ECAR Study of Faculty and Information Technology, 2019

Methodology and Acknowledgments


The ECAR faculty technology study is conducted in the same manner as the annual ECAR student technology study. Both rely on respondents recruited from institutions that volunteer to partner with ECAR to conduct technology research in the academic community. ECAR works with an institutional stakeholder (the survey administrator) to secure local approval to participate in the research. Once the institutional review board process is successfully navigated and a sampling plan is submitted, ECAR provides each survey administrator with the survey link for the current year's research project. The survey administrator then uses the survey link to invite participants from that institution to respond to the survey. Data were collected between January 15, 2019, and April 5, 2019, and 10,078 faculty from 127 institutional sites responded to the survey (see demographic breakdown of institutions in table M1 and respondents in table M2). ECAR issued $100 or $200 gift cards to 20 randomly selected faculty respondents who opted into a drawing offered as an incentive to participate in the survey. Colleges and universities use data from the EDUCAUSE Technology Research in the Academic Community (ETRAC) student and faculty surveys to develop and support their strategic objectives for educational technology. With ETRAC data, institutions can understand and benchmark what students and faculty need and expect from technology. There is no cost to participate. Campuses will have access to all research publications, the aggregate-level summary/benchmarking report, and the institution's raw (anonymous) response data.

Table M1. Summary of institutional participation and response rates, by institution type

  Institution Count Invitations Response Count Group Response Rate Percentage of Total Responses US Percentage
AA 43 15,070 1,815 12% 18% 19%
BA public 2 329 91 28% 1% 1%
BA private 3 946 170 18% 2% 2%
MA public 26 12,489 1,760 14% 17% 18%
MA private 11 6,245 1,016 16% 10% 11%
DR public 28 49,824 4,320 9% 43% 45%
DR private 3 2,654 257 10% 3% 3%
Other US 3 839 92 11% 1% 1%
Total US 119 88,396 9,521 11% 94% 100%
Outside US 8 5,184 557 11% 6%
Grand total 127 93,580 10,078 11% 100%

Table M2. Demographic breakdown of survey respondents

  US Institutions Non-US Institutions All Institutions
Basic Demographics
18–34 years old 11% 9% 10%
35–49 years old 38% 46% 39%
50–65 years old 41% 39% 41%
66 years or older 10% 6% 10%
Male 46% 50% 46%
Female 54% 50% 54%
White 83%
Black/African American 3%
Hispanic/Latinx 4%
Asian/Pacific Islander 6%
Other or multiple races/ethnicities 4%
Faculty Profile
Percentage of respondents who work with undergraduate students 85% 89% 85%
Percentage indicating experience with technology for teaching and learning 96% 94% 96%
Percentage indicating experience with technology for research 47% 59% 48%
Five+ years of full-time teaching experience 63% 70% 63%
Five+ years of any teaching experience 79% 81% 79%
Median years in a full-time faculty position 8 11 8
Mean years in a full-time faculty position 11 12 11
Full-time faculty member 77% 83% 77%
Part-time faculty member 22% 16% 22%
Full-Time Faculty Status
Professor 26% 27% 26%
Associate professor 24% 17% 24%
Assistant professor 23% 20% 23%
Instructor 14% 9% 13%
Lecturer/senior lecturer 7% 21% 8%
Adjunct 1% 2% 1%
Clinical professor 2% 0% 2%
Research professor 1% 0% 1%
Research associate 1% 2% 1%
No academic rank 1% 1% 1%
Teaching/Research Areas
Agriculture and natural resources 3% 3% 3%
Biological/life sciences 9% 11% 9%
Business, management, marketing 9% 12% 9%
Communications/journalism 5% 2% 5%
Computer and information sciences 6% 8% 6%
Education, including physical education 10% 15% 10%
Engineering and architecture 5% 11% 6%
Fine and performing arts 5% 4% 5%
Health sciences, including professional programs 17% 12% 17%
Humanities 13% 15% 13%
Liberal arts/general studies 9% 4% 9%
Manufacturing, construction, repair, or transportation 1% 0% 1%
Physical sciences, including mathematical sciences 9% 10% 10%
Public administration, legal, social, and protective services 2% 1% 2%
Social sciences 14% 17% 14%
Other 9% 6% 9%


The work that goes into producing the ETRAC reports each year is considerable. From planning through publication, the process takes nearly 15 months and would not be possible without the insight, cooperation, and support from various stakeholders in higher education. In this space, we pause to acknowledge the contributions of those who have made the 2019 faculty study possible.

First, we would like to thank the 10,078 faulty who completed the 2019 survey, giving us the precious data we need to conduct our analyses. Second, we thank the faculty survey administrators whose behind-the-scenes collaborative efforts to secure approval to administer the survey, to create the sampling plans, and to distribute the survey links to the populations are mission-critical to this project. Third, we thank by name the individuals who contributed their experience, knowledge, and time as subject-matter experts and whose feedback, comments, and suggestions throughout the life cycle of this project improved the quality of this report immensely. They are, in alphabetical order:

  • Lee Skallerup Bessette, Learning Design Specialist, Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship, Georgetown University
  • Jason Jones, Director of Educational Technology, Trinity College
  • Wiebke Kuhn, Associate Director of the Biggio Center, Auburn University
  • Virginia Lacefield, Enterprise Architect, University of Kentucky
  • Josh Mitchell, Director of User Support and Instructional Technology, Montgomery County Community College

Finally, we want to acknowledge our EDUCAUSE colleagues for their contributions to these reports. Considerable thanks go to Ben Shulman, whose attention to detail is surpassed only by his statistical acumen and whose contributions to making sure that our analyses are appropriate and accurate are invaluable. We are grateful to D. Christopher Brooks for his leadership and guidance throughout all stages of this project. Thanks are also due to Susan Grajek and Mark McCormack for their careful reviews, insight, and advice in finalizing the report. We also want to thank Kate Roesch for her data visualization and for creating figures that none of us could conceive or execute without her expertise; she renders our data and messages more accessible, vibrant, and impactful. Thank you to Leah Lang, who manages the ETRAC service and portal, for her commitment to providing a user-friendly experience for participants and ensuring that institutional participation remains high each year. Leslie Pearlman made our data dreams come true with expert facilitation of content creation, and Thomas Rosa administered the survey, cleaned and investigated copious amounts of data, and contributed to the methodology section of the report. We owe a debt of gratitude to Gregory Dobbin and the publications team for their attention to detail, command of the written word, and guidance during the editorial process. Lisa Gesner is a master of connecting the dots, shaping and broadcasting the message, and making our work available to the wider world.