2009
~ University of Nebraska- fl,IDVANGE " .... Lincoln ADVANCE-Nebraska
Program
ANNUAL REPORT Period Covered: 1 September 2008 – 31 May 2009
The UNL ADVANCE Office Address: 21 Canfield Program is supported by a Lincoln, NE 68588-0420 grant from the National Phone: 402-472-3304 Science Foundation. FAX: 402-472-6276 http://advance.unl.edu [email protected]
1 Table of Contents SECTION I. SUMMARY OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES ...... 6 SECTION I-A. 2008-2009 PROJECT SUMMARY ...... 6 SECTION I.B. PROGRAM ORGANIZATION ...... 7 SECTION I-C. PARTICIPANTS ...... 8 1. Project Staff ...... 8 2. Other Organizations as Partners ...... 10 3. Other Collaborators and Contacts ...... 11 a. Miscellaneous Collaborators and Contacts ...... 11 b. Internal Advisory Board (IAB) ...... 11 c. External Advisory Board (EAB) ...... 12 4. Personnel Changes ...... 12 SECTION I-D. ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS ...... 13 1. Describe the major research and education activities of the project...... 13 a. Activities that Address Goal 1: to hire more women STEM faculty ...... 13 i. New wording on advertisements for new faculty positions ...... 13 ii. Establish Dual Career Procedure, Implemented, and Communicated to Applicants ...... 13 iii. Results of New Dual Career Procedures ...... 13 iv. Focus Groups of Search Committee Chairs ...... 14 v. Improvement of Academic Affairs “Work-Life Balance” website ...... 15 vi. Showcase Visits ...... 15 vi. Recruitment Ambassadors ...... 15 b. Activities that Address Goal 2: increase retention and support women STEM faculty into positions of leadership ...... 16 i. Paths to Success Luncheon Series ...... 16 ii. Professional Development Workshops ...... 18 iii. Communication with STEM Faculty ...... 19 iv. Faculty Exit Surveys ...... 19 c. Activities that Address Goals 1 and 2: increase hiring and improve retention of women STEM faculty ...... 20 i. Recruit-Nebraska and Promote-Nebraska Committees ...... 20 ii. Visit by External Evaluator ...... 20 iii. Departmental Grants ...... 21 d. Research Findings ...... 21 i. Baseline Data Collection ...... 21 ii. Descriptive Summary Reports ...... 22 iii. Academic Research ...... 22 iv. Future Data Collection Efforts ...... 23 v. COACHE (Climate) Survey ...... 23 e. Institutional Change Effected by ADVANCE-Nebraska ...... 24 i. Establishment of Office in the Office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs ...... 24 ii. Establish regular meetings with Key Players ...... 24 iii. Communication among constituents: website, Blackboard, E-news ...... 25 iv. changes in data collection by IRP...... 26 f. Synergistic Activities ...... 26 i. Chancellors’ Commission on the Status of Women (CCSW) ...... 27 ii. President’s Gender Equity Advisory Committee ...... 28 iii. Diversity Initiative ...... 29 iv. Engineering and Arts and Sciences Activities ...... 29 v. Recruit- and Promote-Nebraska Committees ...... 29 vi. Results of Search Committee chair focus groups ...... 29
2 vii. HERC explorations ...... 29 viii. COACHE survey user’s workshop – connections with other institutions interested in recruiting and retaining faculty and creating institutions that will foster success for all...... 29 ix. Table Summarizing Additional Synergistic Activities ...... 29 2. Describe the major findings resulting from these activities ...... 30 a. Challenges in the first year: Areas of Difficulty/Resistance and Strategies to Address Them ...... 31 b. What an ADVANCE program needs for success ...... 31 3. Describe the opportunities for training and development provided by your project...... 32 a. Training for ADVANCE-Nebraska Personnel ...... 32 b. ADVANCE-Sponsored Training Activities ...... 33 4. Outreach Activities ...... 33 SECTION I-E. PUBLICATIONS AND PRODUCTS ...... 34 1. What have you published as a result of this work? ...... 34 2. What website or other Internet site have you created? ...... 35 3. What other specific products (databases, physical collections, educational aids, software, instruments, or the like) have you developed? ...... 35 SECTION I-F. CONTRIBUTIONS ...... 35 1. Contributions Within Discipline: The principal discipline(s) of the project ...... 35 a. Dual Career process ...... 35 b. Improved communication among STEM departments on campus ...... 35 c. Gathered best practices for faculty searches from those extant across campus ...... 35 d. Improved Work-Life Balance policies and procedures website, the principal source on campus for information on this topic ...... 35 e. Changed faculty job advertisement language ...... 36 f. Held open positions in new daycare facility for new hires; communicated these openings to new faculty hires ...... 36 2. Contributions to Other Disciplines of science or engineering ...... 36 a. Dual Career procedure can serve as a model for other academic institutions ...... 36 b. Work-life balance policies and their dissemination can serve as a model for other academic institutions ...... 36 c. We are exploring the establishment of a HERC for Nebraska ...... 36 3. Contributions to Human Resource Development ...... 36 a. Graduate Student Training ...... 36 b. Graduate Student Models for Success in STEM ...... 36 c. Diversity Initiative and its integration with ADVANCE-Nebraska ...... 36 d. Changes in data gathering by Institutional Research ...... 37 e. Changes in data gathering by the Office of Equity, Access and Diversity (EAD) ...... 37 f. Recruit-Nebraska and Promote-Nebraska Committees ...... 37 4. Contributions to Resources for Research & Education ...... 37 5. Contributions Beyond Science and Engineering ...... 37 SECTION II. REPORT ON NSF INDICATORS AND PROGRAM EVALUATION ...... 38 SECTION II-A. EVALUATION PLAN OVERVIEW ...... 38 SECTION II-B. REPORT OF KEY INDICATORS ...... 40 SECTION II-C. SALARY STUDY ...... 50 1. UNL Model Summary ...... 50 2. NSF ADVANCE Analysis ...... 50 a. Variables ...... 50 b. Results ...... 50 SECTION III. APPENDICES ...... 52 SECTION III-A. BASELINE DEMOGRAPHICS ...... 53
3 SECTION III-B. FOCUS GROUP STUDY QUESTIONS ...... 70 SECTION III-C. NETWORK AND COACHE SURVEYS ADDITIONAL MATERIAL ...... 72 1. Falci Seed Grant Proposal to Conduct Networking and COACHE Surveys ...... 72 Conceptual Overview ...... 73 Timeline ...... 74 Outcomes ...... 75 Budget and Justification ...... 75 Budget Summary ...... 75 References ...... 76 2. IRB Approval for Network and COACHE Surveys ...... 78 3. Flow Chart for COACHE Survey ...... 79 4. Data Collection Methodology Report ...... 89 Introduction ...... 91 The Sample ...... 91 The Survey Instrument ...... 91 Fielding ...... 91 Response Rate ...... 91 COACHE ...... 91 APPENDIX A: SURVEY TEXT ...... 93 APPENDIX B: PRE-NOTIFICATION LETTER ...... 106 APPENDIX C: E-MAIL TEXT ...... 107 First E-mail Reminder ...... 107 Second E-mail Reminder ...... 107 Final E-mail Reminder ...... 108 APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL SURVEY INFORMATION TEXT ...... 109 Survey on Promoting Success among UNL Faculty ...... 109 The Principal Investigators ...... 109 Network Mapping and Analysis (Why are faculty names in the survey?) ...... 109 Confidentiality ...... 110 Data Security ...... 110 Connection to the NSF Advance-IT Grant Application ...... 111 APPENDIX E: COACHE PRE-NOTIFICATION LETTER ...... 112 5. Baseline Data Collection (Spring 2008): Analysis of Nonresponse to the Network and UNL COACHE Surveys ...... 114 1. Introduction ...... 115 2. Data Collection ...... 115 a. Population list issues ...... 115 b. Another Survey ...... 115 c. Participant Concerns ...... 116 3. Response Rates ...... 117 a. Network Nonresponse ...... 120 b. UNL COACHE Nonresponse ...... 121 c. Nonresponse Summary ...... 123 4. Reflections and Future Directions...... 123 SECTION III-D. SURVEYS USED BY ADVANCE-NEBRASKA ...... 124 1. Faculty Exit Survey ...... 124 2. Exit Survey for Department Chair of Exiting Faculty Member ...... 125 3. Network Survey ...... 126 SECTION III-E. ADDITIONAL APPENDICES ...... 135 1. First Year Calendar of Activities ...... 135
4 2. Procedure to Inform Applicants for Faculty Positions of UNL/ADVANCE’s Dual Career Program 133 3. Letter to Short List Candidates for Faculty Positions, re: Dual Career Program ...... 139 4. Tracking form for potential Dual Career hires ...... 140 5. ADVANCE-Nebraska Committees ...... 141 6. Agenda for External Evaluator’s First Visit ...... 143
