January, 2004 University of Michigan

ASSESSING THE ACADEMIC WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR FACULTY OF COLOR IN

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

NSF ADVANCE Project Institute for Research on Women and Gender 1136 Lane Hall, 204 S. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1290 Phone: (734) 764-9537 http:www.umich.edu/~advproj Assessing the Academic Work Environment for Faculty of Color in Science and Engineering

asked his faculty advisory committee, the Senate Assembly Academic Af- Assessing the Academic fairs Advisory Committee, to devise Work Environment for approaches to address the problem of underrepresentation of persons of Faculty of Color in color within faculty ranks. Science and Engineering Nearly a decade later, UM President Bollinger declared, “our mission and core expertise is to create the best educational environment we can. We do this in part through a diverse faculty and student body." [UM News Release, 10/14/97]. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As recently as June 2003, University President Mary Sue Coleman reminded the campus, Examining Race-Ethnicity at the “We must look to the future and affi rm our University of Michigan institutional commitment to diversity in every The University of Michigan’s commitment to aspect of our community: our student body, our racial-ethnic diversity is clear, as evidenced faculty, and our staff.” Many faculty and admin- most publicly by its legal defense of its continu- istrators have worked long and hard to ensure ing efforts to maintain a diverse student body. that the University has a faculty that is excellent It has also made continued efforts to develop in every respect, including in its racial-ethnic and sustain a diverse faculty. According to an diversity. account in the University Record from 1995 (Lomax, Moore & Smith, April 17, 1995), Despite the commitment to creating a diverse faculty (and student body), faculty of color at When James J. Duderstadt became the University remain a small minority in most President of the University of Michi- fi elds. This report examines the specifi c situa- gan in 1988, he committed himself, tion of instructional track faculty of color in the his administration and the University sciences and engineering on the UM campus. to the Michigan Mandate, a blueprint for fundamental change in the ethnic The data analyzed for this report were originally composition of the University com- collected to examine the situation of women munity. One major objective of the science and engineering faculty at the Univer- Mandate was to increase by the year sity of Michigan. But we deliberately designed 2000 the representation of persons of the data collection to include enough faculty of color within the professoriate so that color to permit examination of race-ethnicity as the proportion of such individuals well as gender. Many studies have shown that would correspond more closely to while race-ethnicity and gender are different in their proportion in the population of some ways, they also operate similarly in others the State of Michigan and the United (Valian, 2000; Clark & Corcoran, 1983; Menges States of America. At the beginning & Exum, 1983); it is therefore always useful to of the 1989-1990 academic year, be mindful of both when making efforts to cre- Charles Vest, appointed by President ate and maintain a diverse workforce. Duderstadt to serve as Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, One of the challenges in writing this report

