzed by demographic group (e.g., gender, race and ethnicity, rank and career stage) assuming a minimum group size is met. Our collected national faculty data are also provided as comparison to help identify similarities and differences with the study institution.

Budgeting for the C-Change surveys depends on study specifics, such as the size of the study population, analysis of sub-populations, research design or tailoring the survey to institutional needs. The C-Change research team has developed a streamlined process to manage survey data collection, analysis and reporting.

• Consultation on institutional needs
• Customization of the C-Change Faculty Survey for the institution
• Drafting announcements and cover communications
• Survey administration
• Reminders to achieve high response rates
• Management of email communications with respondents
• Confidential data collection and storage
• Data analysis
• Reporting: summary report; detailed item report; scorecard
• Comparison with national benchmark data

• On-site presentation of the C-Change Faculty Survey findings
• Collection of open-ended narrative responses
• Design of tailored change activities/workshops/programs
• References

In an initial phase, C-Change conducted in-depth interviews with male and female faculty in five academic medical centers in order to document the culture and issues affecting faculty productivity and well-being. Those qualitative interview data served as basis for the construction of an extensive quantitative survey instrument, the C-Change Faculty Survey©, which systematically explores and documents the experiences of medical school faculty and the organizational culture in their academic medical centers.

In a second phase, randomly selected faculty in each of a stratified random sample of 26 U.S. medical schools were studied using our Survey. This large, nationally representative dataset of faculty responses serves as a rigorously analytic resource to investigate important topics, such as the vitality and retention of academic faculty.^1-7 Survey findings in individual institutions provide a solid foundation for developing activities to support both an enhanced working environment and set of values in academic medicine. Our national normative C-Change Survey data allow medical schools to compare themselves with other similar institutions. Recent C-Change research⁴ identifies Dimensions of the Culture as measured by the survey that predict faculty intention to leave due to dissatisfaction.

The C-Change Faculty Survey is available for use in the health sciences and other disciplines⁷ wishing to understand and improve their culture and existing practices in order to create a more productive, inclusive, diverse, and humanistic environment where all individuals can thrive. The survey allows detailed exploration of the foundations of the development of human capital (e.g., trust, relationships, perception of opportunity, professionalism, respect, mentoring, equity, and the learning environment) as well as the waste of such human capital (e.g., disconnection, causes of dissatisfaction, burnout, harassment, discrimination and desire to leave academia).

The survey also pays particular attention to cultural awareness, including the extent to which faculty value diversity, their antisexism and antiracism skills, and their change agency for equity. When used in parallel, the Student, Resident and Faculty Surveys provide credible and powerful tools for institutional improvements and for research. Survey findings can address accreditation requirements.

1. Pololi LH, Krupat E, Civian JT, Ash AS, Brennan RT. Why are a quarter of faculty considering leaving academic medicine? A study of their perceptions of institutional culture and intention to leave in 26 representative medical schools. Academic Medicine. 2012;87:859-869.

2. Pololi LH, Civian JT, Brennan RT, Dotollo AL, Krupat E. Experiencing the Culture of Academic Medicine: Gender Matters, A National Study. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2013;28:201-207.

3. Pololi LH, Evans AT, Gibbs BK, Krupat E, Brennan RT, Civian JT. The experience of minority faculty who are underrepresented in medicine, at 26 representative U.S. medical schools. Academic Medicine. 2013;88:1308-1314.

4. Pololi LH, Evans AT, Civian JT, Gibbs BK, Coplit LD, Gillum LH, Brennan RT. Faculty Vitality – Surviving the Challenges Facing Academic Health Centers: a National Survey of Medical Faculty. Academic Medicine. 2015;90(7):930-936.

5. Pololi LH, Evans AT, Civian JT, Vasiliou V, Gibbs BK, Coplit LD, Gillum LH, Brennan RT. Mentoring faculty: A U.S. national survey of its adequacy and linkage to culture in academic health centers. J. Continuing Education in the Health Professions. 2015;35:176-184.

6. Pololi LH, Evans AT, Nickell L, Reboli AC, Coplit LD, Stuber ML, Vasiliou V, Civian JT, Brennan RT. Assessing the Learning Environment for Medical Students: An Evaluation of a Novel Survey Instrument in Four Medical Schools. Academic Psychiatry. 2016;doi:10.1007/s40596-016-0620-1.

7. Pololi L, Evans A, Civian J, Gibbs B, Gillum L, Brennan R. A novel measure of “good” mentoring: Testing its reliability and validity in four academic health centers. J Continuing Education in the Health Professions. 2016; 36(4):263-268.