5 Section I. Summary of Project Activities Section I-A. 2008-2009 Project Summary University of Nebraska-Lincoln became one of the fourth-round NSF ADVANCE institutions on September 1, 2008. In our first year, we accomplished the following: • Established a dual career opportunity procedure vetted by the Office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, the Office of Equity, Access and Diversity, STEM college deans and department chairs, and that has resulted in two new hires this academic year: a female assistant professor in mechanical engineering and a male assistant professor in Mathematics whose wife was hired in that department. • Launched our website: http://advance.unl.edu • Established working relationships with key units on campus that are essential for the success of ADVANCE-Nebraska, including Institutional Research and Planning and the Office of Equity, Access and Diversity. • Launched the Promote-Nebraska and Recruit-Nebraska Committees, which are composed of twelve tenured STEM faculty who are gathering and disseminating data that support best recruitment strategies and that document the impact of implicit bias on evaluations. • Conducted focus groups of search committee chairs and learned what practices are currently being used on campus to increase the diversity of applicant pools; funds for this purpose were re-deployed from our under-subscribed Recruitment Ambassador program. • Launched our Paths to Success Luncheon series to model women’s sometimes circuitous routes to success in STEM fields • Updated, clarified and launched a “Work-Life Balance” website for the Office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs • Offered two professional development workshops for faculty: COACh’s Strategic Persuasion and a home-grown panel on Negotiating in Academia • Provided Showcase Visit funds for a potential recruit to the faculty of the School of Biological Sciences • Established a listserv and disseminate ADVANCE-Nebraska E-News bi-weekly • Created exit surveys for faculty and for the chairs of these faculty to learn how UNL can improve STEM faculty retention • Hosted a visit by our external evaluator, Dr. Ann Austin, Michigan State University • Analyzed network survey and climate survey data for nonresponse and preliminary results • Results from survey analysis are being used to inform ADVANCE-Nebraska focus for next year, including attention to the promotion-to-full and other leadership positions processes • Worked synergistically with other organizations on campus to offer professional development workshops, uncover faculty concerns that ADVANCE can help to address, communicate procedures for the new daycare facility, and to explore the potential for establishing a regional Higher Education Recruitment Consortium (HERC). • Engaged four graduate students in new research on network structures of academic departments and created a new graduate-level course in network analysis in the Sociology Department • Modified the COACHE survey instrument to survey faculty in all ranks in STEM departments, thus pioneer a new direction for the COACHE survey project at Harvard. • Used the data gathering and organizing for the Advance Toolkit to find areas to attract more women to STEM at UNL and thus increase women in the applicant pools – a critical gateway for our overall success in increasing women in STEM. We have established the ADVANCE-Nebraska office, forged new ties, implemented programs that were discussed in our grant proposal, re-deployed funds where those programs were less well disseminated, and learned more about campus needs to further ADVANCE goals. We look forward to continuing the momentum established by the teamwork from the many constituents committed to another productive year.
6 Section I.B. Program Organization ADVANCE-Nebraska is the newly formed program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to increase the gender diversity of faculty in sixteen STEM departments. ADVANCE-Nebraska has three goals for institutional transformation: 1) to increase the number of women faculty in sixteen target STEM departments by broadening our applicant pools, addressing dual career opportunities, and reducing the impact of implicit bias in evaluations; 2) to increase the retention of women STEM faculty by supporting their promotion into positions of professional leadership; and 3) conduct original research to determine what departmental network structures best promote the success of women STEM faculty at UNL. An over-arching goal of ADVANCE-Nebraska is to integrate the elements that generate the most success (hiring and retention of women STEM faculty) into UNL to effect permanent institutional transformation. Our specific objectives and the program elements that are designed to achieve the objectives are given in the table below. Goals Objectives Program Elements 1. Increase the number of women 1. Match STEM departments’ applicant pools RECRUIT-NE STEM faculty. to the national doctoral/post-doctoral pool Committee, p. 8, beginning Year 2 of the program; match hiring Recruitment composition to the national Ambassadors, p. doctoral/postdoctoral pool by program Year 3. 7, and Showcase Visits 2. Increase the retention of women 2. Make UNL more family-friendly by PROMOTE-NE STEM faculty and support their developing and systematizing institution-wide Committee, p. 9; promotion into positions of policies on Dual Career Partner Opportunities, Paths to Success professional leadership. Flexible Work Arrangements and Family Luncheons, Friendly policies and practices; ensure that this Writing Retreats information is widely disseminated; and Professional administratively encourage the use of these Development policies. 3: Increase informal networking and Workshops, p. 8 enhance professional development to foster academic success for women STEM faculty.
3. Conduct innovative research on 4: Map network structures through a network Network Research, what network structures best mapping survey of faculty in target STEM p. 9, Climate support the academic success of departments and empirically correlate network Survey, p. 12 women STEM faculty, and what structures with faculty productivity and job factors contribute to the satisfaction. 5. Replicate programmatic development of supportive elements that enhance formal and informal networks. faculty networks.
The ADVANCE-Nebraska proposal to NSF specified a management plan outlined in the following graphic. We have made no adjustments to this plan to date. A complete calendar of the first year’s activities is given in Appendix Section III-E.1.
7
Section I-C. Participants 1. Project Staff
More than 160 Participant Name Project Role Hours Principal investigator and Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, responsible for ADVANCE Project oversight. She represents the project to the Barbara Couture larger University of Nebraska community, providing No oversight and insights into campus implementation and resources to assist in achieving project goals, and foster coordination among colleges and units. Co-PI Holmes is the director of ADVANCE- Nebraska, directing all programming, establishing Mary Anne Holmes and implementing the dual-career program, Yes responding to evaluation data. Holmes has been a catalyst at the forefront of facilitating and delineating
8
Co-PI and Director of the Bureau of Sociological Research and Associate Professor of Sociology. McQuillan serves as liaison among the co-PIs, the evaluation team, and the research component. In Julia McQuillan addition, she liaises with campus-wide constituents in Yes her role as a member of the UNL’s Chancellor’s Commission on the Status of Women and the President’s University Wide Gender Equity Advisory Committee. Co-PI and College of Engineering Associate Dean for Research, serves as a lead representative Namas Chandra from the College of Engineering to implement No ADVANCE-Nebraska activities in the College and to disseminate project information. Co-PI and Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, serves as the lead representative from the David Manderschied No College to implement ADVANCE-Nebraska activities in the College and to disseminate project information. Senior Personnel, Program Manager for ADVANCE-Nebraska. Jill is responsible for logistics, budget and finance, and day-to-day operation of the ADVANCE-Nebraska office. She manages and coordinates activities Jill Hochstein including committee meetings, programs, and Yes presentations along with providing administrative support to the office and ADVANCE committees. She coordinates materials for the ADVANCE website and publications, and maintains the mailing list, and database for dual-career hires. Senior Personnel, and Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs /Faculty Scholarship, serves as the day-to-day liaison between the Evelyn Jacobs n No o ADVANCE-Nebraska office and the Office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (OSVCAA). Senior Personnel, Associate Dean and Professor of University Libraries, directs the ADVANCE- Nebraska internal evaluation team by working with internal collaborators, UNL’s Survey, Statistics, and Nancy Busch No Psychometric Core Facility (SSP), the Bureau of Sociological Research (BOSR), and Institutional Research and Planning (IRP) to coordinate evaluation for the program. Senior Personnel, Assistant Director of the Survey, Statistics and Psychometrics Core Facility, coordinates all data management and specific data collection of surveys, exit interviews, formative Mindy Anderson-Knott assessment, and all project evaluations and ongoing Yes data collection used to evaluate the project’s progress. She oversees the design and administration of surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of the activities and initiatives of
9 ADVANCE-Nebraska and prepares reports. She also directed the collection, analysis, and write-up of data on the climate survey. Senior Personnel, and Assistant Professor of Sociology leading the research of a network analysis Christina Falci study to advance the basic understanding of the Yes organizational structures influencing promotion and retention of women in STEM departments. Chair of Sociology, Director of UNL's Survey, Statistics, and Psychometric Core Facility (SSP); Danny Hoyt provides consultation to ADVANCE-Nebraska internal No evaluation team on the quality and methods of social and behavioral science research. Technician, UNL Libraries, develops, updates, and maintains the ADVANCE-Nebraska website, Melissa Sinner No creates graphics and provides technical support for external communication. Technician, UNL Libraries, searches relevant articles and publications related to ADVANCE to keep Jacquelyn Petzold No UNL faculty abreast of new information through ADVANCE. Technician, UNL Libraries; provides updates on Anchalee Roberts No new books and publications related to ADVANCE Technician, provides support to several different Patricia Hill evaluation projects, checking and analyzing data and No preparing reports. Technician, provides support to several different Michelle Johnston evaluation projects, checking and analyzing data and No preparing reports.