1 Assessing the Academic Work Environment for Faculty of Color in Science and Engineering was choosing terminology. We recognize that The low representation of faculty of color there is no neutral language for describing an in science and engineering fi elds is in part a individual's race-ethnicity and that different “pipeline” problem (i.e., not enough doctorates communities and individuals find specific being awarded to students of color). Among language to be more appropriate than others. science and engineering doctorates awarded to Some challenge the use of color or place of U.S. citizens where the race/ethnicity of the in- origin language as unhelpful or misleading, dividual could be identifi ed, minorities (includ- while others fi nd minority/majority terminol- ing Asian-Americans) earned just over 11% in ogy too dependent on context. Because we 1989 and 17% in 1998 (Figure 1a); meanwhile, had to make a choice, and we are reporting on a underrepresented minorities earned just under hetereogeneous group in terms of race-ethnicity, 5% of the science and engineering doctorates we have adopted the term "of color" to refer to in 1989 and 8% in 1998 (Figure 1b). faculty who self-identify as a member of any racial-ethnic minority group. The con trast ing Figure 1b: Doctorates Earned by Faculty of Color in Science, Medicine and Engineering Fields (and also heterogeneous) group of "white" by Race/Ethnicity Group faculty refers to faculty who self-identify as 50 European-American. underrepresent ed minorit y doct orat es (blacks, Hispanics, American Indians) 40 doctorates of color (including Asian Background Americans & faculty of Asian background Among full-time doctoral scientists and engi- 30 neers working in four-year colleges or universi- ties, faculty of color (defi ned as those of Asian, 20 black and Hispanic background) are less likely Percentage than white faculty to be at the rank of full profes- 10 sor, or tenured (NSF, 2000). In addition, black and Hispanic science and engineering faculty 0 are paid less than white faculty in the same fi eld, 1989 1998 even after controlling for age and experience (NSF, 2000). These inequities also exist across minority racial/ethnic groups, and between men The problems are not limited to the “pipeline,” and women within those groups. though. Recent studies have shown that fac- ulty of color who complete a Ph.D. in science Figure 1a: Earned Doctorates in Science, or engineering and pursue an academic career Medicine and Engineering Fields often encounter more obstacles than their white by Race/Ethnicity counterparts. Studies indicate that organiza- doctorates of color tional and environmental factors, such as a 100 white doctorates hostile working environment, may limit the 80 career attainment and satisfaction of faculty of color in science and engineering fi elds, as 60 in academe more generally (Allen et al., 2000; 40 Brown, 2000; CAWMSET Report, 2000; Laden Percentage & Hagedorn, 2000). Faculty of color report 20 feeling like outsiders in the world of academic science, citing strained collegial relationships 0 with white faculty, particularly when white 1989 1998

2 Assessing the Academic Work Environment for Faculty of Color in Science and Engineering faculty mistakenly believe that affi rmative ac- the impact of NSF ADVANCE-supported ef- tion policies have permitted the hiring of less forts at institutional change. qualifi ed faculty. In response, faculty of color report feeling pressured to continually prove In this report we focus on using that dataset they have earned their positions (Johnsrud & to assess the academic work environment for Sadao, 1998; Menges & Exum, 1983; Reyes instructional track science and engineering & Halcon, 1988). faculty of color at the University of Michigan. First we compare the responses of instruc- Some faculty of color report that several obsta- tional track faculty of color in the sciences cles limiting their ability to reach professional and engineering to those of white faculty. We goals in traditionally white institutions are the also explore gender differences among these result of discrimination and racism (Brown, faculty of color, comparing the experiences of 2000). For purposes of analysis, scholars have female scientists and engineers of color to two found it helpful to distinguish overt from covert key comparison groups: male scientists and racism (Johnsrud & Sadao, 1998; Dube, 1985), engineers of color, and female social scientists and interpersonal from institutional racism of color. It is important to note, then, that one (Johnsrud & Sadao, 1998; Haas,1992). With set of analyses examines the overall effect of institutional racism the discrimination may be race-ethnicity across gender. The other set unintentional, but the policies or practices of an identifi es the effect of gender within race-eth- institution result in disparate treatment, even if nicity, and of type of discipline within gender they are believed to be racially/ethnically (or and race-ethnicity. gender) neutral. Sample. The survey sample was drawn from While there is increasing research on the status instructional, research and clinical track fac- of scientists and engineers of color as well as ulty in science and engineering with paid ap- that of women scientists and engineers, the par- pointments at the University of Michigan-Ann ticular position of women of color in academic Arbor as of May 31, 2001. Because the number science and engineering has remained largely of faculty of color in science and engineering unexplored. Garrison (1987) has suggested fi elds at the University of Michigan is small, that women of color are also overlooked in the the ADVANCE Evaluation Advisory Commit- government’s bifurcated efforts to increase par- tee1 recommended purposely sampling faculty ticipation of minorities and women in scientifi c of color to yield numbers large enough to per- degree programs. Understanding their singular mit analysis by race/ethnicity, and to protect position, at the intersection of race and gender, confi dentiality. We therefore sampled nearly is essential for addressing adequately the unique all faculty of color, including: situation of women of color (Holvino, 2001). • All women scientists and engineers of UM Survey of Academic Climate and Ac- color across tracks (N=93) and women tivities. This report, examining the work environment for faculty of color in science 1 Members of that committee included Mark Chesler and engineering fi elds at the University of (So ci ol o gy); Mary Corcoran (Political Science, Public Michigan, is part of a larger study assessing Poli cy, Social Work and Women’s Studies); PaulCourant the campus climate for women scientists and (Eco nom ics, Public Policy); Richard Gonzalez (Psychol- ogy); Sylvia Hurtado (Education); Janet Lawrence (Edu - engineers. That study was undertaken to estab- ca tion); Valerie Lee (Ed u ca tion); Ann Lin (Public Policy lish a baseline that would enable us to evaluate and Po lit i cal Sci ence); Yu Xie (Sociology).