2. Other Organizations as Partners Organization Role UNL Bureau of Sociological Research A research division of the Department of (BOSR) Sociology, the BOSR provides ADVANCE- Nebraska methodological consulting and research survey services. UNL Institutional Research and Planning IRP maintains, manages, and reports (IRP) information on students, faculty and staff, academic programs, national and peer institutions, higher education trends, and agency data; helping ADVANCE-Nebraska collect and analyze institutional data. UNL Survey, Statistics, and Psychometric SSP provides consultation to ADVANCE- Core Facility (SSP) Nebraska on survey research, statistical, and psychometric applications to support their research initiatives. UNL Equity, Access and Diversity (EAD) Provides data on applicant pools. UNL Office of the Senior Vice Chancellor of Provides data on tenure and promotion; Academic Affairs (SVCAA) dual career hire facilitation; new hire letters of
10 offer; exit data. Institute of Agricultural and Natural Provides data on tenure and promotion and Resources (IANR) new hire letters of offer.
3. Other Collaborators and Contacts
a. Miscellaneous Collaborators and Contacts Participant Role Associate Vice Chancellor for Planning and Academic Development, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, represents the Susan Fritz perspective of the institute and the field of agriculture and natural resources and oversees implementation of the project in the institute and its allied units. Assistant to the Chancellor, and Director of the Equity, Access & Diversity Programs at UNL; Linda Crump consults on appropriate policy for faculty searches and procedures. Representative from Institutional Research and Planning, serve as liaison between IRP, the Judy Joy ADVANCE Evaluation Team, and the IAB and provides quick and efficient data access. Director of the Office of Institutional William J. Nunez Research and Planning; assisted with salary and space studies.
b. Internal Advisory Board (IAB) Participant Role IAB Chair, Director of the Center for Science & Mathematics Education, Professor and former chair of the Department of Mathematics; provides Information on successful Jim Lewis local experience fostering departmental change to increase women faculty and women PhDs to which will help to facilitate transformation in other units. IAB Member, Professor of History and Director of Women’s Studies, serves as liaison with broader women’s focus on campus; Women’s Studies was instrumental in promoting Margaret Jacobs on-campus communication during proposal preparation and could continue in this role. Women’s Studies’ new strategic plan includes expanding “Women in STEM” as an area of specialization. IAB Member, Professor of Mathematics; offers a campus perspective as a key STEM Judy Walker female faculty campus leader and encourages ADVANCE-NE activities within her department
11 and college.
IAB Member, Professor of Geosciences; offers a campus perspective as a key STEM Sherilyn Fritz female faculty campus leader and encourage ADVANCE-NE activities within her department and college. IAB Member, Dean of the College of Engineering; provides insights into diversity issues in engineering and team work expertise, David Allen provides the perspective of the College of Engineering, and oversees implementation of the project in the college and units. IAB Member, Professor and Chair of the Department of Electrical Engineering; provides information on successful local experience Jerry Hudgins fostering departmental change to increase women faculty and women PhDs to facilitate transformation in other units in the college. IAB Member, Associate Dean in the College of Arts & Science; represent the perspective of Greg Snow the college and oversee implementation of the project in the college and units.
c. External Advisory Board (EAB) Participant Role Program/Research Manager of the University of Washington’s ADVANCE Center for Joyce Yen Institutional Change; provide guidance to the PI and input on the evaluation process. Professor and Chair, Department of Sociology, University of Massachusetts; provide Donald Tomaskovic-Devey guidance to the PI and input on the evaluation process. Founder of MentorNet and consulting Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Carol Muller Stanford University; provide guidance to the PI and input on the evaluation process.
4. Personnel Changes PI Team: Former Associate Dean of the College of Engineering Stephanie Adams left UNL to become Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University in August, 2008. We filled this vacant position on our co-PI team with Namas Chandra, who holds a similar rank and level of interest in the goals and objectives of ADVANCE-Nebraska. Internal Advisory Board: We added Dean David Allen of the College of Engineering, Greg Snow, Associate Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, and Nancy Busch, the head of our evaluation team, to the Internal Advisory Board. Susan Hallbek and Sally Mackenzie requested to be removed from the board and we did so.
12 Section I-D. Activities and Findings 1. Describe the major research and education activities of the project.
a. Activities that Address Goal 1: to hire more women STEM faculty Our data indicate that two key barriers to hiring more women STEM faculty at UNL are: 1) the dearth of women in the applicant pools (Section II-B, Figure 7-d), and 2) the lack of a system-wide dual career program. The following activities were undertaken in our first year to increase the number of women in the applicant pools and to address dual career opportunities.
i. New wording on advertisements for new faculty positions One of our first accomplishments was to add new wording to all faculty job advertisements to announce that UNL is now an ADVANCE institution. The wording was approved by the Chancellor of UNL, Harvey Perlman, and UNL’s board of Vice Chancellors in September, 2008, within two weeks of the project’s beginning. This addition to job advertisements helps to institutionalize changes we hope to make at UNL and to raise awareness on as well as off campus of the existence and intent of the project. "The University of Nebraska has an active National Science Foundation ADVANCE gender equity program, and is committed to a pluralistic campus community through affirmative action, equal opportunity, work-life balance, and dual careers."
ii. Establish Dual Career Procedure, Implemented, and Communicated to Applicants Project Director Holmes, Associate Vice Chancellor for Faculty Scholarship Jacobson, and Linda Crump, Assistant to the Chancellor for Equity, Access and Diversity (EAD), developed procedures for potential dual career tenure-track hires. These procedures were vetted with the deans of the Colleges of Arts & Sciences and of Engineering. The procedure (detailed in Section III- E.2) includes a letter sent to every short-listed applicant for every faculty position (letter provided in Appendix, Section III-E.3.). We constructed a tracking form to track both the candidates’ and the partners’ progress through the search process (Appendix III-E.4).
iii. Results of New Dual Career Procedures We hired two new faculty with ADVANCE-Nebraska funding: Dr. Linxia Gu (f) in Mechanical Engineering, and Dr. Vladimir Itskov (m) in Mathematics. Dr. Gu’s husband was already on campus in Construction Management Engineering, and Dr. Itskov’s wife was hired for a Mathematics position this year. Twenty-two of 26 STEM search committee chairs responded to our request for their short lists of applicants (Table 1). Of the four not responding (2 in IANR, 1 in A&S, 1 in ENG), two (1 in A&S; 1 in ENG) are paused due to the economic downtown. Table 1. Summary of search data as of 28 May 2009, for the 2008-09 academic year. Light rows refer to positions; shaded rows to respondents on short list. UNL All UNL UNL STEM UNL UNL Item IANR Departments Departments A&S STEM Engineering STEM Number of Positions 66 26 14 7 5 Advertised Responded to ADVANCE request 33 22 13 5 3 for short list
13 # Positions Paused 6+ 6 4 2 0
# Paused, non- ? 2 1 1 0 responders Of Responded, # of 111 74 38 25 11 people on short lists # Women on Short 35 23 15 7 1* Lists # Men on Short 78 50 23 18 9 Lists *1 unknown gender. Of the 74 applicants to STEM positions, 17 (24%) responded to our letter to contact ADVANCE- Nebraska if there is a dual career opportunity for which one of the partners would be a woman eligible for a tenure-track position in a STEM department. Three responded from non-STEM departments. Of the 17 qualified respondents, 8 received offers. That is, 47% of our highest quality applicants have brought dual career opportunities to UNL. As of 3 June 2009, 2 of these have been hired, three have declined. One accepted an offer, but the qualified partner accepted a position elsewhere. Two more remain pending.