3 Assessing the Academic Work Environment for Faculty of Color in Science and Engineering

social scientists of color who were in Comparing Instructional Track Faculty colleges that also have science faculty by Race-Ethnicity and Gender (N=52). Our primary comparisons were between white instructional track science and engineering • All men scientists and engineers of faculty (N=185) and instructional track sci- color, with the exception of instruc- ence and engineering faculty of color (N=42). tional track male scientists of Asian or In these and subsequent analyses we controlled Pacifi c Islander background. For this for differences between the groups in age, group we drew a random sample of 50 rank, years of experience and years at UM. A (of 131) because the number of men in second set of analyses compared instructional this category far exceeded the number track female scientists and engineers of color of women of Asian or Pacifi c Islander (N=18) to two comparison groups: instruc- background (N=25). This resulted in a tional track male scientists and engineers of total of 187 men of color in the sample, color (N=24) and instructional track female across racial-ethnic groups. social scientists of color (N=12).

The sample that responded was equivalent to Analyses were attempted comparing faculty of the larger survey pool in terms of race-eth- color on the three tracks (instructional, research nicity, rank and college for the instructional and clinical). Because these analyses only ex- track. However, across tracks, faculty of color amined within race/ethnicity differences by responded at a lower rate (26%) than white track, and the numbers of respondents on the faculty (40%), as is often the case with social non-instructional tracks were small (9 and 19 science sur veys (CSHPE & CEW, 1999). for research and clinical respectively), we con- cluded that these analyses were not particularly The sample data were statistically weighted to helpful in clarifying the experiences of faculty refl ect the race and gender demographic charac- of color in comparison with white faculty, so teristics of the UM faculty population surveyed, we did not include them in this report. as well as the response rates by race and gender. The weighted analyses also included controls Career Patterns. Science and engineering fac- to correct for differences among the three core ulty of color reported a chilly work environment groups compared in the instructional track at UM, against a backdrop of similar profes- analyses. sional backgrounds. We examined a number of characteristics of faculty in order to assess It is important to note that the sample for this whether climate differences were attributable study is small, so inferences can only be made to other differences, or refl ected differences in with caution. However, given the paucity of experience attributable to race-ethnicity. Com- systematic data on the experiences of faculty paring instructional track science and engineer- of color in science and engineering, we felt it ing faculty of color and white faculty, we found was critical to carry out these analyses and re- very few signifi cant differences in professional port on the results to the campus community.2 experience: there were no differences in age and years since Ph.D., or in the areas of productivity, recognition, and career satisfactions. 2We are grateful to the Evaluation Advisory Commit- tee, as well as a group of senior faculty of color, for Comparisons by gender revealed some expected advice on this point and the report as a whole. demographic differences. Women social scien-