iv. Focus Groups of Search Committee Chairs From conversations with faculty on campus, we learned that there is a variety of approaches and practices to the search for a new colleague. Some of these practices would help to expand applicant pools and would be useful for other departments to adopt. We decided to compile as many of these approaches and practices as possible by conducting focus groups of the search committee chairs. Our evaluation team, with the Bureau of Sociological Research, conducted three focus groups of four faculty, each of whom served as search committee chair in the last two years. Each group was balanced between STEM and non-STEM faculty. The purpose was two-fold: to learn what variations in details of the search process exist among departments, and to have search committee chairs learn about these variations from one another. McQuillan and Holmes read through the transcripts and coded them for themes. The following themes emerged from the discussions: • The timing for final approval of permission to search is a concern for certain disciplines with early (in the academic year) conferences; an acceleration of this process was suggested. Participants noted that early approvals result in more diverse and strong applicant pools. • Equity, Access and Diversity training is required of all faculty, staff and students who will serve on a search committee. The focus is on legal and appropriate behavior (including questions that may be asked of the candidates) for search committee members. Focus group participants felt that the current training paints a broad brush and suggested that a session targeted specifically for faculty searches be implemented. We see this as an excellent opportunity for our Recruit- and Promote-NE committees to provide information to STEM departments on sizes of their applicant pools, strategies to broaden the applicant pools, and strategies to recruit, rather than simply interview, candidates. • “Selling your department” and UNL is problematic for some departments; some faculty fear giving the impression to the candidate that s/he is already selected for the position. Other departments are fearless in “the sell” and are usually perceive themselves as more successful at recruiting their top candidate. • Long term goals for hiring: some departments plan only in terms of “this year’s hire”, whereas other departments are planning for positions they know or hope will be open three to five years
14 hence. Some of these departments were able to bring in potential candidates to their seminar or colloquium series. Faculty perceived that the applicant pool is more diverse and strong when long-term strategies are used. • Proactive about positive aspects of Lincoln: many faculty are not aware that Nebraska and Lincoln might be a difficult sell to a recruit and fail to plan time in the interview process to boost the positive aspects of the city and region. Other departments do their homework on the candidate and plan school visits and/or provide appropriate information on local resources. • Dual Career issues: Departments that have searched with ADVANCE-Nebraska’s help are pleased with the dual career program. Departments without assistance for dual career partner placement perceive this as a potential impediment to recruiting top candidates. Next Action Item: We plan to compile “best practices” for departments from the focus groups as examples of what departments at UNL are currently doing to broaden applicant pools and land top candidates. We will distribute these to department chairs in time for the next search season. We will be conducting a more in-depth analysis of the focus group data to use the information collected to produce surveys that will be administered next year to search committees and new hires. These surveys will enable us to evaluate the effects of ADVANCE-Nebraska on the search process.
v. Improvement of Academic Affairs “Work-Life Balance” website Evelyn Jacobson, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, met with her office and ADVANCE staff to clarify wording and improve organization and information flow (application forms, links to pages with more details) on the UNL Office of Academic Affairs Work-Life Balance Policies and Resources web page (formerly “Family-Friendly Policies and Resources”). Now all policies are clarified on one website, which can be linked to from the OSVCAA’s website and from ADVANCE’s website and is located at http://www.unl.edu/svcaa/faculty/policies/work_life_balance.shtml. The ADVANCE office will generate a brochure from the website to send to all candidates for STEM positions and for dissemination on campus. Vigorous dissemination of this information will begin (by the ADVANCE office) before the start of fall semester to inform existing faculty, search committee chairs, department chairs, and potential faculty applicants of these policies.
vi. Showcase Visits Showcase Visits are funded by ADVANCE and intended for departments to bring in potential job applicants for faculty positions in STEM departments. We had only one application this year, from Biological Sciences. We re-deployed the funds for this program to two other programs: 1) Dual Career program, using the funds to bring qualified partners to campus for an interview visit, and 2) to conduct the focus groups of search committee chairs. The School of Biological Sciences provided a Showcase Visitor: Dr. Victoria Brown-Kennerly, a Research Instructor from Washington University in St. Louis was recently awarded “Outstanding Young Investigator Award” by the American Society for Microbiology. Dr. Brown-Kennerly met with faculty(6), post-doctoral trainees, and graduate students (8-10); the latter included a lunch where she shared her career experiences. We constructed application and reporting forms for departments that request funds for a Showcase Visitor (http://advance.unl.edu/programs/visits.shtml).
vi. Recruitment Ambassadors We were not able to recruit and train any faculty for Recruitment Ambassadors our first year. We re-budgeted these funds for travel for Dual Career partner interview visits (see Dual Career program procedure, Appendix, Section III-E.2.).
15 b. Activities that Address Goal 2: increase retention and support women STEM faculty into positions of leadership Networking and professional development opportunities are instrumental in combating the isolation that many women feel in their departments. During Year 1, we held a series of informal luncheons and workshops to help women engage in informal networking. A COACh workshop was also held, which focused on teaching the skills and strategies needed to effect change within organizations. The four ADVANCE events consisted of the following: “Paths to Success” Luncheons: visiting and on-campus women speakers were invited to share their experiences and strategies in navigating academic careers 1. “An Iconic Perspective on Women in Science; or, I Didn’t know I was a Pioneer.” Presented by Dr. Vidaver, Professor of Plant Pathology. (December 2, 2008). 2. “Walking the Career-Family Tightrope.” Presented by Dr. Kimberly Espy, Associate Vice Chancellor, Office of Research. (March 12, 2009). 3. “No Daughter of Mine is Going to CalTech!” Presented by Dr. Heidi Schellman, Northwestern University and Fermi Labs. (April 29, 2009). An evaluation form was created to assess attendees’ satisfaction with various aspects of the ADVANCE events. After each event we revised some of the questions and response options to match our evolving interests in the experiences of attendees at ADVANCE events. A slightly different evaluation form was created for the workshop (compared to the form used for the luncheons); consequently, the exact same questions were not asked on each event evaluation form. The number of participants varied at each event, with 61 attending the December luncheon, 40 attending the March luncheon, 35 attending the April luncheon and 24 attending the workshop. On average, the vast majority (91%) of all attendees were women. Looking at all participants that attended an event, 28% were graduate students, 24% were “Other” ranks (including staff, lecturers, adjunct faculty, Associate Vice Chancellors, undergraduate students and post docs), 19% were assistant professors, 12% were associate professors, 11% were full professors, and 5% were deans or department chairs. Out of the 26 STEM departments at UNL, 16 of them were represented by having at least one department member that attended one of the four events. Three of the 7 SBS departments were also represented, in addition to representation from 11 other non-STEM/SBS departments. The feedback received from evaluation forms was similar across events. On average across all events, 93% of all participants that completed an evaluation strongly agreed or agreed that the material covered in the luncheon/workshop was useful. What attendees found most valuable from the events was hearing the personal experiences of women who had successfully pursued careers while balancing personal/family responsibilities. Looking specifically at networking opportunities, 76% of all participants that completed an evaluation agreed or strongly agreed that time spent networking was valuable. Well over half (58%) of those that attended an event (and filled out an evaluation form) met someone new; however, only 17% found potential new collaborators. The most common topics that participants would like to see in future events are negotiation, time management, and work/life balance skills.
i. Paths to Success Luncheon Series The purpose of this speaker series is to demonstrate to women on campus the many paths that women may take towards a successful career in STEM fields and to provide an informal networking opportunity for STEM women on campus. We planned the luncheons based on the assumption that most students presume that there is one “ideal type worker-normative path” to success as an academic. The model generally occurs in the following, sequential order: obtain a B.S. degree, perhaps a Master’s and then a PhD, perhaps a post-doc, then a first academic job that leads to tenure. Missing from this sequence of events are relationship and family demands. The Paths to Success luncheons show that many successful women pioneer a unique path, showing many possible routes to a successful life as an academic.
16 The talk by the featured speaker is accompanied by a luncheon paid for by ADVANCE funds and provides an additional opportunity: for women on campus to meet one another in an informal setting. This year we showcased two remarkable women on campus, Anne Vidaver of Plant Pathology, and Kim Espy, of Psychology and Associate Vice Chancellor for Research, and one external speaker, Heidi Schellman. Anne Vidaver was chair of UNL’s Department of Plant Pathology, one of two women to obtain a PhD in the agricultural school at Indiana in 1965, has two kids and navigated academia as a trailing spouse for nearly two decades before finally being rewarded with a tenure-track position. Kim Espy demonstrated how a trailing spouse can take advantage of what resources and opportunities are available to keep her career going, while producing 2 sets of twins and 3 siblings for them. The visit by Heidi Schellman was co-sponsored by the Physics and Astronomy Department. She therefore provided a seminar for the Physics and Astronomy Department on her research in addition to her talk about how she became a successful scientist. We did not evaluate her seminar in the Physics and Astronomy Department, but anticipate that the image of a highly successful woman scientist should contribute to reducing implicit assumptions about the gender of professional scientists. Heidi gave us a clear picture of how far women have come: her mother was the first woman to be hired at CalTech under President James Milliken, who banned women from lab employment. Heidi’s mother, Charlotte Green, so impressed her lab supervisor, Linus Pauling, that he hired her under the name of Charles Green. Thus began a successful career as a chemist. Heidi is now Professor of Physics at Northeastern University, an Alfred P. Sloan Fellow, a Fellow of the American Physical Society, and serves on the board of the National Fermi Laboratory. The luncheons are well-attended and have very positive evaluations. Attendees indicate that they have learned positive strategies for their own careers and met new people on campus. Most have not begun any new collaborations with one another, but we see this as a very long-term goal for the program. One challenge for this program is how to attract people outside of the immediate field of the speaker to participate. The following table lists the mean scores for some of the items included on the evaluation. The evaluation form was modified after the first event, so the items reported differ for that event. EVENT I learned I met The material Time spent How How something colleagues covered in networking valuable valuable from this with whom I this with was the was time workshop will now workshop colleagues content of spent that will help develop a was useful during this the networking me with my closer for me. workshop presenter’s with career. professional was talk? colleagues? relationship. valuable. speaker** 3.90 3.39 COACh* 4.87 3.50 4.87 4.40 4.40 4.40 speaker* 4.45 3.34 4.53 3.68 3.68 3.68 speaker* 4.15 3.63 4.19 4.28 4.28 4.28 * Means from a likert scale where 5=Strongly Agree, 4=Agree, 3=Neither Agree nor Disagree, 2=Disagree, and 1=Strongly Disagree ** Means from a likert scale where 4=Very valuable, 3=Not very valuable, 2=Somewhat valuable, and 1=Very valuable We invited Bonnie Coffey to our last Paths to Success luncheon. She is CEO of local “Contacts Count”, a consulting firm that focuses on enhancing women’s networking skills. She provided an evaluation of the event so that we could enhance attendance and networking opportunities. She recommended a sign or banner to help direct people to the room (we have since constructed a banner), using nametags with affiliation, having co-PIs and IAB members distribute themselves at various tables and lead discussions, and ensure that emails and notices are being received by our target audience.
17 ii. Professional Development Workshops A. COACh Workshop: Strategic Performance “The Art of Strategic Performance” (morning session) and “Strategies for Change” (afternoon session). Facilitated by Lee Warren, Associate Director of the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning at Harvard University, and Nancy Houfek, Head of Voice and Speech for the American Repertory Theatre at Harvard University. (March 2, 2009).Twenty-four women attended this workshop (3 Full Professors, 7 Associate Professors, 5 Assistant Professors, 2 Graduate Students, 2 Associate Vice Chancellors, 1 Lecturer, 3 Post docs and 1 staff member). Comments were resoundingly positive and faculty report that they are using their new skills in faculty meetings. The presenters, Nancy Houfek and Lee Warren, will return to conduct “Powerful Presentations” in October. B. Negotiations in Academia From evaluation comments for the Paths to Success Luncheon Series and the COACh workshop, we found a demand for more help with negotiating in academia. With the Chancellor’s Commission on the Status of Women, we co-sponsored a panel discussion, Figuring out what you want and how to ask for it: Negotiating in academia. Barbara Couture, Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs ,Marjorie Kostelnik, Dean of the College of Human Resources, and Alan Kamil, chair of the School of Biological Sciences, served on the panel. Approximately thirty people attended this brown-bag lunch. Evaluations were overwhelmingly positive and we will co-sponsor a similar panel next year. One third of the participants were men (33% were men). Associate professors (N=7), assistant professors (N=4) and graduate students (N=6) made up the majority of the attendees. The remainder were part time lecturer, two post docs, one staff member and one undergraduate student. Twelve units on campus were represented (art history, educational psychology, history, nutrition, school of biological sciences, school of natural resources, statistics, student affairs and student involvement.) Half of the 18 participants who filled out the evaluation strongly agreed that they learned something that will help them with their career, and another 39% agreed. Most (72%) said that the material was what they expected. Most (94%) either agreed or strongly agreed that the workshop was useful for them. Responses were also possible about their time spent at the panel discussion - 89% agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Almost all attendees (94%) said that the material will be useful to them. Below are some comments in response to the question “Please describe something useful that you learned from this panel”: • be prepared (i.e. do your homework) prior to interviewing • do your homework try to look at other as your friend not adversary etc more of a review for me - I would have liked more on negotiating skills-not so much how it works (that's important too but it wasn't anything new for me • Dr Couture’s comments about finding what you really need to be successful were very helpful • dynamics of negotiation when it is appropriate • everything from spousal accommodations to lab start ups • faculty negotiations may be very different than for staff. the panelists all care about helping others to succeed. very faculty oriented • general negotiating terms and what you need to prepare for negotiating • information on how to make sure I pick the right institution • information regarding post hiring negotiations useful. it would have been valuable to attend this discussion before I negotiating my new position • know fiscal side of negotiating • Negotiation is a partnership that should continue in the future • negotiation is partnership between 2 people go for win-win tips I took notes and will make lists
18 • that the point was to help coach folks looking to soon be job hunting rather than orchestrating collaborating across departments or differences in negotiation procedures among departments • the spirit of negotiation • you need a clear game plan when negotiating
iii. Communication with STEM Faculty A. ADVANCE-Nebraska E-News / listserv We established ADVANCE-Nebraska E-News by November. We disseminate this via a listserv to all STEM faculty and to other interested parties both on- and off campus. We compile announcements for upcoming ADVANCE activities, news items from STEM fields, on-campus activities that relate to ADVANCE goals, STEM funding opportunities, and any new procedures and opportunities from major funding agencies. For samples, see: http://advance.unl.edu/enewsarchive.shtml. B. Notification of Daycare Opening In August 2009, UNL will open its new on-campus daycare facility for the children of UNL employees and students. The facility is designed for children up to 5 years in age. Parents needed to enter a lottery to gain a spot for their children in April, 2009. We knew of at least two new hires in STEM departments who would be bringing daycare-needing children to campus. We were able to notify department and search committee chairs to alert newcomers of the procedure for entering the lottery. In addition, we negotiated with the new daycare facility manager to hold open several spots for any new faculty who might have missed the message.