4 Assessing the Academic Work Environment for Faculty of Color in Science and Engineering tists of color were younger and had obtained Figure 2: Reported Racial/Ethnic their degrees more recently than either group of Discrimination at UM in Past 5 Years scientists and engineers; however, there were no differences in rank between the women social 30 a faculty of color scientists and women scientists and engineers 25 white faculty (over 90% were at the assistant or associate professor rank). Male scientists and engineers 20 of color were more likely to be full professors. 15 10 Percentage As was found in the comparisons by race-eth- 5 a nicity, there were no gender differences among 0 faculty of color in level of productivity and few differences in recognition (although signifi - a Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (p<.05). cantly fewer women scientists and engineers 25% of science and engineering faculty of color reported having been nominated for research reported experiencing racial-ethnic discrimina- awards). Importantly, despite these similari- tion at UM within the last fi ve years (Figure ties in career patterns, women scientists and 2). Areas of reported discrimination included engineers were signifi cantly less satisfi ed with allocation of space and other resources, access their jobs at UM than their male counterparts. to administrative staff, and graduate student and/or post-doctoral fellow assignments. Household Structures. Generally, instruction- al track faculty in both race-ethnicity groups re- Women scientists and engineers of color also ported similar household characteristics: three reported important differences in their work ex- quarters of the faculty in both groups had a part- periences (e.g., less infl uence over educational ner and children, and over 60% had a partner decisions than both comparison groups, fewer who worked fulltime. However, faculty of color items on initial and renegotiated contracts and were more likely to be single parents. signifi cantly less mentoring; Figure 3). They also rated their departmental climate as signifi - There were important differences in household cantly less positive than minority men scientists composition among the instructional track fac- Figure 3: Mentoring: Assistant Professors, ulty of color by gender. Most signifi cantly, if Instructional Track Faculty of Color partnered, men scientists and engineers were women scientists/engineers (n=18) less likely to have a partner who works fulltime men scientists/engineers (n=24) than partnered women scientists and engineers women social scientists (n=12) 8 or social scientists. b c

d Work Experiences and Climate. While they 6 shared many workplace experiences (e.g., in mentoring, service and teaching load), faculty 4 a e of color reported a more negative climate than their white colleagues. Scientists and engineers 2 b,c a of color reported less satisfaction with resource ofNumber Areas/Mentors d,e allocation, experienced higher levels of racial 0 areas of no ment ors in male ment ors at and religious stereotyping, and tokenism, and ment oring same unit / dept UM felt more surveillance than white faculty. Over a,b,c,d,e Matching symbols denote statistically significant differences (p<.05).

5 Assessing the Academic Work Environment for Faculty of Color in Science and Engineering and engineers (particularly in terms of gender Implications. Further analyses revealed that egalitarianism, scholarly isolation and their departmental climate ratings and campus aca- ratings of their chairs on fairness, creating demic experience indicators (career satisfac- a positive environment, and commitment to tions, resources, felt infl uence, and mentoring), racial/ethnic diversity). There were no group and not personal and professional indicators, differences in experience of racial discrimina- were most closely related to overall satisfaction tion within the faculty of color, but women fac- for each of the three sub-groups of instructional ulty of color reported signifi cantly higher lev- track science and engineering faculty of color. els of gender discrimination than did the men. These fi ndings suggest that because scientists Looking at the climate scales in the aggregate, and engineers of color, and in particular female women scientists and engineers of color rated scientists and engineers of color, report more their departmental climate as signifi cantly less negative experiences with regard to departmen- positive than their male counterparts. On a scale tal climate and broader academic experiences from one (negative) to fi ve (positive), female when compared to white science and engineer- faculty of color rated the overall climate as ing faculty, they are at a distinct professional averaging below three, while their male col- disadvantage. Department climate plays a par- leagues rated the overall climate on average ticularly important role in faculty satisfaction just below four. generally; the negative departmental climate reported by science and engineering faculty One way to assess the magnitude of this differ- of color has clear consequences for their sat- ence is to look at the distribution of scores for isfaction, and satisfaction is generally a strong men and women. Some women scientists and predictor of retention. engineers of color rated the climate at or above four (12%), but almost three times as many men Because gender discrimination or racial/ethnic did (33%). Some men scientists and engineers discrimination questions were rated for “the of color rated the climate at or below three past fi ve years” on the survey, we were able to (about 17%), but over 60% of minority women examine whether these ratings could “predict” scientists and engineers did (Figure 4). current satisfaction. We found that among all Figure 4: Distribution of Climate Ratings Among instructional track scientists and engineers, Instructional Track Faculty of Color by Gender scientists and engineers of color, and female scientists and engineers of color, those who had males experienced gender discrimination or racial dis- 70 females crimination reported a more negative climate. 60 Based on this evidence, it seems that bad experi- 50 ences may in fact accumulate. Thus, it would 40 likely be in the best interest of faculty and the 30 University to work to prevent the occurrence of 20 negative incidents, and minimize their impact on faculty through implementation of clear poli- 10 cies and procedures to address the diffi culties 0 scientists and engineers of color experience. % who rated % who rated climate at or above climate at or below 4 3