iv. Faculty Exit Surveys We are participating in a multi-institution exit survey being conducted by Dr. Mikki Hebl at Rice University. “Exit” refers to faculty who have left the university because they were not granted tenure, were not renewed, found a better job, could not get a job for their spouse/partner, got a promotion, left academia, or left for some other reason. The purpose of the study is to: 1) understand why faculty leave our specific university, 2) look at the reasons that men and women leave positions in academia, 3) institutionalize an Exit Survey given to all future departees of our university, 4) promote good practices within academia surrounding exits, 5) test a turnover model of academics (Mitchell & Lee from U of Washington), and 6) understand the reasons why people leave in general. Several institutions, including UNL, are participating in the study to improve it’s generalizability. After the study is complete, we will receive a summary of the responses obtained from UNL participants. A list of 123 faculty who left UNL between January 1, 2003 and September 1, 2008 was provided to Dr. Hebl at Rice University for inclusion in their exit survey. Of all of these UNL tenure and tenure-track exits, 36 were from STEM and 19 were from SBS departments. The list often did not provide correct contact information since, so Dr. Hebl’s team attempted to track correct contact information. The survey is currently being fielded to those with accurate contact information. The survey is expected to be finished soon and we anticipate receiving a report by the end of the summer. While the Rice University study surveyed past exiting faculty, the ADVANCE Nebraska evaluation team plans to survey all faculty who exit during the grant period. The survey was created after reviewing several other exit surveys from other institutions, as well as the exit survey previously used at UNL (UNL previously administered an exit survey to all faculty and staff that left, but this survey was eliminated several years ago). All UNL faculty who left the University between September 2, 2008 and April 30, 2009 (N=5) were sent an exit survey by the Bureau of Sociological Research. In addition, each of their former UNL department chairs were also sent a survey. These surveys are currently in the field and we will continue to send out surveys to all future exiting faculty and their department chairs throughout the project. The surveys are provided in Appendix Section III-D.1. and III-D.2.
19 c. Activities that Address Goals 1 and 2: increase hiring and improve retention of women STEM faculty
i. Recruit-Nebraska and Promote-Nebraska Committees These Committees are modeled after the successful STRIDE Committee (Committee on Strategies and Tactics for Recruiting to Improve Diversity and Excellence) formed by the University of Michigan’s ADVANCE program. We split the work of the STRIDE Committee into two because of the striking difference in the literature for the STRIDE Committee’s two goals: 1) collect and disseminate data on the sizes of applicant pools for faculty positions, the responsibility of the Recruit-Nebraska Committee, and 2) collect and disseminate data on the impact of implicit bias on evaluations at all levels in academia, from evaluating faculty applicants to evaluating promotion and tenure files, the responsibility of the Promote-Nebraska Committee. These Committees were populated during the fall semester by calling for nominations of tenured faculty from STEM department chairs, the Faculty Senate, the deans of the colleges that house the target STEM departments (Arts & Sciences, Engineering, Institute of Agricultural and Natural Resources), and the co-PI team. This call for nominations resulted in approximately 20 names. The co-PI team prioritized the list, and Couture sent a letter of invitation to the first 12 faculty members. Three declined our offer because of recent grant commitments and indicated that they would be interested in serving at a later date. Thus we asked 15 faculty and 12 accepted within a six week period. We understood from the Advance community that we might have difficulty staffing these committees, but we found faculty enthusiastic and ready to work toward the goals of ADVANCE-Nebraska. The Committees met jointly for their first meeting in February 2009, with PI Couture welcoming and Holmes and McQuillan presenting the charge for the committees. We asked for volunteers from the fully promoted faculty to serve as chairs and selected two from among three: Professor Concetta diRusso of the Nutrition Department chairs Recruit-Nebraska, and Professor Brian Robertson of Mechanical Engineering chairs Promote-Nebraska. Committee membership is given in Appendix Section III-E.5. The Committees met separately with Hochstein to work out meeting schedules, a plan of action, what deliverables they will supply, and appropriate deadlines. In subsequent meetings, Holmes and McQuillan met with the committees to facilitate their progress towards their goals. The Committees met jointly again and shared data and findings in May, 2009. The summer will slow our progress because so many of us do field work that takes us away from campus, but there will be “deliverables” by mid-September. It is too soon to evaluate the impact of the Committees, but mere observation by Holmes and McQuillan suggests that these twelve faculty have learned a lot about applicant pools and the impact of implicit bias in the few weeks that they have been working together. A key outcome from the Recruit-Nebraska Committee to date is the recommendation to the co- PIs that deans concentrate on recruiting women to chair STEM departments. There are currently no female STEM department chairs. The Recruit-Nebraska Committee compiled data and information on upcoming vacancies that Dean’s can target for potentially hiring women as department chairs (Appendix Section III-E.6.).
ii. Visit by External Evaluator Our external evaluator is Dr. Ann Austin of Michigan State University. She visited UNL for two days in February, 2009 and met with the co-PIs, the Evaluation Team, and Holmes. Austin summarized how allied our activities are with our goals (pretty well) and advised us to develop a concise and coherent message about ADVANCE-Nebraska to communicate with the University. We developed a couple of short paragraphs that serve as our introduction on our websites home page. She reviewed our evaluation plan and provided suggestions on improvement. For agenda and details of her visit, see Appendix III-E.7).
20 iii. Departmental Grants We were unable to disburse these funds, intended for departments to develop their own creative ways to increase the diversity of their applicant pools, because no department applied for them. We will be working to get the message out to departments, particularly to chairs, to take advantage of this opportunity. The funds for these grants were re-deployed to pay for the focus group study of search committee chairs. Holmes and McQuillan will write a white paper on best practices for broadening and deepening applicant pools from the results of the focus groups. We expect that widespread distribution of this paper will help increase interest from faculty to apply for these grants.
d. Research Findings
i. Baseline Data Collection Prior to the initiation of ADVANCE-Nebraska, Falci was awarded an Internal UNL Faculty Seed Grant in Spring 2008 (see research proposal, “Faculty Networks and Departmental Climates in STEM at UNL”, Appendix Section III-C.1., and IRB approval letter, Appendix Section III-C.2.) to conduct the baseline data collection for ADVANCE-Nebraska. The baseline data collection comprised two surveys: the Network Survey and the UNL COACHE Survey. These were linked with archival data from UNL’s Institute of Research and Planning (IRP). With assistance from McQuillan and Anderson Knott, Falci wrote the UNL STEM Faculty Networking Survey (Network Survey; Appendix Section III-D.3.). This survey focuses on faculty research accomplishments, teaching productivity and service workload. It also contains a network mapping survey instrument to identify connections among faculty within and across STEM departments at UNL. A network connection can measure any form of interpersonal interaction occurring between two people in the network. Our survey measured three network ties: 1) research exchange, 2) friendship and 3) committee membership. UNL’s Bureau of Sociological Research (BOSR) administered the Network Survey to UNL STEM faculty via the web beginning March 20, 2008. The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) at Harvard University is a consortium of over 130 colleges and universities in the US and studies the academic workplace for pre-tenure faculty. The primary program element for COACHE is the administration of the Tenure-Track Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey to all pre-tenure faculty at universities that join the consortium. The survey has faculty report on their experiences regarding promotion and tenure, the nature of their work, institutional policies and practices, and the culture and collegiality within their primary departments. With assistance from McQuillan and Anderson-Knott, Falci revised and adapted the survey for administration to all UNL STEM faculty, regardless of tenure status (see flowchart of the UNL COACHE Survey, Appendix Section III-C.3.). COACHE administered the UNL COACHE Survey to STEM faculty at UNL via the web beginning April 28, 2008. For further details about issues that arose during the data collection process, response rates to the surveys, and an analysis of non-response see Data Collection Methodology Report, Appendix Section III-C.4., and Baseline Data Collection (Spring 2008): Analysis of Nonresponse to the Network and UNL COACHE Surveys, Section III-C.5. In addition to the two surveys, UNL’s IRP provided demographic characteristics of all UNL STEM faculty (e.g., gender, race, rank, apportionment, FTE, etc.). During the summer of 2008, BOSR linked the three sources of data into one data file. In October 2008, BOSR provided a de-identified data file to Falci. With the assistance of a graduate research assistant, the data have been cleaned, recoded and several new variables have been created. In addition, we wrote a codebook identifying and describing all of the variables available from the multiple sources (Network Survey, UNL COACHE Survey and IRP) of data collection. This labor-intensive preparatory work has made the data available to multiple investigators and we are currently analyzing the data in various ways.
21 ii. Descriptive Summary Reports Holmes, McQuillan and Falci are currently working on reports that will provide descriptive summaries of the baseline data. The modifications to the UNL COACHE Survey, described above, will allow us to make several unique comparisons. First, we can explore differences in faculty perceptions about the tenure process between pre-tenure and tenured faculty at UNL. Second, we can explore differences in faculty perceptions about the process of promotion from associate to full professor between associate and full processors at UNL. Third, we are still able to draw on the primary strength of the COACHE data, namely comparisons to peer institutions for pre-tenure faculty in STEM departments. Finally, we will explore several other important demographic comparisons, such as across gender and race, and explore several additional components of the survey, such as departmental collegiality and work-family balance. Although we have not yet finished an official descriptive summaries report, we have begun the preliminary analyses of the comparisons described above and plan on finishing the report by the end of the summer.
iii. Academic Research In addition to descriptive summary reports, academic research papers are being developed for publication in peer-reviewed journals and four sociology graduate students are using the data for their master’s theses. Falci and a graduate research assistant are exploring gender variation in network structure. It is often theorized that a lack of inclusion in social networks disadvantages underrepresented faculty in STEM departments. However, it is unknown what the lack of inclusion or marginalization of underrepresented faculty in STEM departments “looks like”, because no research has investigated the social network structure of faculty within academia. To ascertain the network structure it is necessary to collect complete network data (i.e., information on relational ties among faculty within a department must be collected from every faculty member of the department). One of the many unique features of the ADVANCE-Nebraska baseline data is the collection of complete network data on three relational ties: research exchange, friendship and committee co-membership. With these data, it will be possible to assess levels of marginalization of faculty within departments. As a first step toward this empirical investigation, Falci has reformatted the network data and created the adjacency matrices necessary for conducting social network analysis. Social network analysis is a method used to describe connections among actors within a network. This analysis will create numerous measures of network structure (e.g., connectivity, centrality, homogeneity, etc.) which will allow us to assess each faculty member’s degree of marginalization within his or her department. The initial phase of our analysis will focus on how levels of network marginalization vary by gender and race for each of the three network relations (research, friendship and co- membership). The second phase of our analysis will then explore how network marginalization may lead to disadvantages within academia, such as limited access to resources or increased teaching and service workloads. Falci and McQuillan are directing Yan Wang master’s thesis which investigates how perceptions of fit within one’s department and levels of collegiality influence perceptions of fairness in the tenure review process among faculty. Preliminary hierarchical linear models indicate that 85% of the variance in perceptions of fairness in the tenure process is at the individual level and 15% at the departmental level. At the individual level, faculty who felt they had a good fit with their department and who were satisfied with the amount of personal interaction with other faculty were more inclined to perceive the tenure process as more fair. There were no gender differences in perceptions of fairness in the tenure process. At the departmental level, however, faculty in a department with a higher proportion of female faculty tended to perceive the tenure process as more fair. Setareh Makinejad is a graduate student in the Sociology Department and works part-time as a systems analyst in the Computer Science Department. Her master’s thesis will investigate the association between perceptions of work-family balance and job satisfaction. She will also explore gender differences in perceptions of work-family balance and whether or not the effect of work-family balance on job satisfaction varies by gender. Megumi Wantanabe is a first year Master’s student
22 who has just begun her master’s thesis work. She proposes to test two competing hypotheses regarding women’s potential disadvantage within academia: work-family balance and network marginalization.
iv. Future Data Collection Efforts Two additional waves of data collection are planned within the ADVANCE-Nebraska time frame. The second wave of data collection will be administered Spring 2011, the 3rd year of ADVANCE- Nebraska, and the third wave of data collection will be administered Spring 2013, the 5th year of ADVANCE-Nebraska. For the next two waves of data collection, we will focus on developing additional protocol for increasing our response rates. Upon collecting data for Waves 2 and 3, we will assess changes in perceptions of climate and faculty networks overtime. Furthermore, based on what we have learned from analyses of baseline data, the Nebraska- ADVANCE team will develop an intervention to shape network structures (both the location of individual actors within the network and the entire network structure of the department). The intervention will be carried-out between wave two and wave three data collection. We will use wave 3 and wave 5 data collection efforts to assess if the intervention has had an impact on changing network structures.
v. COACHE (Climate) Survey Results from UNL faculty were compared to those of five peer institutions that also belong to the COACHE consortium. These five institutions are: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Iowa, Iowa State University, University of Kansas, and Ohio State University. The numbers of respondents are given in the table at right. In general, we found few significant gender Colleges of Arts & Sciences, differences in responses to the COACHE climate survey. Engineering, IANR We found female assistant professors to be more N’s: satisfied with clarity and reasonableness of tenure UNL: 28 males; 9 females expectations than their male counterparts. In addition, Peers: 188 males; 76 females female assistant professors were more satisfied with clarity and reasonableness of tenure expectations than their peers at the five peer institutions with the following exceptions: • “I find the tenure standards (the performance threshold” in my department to be clear/not clear” • Are expectations for the following are reasonable/not reasonable: expectations as a teacher, advisor to students, a colleague in your department, a campus citizen. We will be communicating these results to department chairs early in the fall semester at an event planned for mid-September. The results did reveal an area of concern which will inform our program in Year 2: associate professors overall are less happy on nearly every metric than either assistant or full professors. We have begun to explore additional indicators of associate professor satisfaction: years in rank, salary and available resources, for example. We will discuss these results with department chairs at our mid-September event and develop strategies with and for them to provide greater clarity on expectations for and timing of the promotion-to-full process. In addition, the co-PIs are exploring mechanisms to develop a program for mid-career re-tooling. We expect from the COACHE survey results that there will be interest in such a program. We found the combined Engineering/Computer Science/Mathematics faculty less satisfied on most metrics than those from other academic areas. We will be working more closely with these department chairs to improve clarity of tenure and promotion expectations. Full professor males have the highest rantings for job satisfaction and perception that tenure criteria are clear and reasonable. Assistant professors are less likely to indicate that they feel a sense of fit with UNL. These results are to be expected, as the full professors have had the time to
23 help mold the university. We will make full professors aware of this disconnect and the need to more fully engage junior faculty in decision-making processes. Full professor females are less satisfied with how they spend their time, less satisfied with the number of hours they work, and less satisfied with expectations for serving as an advisor and for committee service. The low numbers of women in these positions shifts the burdens for mentoring students, both graduate and undergraduate, to their shoulders. Equity, Access and Diversity Office urges that a woman serve on every search committee, and the few women in full professor positions tend to be called upon to serve on too many of these committees. Recently the rules were clarified so that a graduate student can serve as the female representative on a search committee, and this has eased this burden for tenured women professors on campus. Only by hiring more women can we spread the load of advising the increasing numbers of female students. The only difference by rank or gender in what faculty find most appealing about working at UNL is that women were less happy with “childcare policies and practices”. With the new on-campus daycare facility opening in just a few weeks, we expect to see this metric improved by the next survey.
e. Institutional Change Effected by ADVANCE-Nebraska
i. Establishment of Office in the Office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs The ADVANCE-Nebraska office is housed in the administration building in close proximity to the offices of the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, the Office of Equity, Access and Diversity, and the Chancellor’s office. The Office of Research contributed all funds to the renovation and furnishing of the office, which is occupied by Holmes and Hochstein.
ii. Establish regular meetings with Key Players A. Co-PIs We learned that an enormous amount of useful information was being exchanged among the co-PIs at our first meeting in 2009, and have since scheduled and met at least once a month. As the co-PIs include the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, the Dean of Arts & Sciences, and the Associate Dean of Engineering, we are able, at these meetings, to sort out any snags in dual career procedures and opportunities, envision what new data are needed, envision what new procedures and programs are needed, and envision how to implement activities to achieve short- and long-term goals. B. Evaluation Team The Evaluation Team meets at least once a month and more frequently when needs dictate, such as IRB modifications and for evaluation form updates. Monthly meetings generally are devoted to analyzing data we have collected. C. Website Team The Website Team meets once a month to review what materials are on the website and discuss and implement ways to improve the organization of information. This team includes Associate Dean of Libraries Nancy Busch, who is also head of the Evaluation Team. Busch generously offered Library staff (Sinner and Petzold) to serve as Webmasters and the library server to host the website. Also attending these meetings are Hochstein, Holmes, McQuillan, Anderson- Knott, and Kim Hachiya (University Communications Specialist). Between meetings, all of us use other ADVANCE websites and note ways to improve our own. Hachiya assists with wordsmithing. D. Internal Advisory Board We have had three meetings with our IAB. The first two meetings involved board members getting to know each other and the entire board discussing how they can best serve the goals of ADVANCE-Nebraska. After consultation with Nancy Meyers, co-PIs Holmes and McQuillan created
24 a list of questions for board members to discuss in small groups, and then had a discussion with the entire board. The approach in the third meeting was very fruitful. All board members provided ideas for ways that they could contribute to the goals of the grant by serving as the STEM department “eyes and ears” on campus regarding issues relevant to advancing women in STEM fields, reporting both negative and positive impressions of advance activities, suggesting areas that the ADVANCE team can help with, and ways that each board member could encourage support for specific ADVANCE events and the overall goals of the grant.
iii. Communication among constituents: website, Blackboard, E-news A. On Campus Listserv to Distribute ADVANCE-Nebraska E-News We have added several on-campus people and organizations to our listserv who serve as liaisons with various constituencies on campus.