6 Assessing the Academic Work Environment for Faculty of Color in Science and Engineering

Conclusions of color at the University of Michigan. In addi- Science and engineering faculty of color and tion, we hope that, along with the fi ndings from white faculty at the University of Michigan Assessing the Academic Work Environment for reported few differences in professional expe- Women Scientists and Engineers, these fi ndings rience, household characteristics, and career will be used to make policy recommendations experiences and satisfactions. They reported and identify practices that might improve the signifi cant differences, however, in percep- work environment for faculty of color, and all tions of the work environment. Scientists and faculty, at the University of Michigan. engineers of color experienced a less positive climate than their white colleagues, including Inadequate institutional policies and practices, higher rates of tokenism and racial stereotyping, including lack of mentoring (Corcoran & Clark, referred to as covert racism in the literature and 1984), unclear promotion policies (Austin & linked to feelings of marginalization reported Rice, 1998) and discrimination (Menges & by faculty of color on university campuses Exum, 1983), contribute to an inhospitable en- (Johnsrud & Sadao, 1998). These results are vironment for faculty of color. Given the small consistent with other research that fi nds faculty numbers of faculty of color, and their experi- of color are cut-off from full participation in ences of the climate, the single most important their academic institutions, institutions that remedy suggested by our fi ndings is increasing were initially established to serve an all white the “critical mass” of science and engineering male faculty (Aquirre, 2000). faculty of color by recruiting and retaining more racially/ethnically diverse scientists and engi- There is evidence that among faculty of color neers (Branch, 2001). The following remedies at UM, female scientists and engineers on the are also suggested by our fi ndings: instructional track fared less well than male sci- entists and engineers or female social scientists. Climate: In this way, the fi ndings discussed here largely • chairs and senior faculty leaders play parallel those observed among UM science and crucial roles in defi ning the climate engineering faculty as a whole (Stewart et al., for faculty; therefore it is important 2002). These fi ndings are especially impor- to provide them with adequate sup- tant given other research (e.g., Rosch & Reich, port and resources to provide excel- 1996) showing that department climate and role lent mentoring, problem-solving and of the chair are critical elements in integrating confl ict-resolution, and establish and faculty into an institution. maintain fair and judicious procedures and practices; Uses of the Findings • encourage departments to make use of The fi ndings discussed above highlight the im- centrally provided resources and pro- portance of climate to overall job satisfaction fessional external evaluators to engage and also indicate that negative experiences, in systematic assessment of their own such as racial discrimination, can “predict” climates that might lead to active steps current climate ratings. Therefore, preventing to address their negative features; or minimizing early experiences of disadvan- • ensure that departments and colleges tage could provide long-term benefi ts to faculty have clear and transparent policies morale. We hope that the fi ndings in this report and procedures in hiring, tenure, and will inspire further research on the particular other decision-making processes that challenges that face male and female faculty minimize negative experiences.

7 Assessing the Academic Work Environment for Faculty of Color in Science and Engineering

Mentoring: • increase commitment to and under- standing of mentoring among chairs and senior faculty leaders, as well as younger faculty; • support on- and off-campus mentor- ing; • create formal and informal mentoring programs for tenure track faculty.

Contracts and Resources: • ensure that equitable offers, counter-of- fers, and contract agreements are made and monitored; • ensure clear and transparent policies for allocation of resources.

8 Assessing the Academic Work Environment for Faculty of Color in Science and Engineering

REFERENCES ism and education in South Africa. Har- vard Ed u ca tion al Review, 55, 86-100.

Aguirre, A., Jr. (2000). Women and minority Garrison, H. (1987). Undergraduate science and faculty in the academic workplace: Re- engineering education for Blacks and native cruitment, retention, and academic cul- Americans. In G. Dix., (Ed.) Minorities: ture. Higher Educatiaon Reports, 27(6), Their underrepresentation and career dif- p. 1-110. ferenials in science and engineering. Wash- ington DC: National Academy Press. Austin, A., & Rice, E.R. (1998). Making ten- ure viable. American Behavioral Scientist Hass, M. (1992). Institutional racism: The case 41(5), 736-754. of Hawaii. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Branch, A.J. (2001). How to retain African Holvino, E. (2001). Complicating gender: American faculty during times of challenge The simultaneity of race, gender, and class for higher education. In L. Jones (Ed.) Re- in organization change(ing). Center for taining African Americans in higher educa- Gender in Reoganizations. Working Pa- tion. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus. per, no. 14.

Brown, S.V. (2000). The preparation of mi- Johnsrud, L.K., & Sadao, K.C. (1998). The nor i ties for academic careers in science common experience of “Otherness”: Eth- and engi neering: How well are we doing? nic and racial minority faculty. Review of In G. Campbell, R. Denes, & C. Morrison, Higher Ed u ca tion, 21.4, (315-342). (Eds.) Access denied: Race, ethnicity, and the sci en tifi c enterprise. New York: Oxford Laden, B.V., & Hagedorn, L.S. (2000). Job Uni ver si ty Press, 239-269. satisfaction among facutly of color in aca- deme: Individual survivors or institutional Clark, S. & Corcoran, M. (1986). Perspectives transformers? New Directions for Institu- on professional socialization of women tional Research, 105, 57-66. faculty: A case of accumulative disadvan- tage? Journal of Higher Education, 57 (1) Menges, R. J., & Exum, W. H. (1983). Barri- 20-43. ers to the progress of women and minority faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 54(2), Corcoran, M., & Clark, S. (1984). Professional 123-143. socialization and contemporary career atti- tudes of three faculty generations. Research National Science Foundation. Women, Mi- in Higher Education, 20(2), 131-153. nor i ties, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering, 2000. Arlington, CSHPE & CEW (1999). University of Michi- VA, 2000. (NSF 00-327). gan Faculty Work-Lie Study Report. Center for the Study of Post-secondary Education Report of the Congressional Commission of and the Center for the Education of Women. the Advancement of Women and Minori- November. ties in Science, Engineering, and Technol- ogy Devel op ment (CAWMSET). (2000). Dube, E. (1985). The relationship between rac- Land of the plenty: Diver si ty as America’s

9 Assessing the Academic Work Environment for Faculty of Color in Science and Engineering

competitive edge in sci ence, engineering and technol o gy. Retrieved Spring 2002, http://www.nsf.gov/od/cawmset.

Reyes, M. de la Luz, & Halcon, J. J. (1988). Racism in academia: The old wolf revis- ited. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 299-314.

Rosch, T.A., & Reich, J.N. (1996). The en- culturation of new faculty in higher edua- tion: A comparative investigation of three academic departments. Research in Higher Education, 37(1).

Stewart, A.J., Stubbs, J., & Malley, J. (2002). Assessing the academic work environ- ment for women scientists and engi- neers. http://www.umich.edu/~advproj/ climatereport.pdf.

Valian, V. (2000). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

10