Who Title Purpose of this Group Jan Deeds head of the Women’s Leadership Promotes women’s leadership on campus Coalition for staff, students, and faculty Margaret Jacobs Director of the Women’s Studies We work together to promote their new, Program third focal area: Women in Science Anchalee (Joy) UNL Libraries liaison for Women’s Provides the ADVANCE-Nebraska office Roberts Studies with titles of new publications pertinent to our work; works to purchase appropriate material for the library; publicizes new acquisitions Kim Hachiya Office of University Communications Assists with publicity, website development Rita Kean Dean of Undergraduate Studies Mutual interests in professional development opportunities for female undergraduates in STEM disciplines Giacomo Oliva Dean of the College of Fine and Assisting ADVANCE-Nebraska with Performing Arts recruiting Theatre faculty to conduct workshops for STEM faculty on improving their public speaking skills Chancellor’s Works with Chancellor Perlman to identify Commission on issues of concern to women on campus the Status of and to promote solutions; see f. Synergistic Women Activities for more information. Ellen Weissinger Dean of Graduate Studies Mutual interests in professional development and mentoring opportunities for female STEM graduate students; we assist in dissemination of new policies that have a greater impact on female students.
B. Off Campus Listserv Participants We were contacted by members of the Mayor’s Commission on the Status of Women, Bonnie Coffey and Kathie Uhrmacher, who are also on our listserv. We communicate events that will be of mutual interest, particularly professional development opportunities. In addition, we learned that there are several women-owned engineering firms in the area that may hire dual career partners or whose CEOs may serve as mentors for women in engineering on campus. C. ADVANCE-Nebraska Website The initial, proposed plan was that the project manager position duties would include development of the website. Prior to funding of the Advance project, the University Libraries Associate Dean Nancy Busch, head of our internal evaluation team, offered technical and staff support from the Libraries to host the ADVANCE-NE website. Melissa Sinner, Libraries Digital
25 Resources Editor, was assigned to develop and maintain the website. A core group consisting of Barbara Couture (PI), Julia McQuillan (Co-PI), Mary Anne Holmes (Co-PI), Evelyn Jacobson, Kim Hachiya, and Christina Falci met several times between August and late September to provide input and feedback on the developing website, which went live on October 1, 2008 at advance.unl.edu. The tag line “Advancing Women, advancing STEM” emanated from the core group discussions. Jacquelyn Petzold, Science Librarian and Assistant Professor, was added to the web group upon being hired in the Libraries in January of 2009, to assist in identifying articles, reports, books, and other resources to be added to the Advance website Resources. Ann Austin reviewed the web site during her external evaluator site visit in February 2009 and made suggestions on website enhancements to the web and evaluation teams. Monthly website meetings are held to review content and functionality. The website serves several important functions including serving as a communication tool, a record of project activities and accomplishments, and link to related resources. The following navigational categories denote the types of information and resources included on the website: * ADVANCE-Nebraska * About * People * Programs o Recruitment Ambassadors, o Showcase Visits, o Luncheon Series, o Advance Grants, o Recruit-NE, o Promote-NE * Research * Resources o Articles, o Associations, o Links, o Policies, o Presentations, o Project Documentation * News & Events o E-news Archive, o News & Events Archive * Contact
A bi-monthly newsletter, ADVANCE-Nebraska E-news, was started in September for all STEM faculty and staff. Currently, there are 498 members on the listserv. The newsletter posts new announcements, programs, and relevant articles for all faculty in STEM. We are in the process of moving the newsletter to a new software product called Constant Contact so that we can automate subscriptions and send more feature-rich announcements to the list.
iv. changes in data collection by IRP UNL recently began a new space study that is required only of departments that meet a minimum level of research funding. Two of our target departments do not meet these requirements but will be asked to do so in the future.
f. Synergistic Activities Members of the ADVANCE-Nebraska team have been involved in several activities that combine with, enhance, and institutionalize ADVANCE and other university activities. Below we detail these Synergistic Activities.
26 i. Chancellors’ Commission on the Status of Women (CCSW) Co-PI McQuillan was on the CCSW the year before the grant was funded, and Co-PI and ADVANCE Director Holmes joined the commission in the fall of 2008. This group consists of faculty, staff and students. The responsibilities of the Commission and each of the Councils are as follows: 1. To advise the Chancellor on University matters and policies relating to women and on such other matters as may be appropriate. 2. To advise such other members of the campus administration as the Chancellor deems appropriate. 3. To suggest to the Chancellor issues relating to women that should be part of the campus administrative agenda. 4. To communicate to the Chancellor the perspectives of women on University policies and decisions. 5. To assist the Chancellor in addressing issues related to women. The Commission had been working on getting an on-campus child care center and developing a brochure and web page detailing work/life balance policies at UNL. The new childcare facility will be opening in August 2009, and the work/life balance brochure is now part of the ADVANCE office duties. The CCSW, working with ADVANCE Co-PIs, also worked with the Chancellor’s office to secure “lactation stations” on campus for women, particularly staff and students, who needed a place to pump milk. There will be approximately 6 stations and a lactation policy at the University as a result of these efforts. Comments on ADVANCE “Paths to Success” luncheons indicated that many women faculty wanted more information about negotiation skills. The CCSW faculty decided to sponsor a panel discussion on “Negotiating in Higher Education”. ADVANCE PI Barbara Couture was one of the speakers for this event. Over 30 faculty, staff and students attended this event. The CCSW has an annual awards ceremony providing the Chancellor’s Outstanding Contribution to Women Award to honor individuals or campus units who have contributed to gender equity and the advancement of women on campus. In 2008, the department of Geosciences earned the CCSW award – this is the ADVANCE Director Holmes’ home department. In 2009, the Society of Women Engineers earned the award. Below are excerpts from the CCSW annual report to the chancellor that are relevant to ADVANCE: • Awards. The Chancellor's Outstanding Contribution to Women Awards recognize outstanding faculty, staff and student efforts to create a climate that encourages women to succeed at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The award recipients may be faculty, staff, students, departments or organizations within the institution. The award recipients must demonstrate a sustained and tangible impact on the campus community. Recent awards were presented to the department of Geosciences (2008) and the Society of Women Engineers (2009). • Work/Life Coordination Issues. The main activity in this area has been to create a brochure outlining Family Friendly Policies at the University of Nebraska. Although this brochure started as a project between the Chancellor’s office (with guidance from Susan Poser, Assistant to the Chancellor) and the CCSW, many of the topics covered are system (University of Nebraska)-wide, not only UNL campus, issues. Therefore this has been part of system-wide efforts as well. Updating the content and publication of the brochure became the work of the UNL ADVANCE grant in the fall of 2008. • Skills Workshop. In the Fall of 2008 the CCSW faculty learned that women faculty want help with negotiation skills. The Faculty Council of the CCSW sponsored a negotiating skills workshop, Figuring out what you want and how to ask for it: Negotiating in academia, on April 13, 2009 from 11:30 am to 1:00 pm in the City Union. The panel members were Senior Vice Chancellor Barbara Couture, CEHS Dean Marjorie Kostelnik and Biological Sciences Chair Alan Kamil. This was a brown-bag event; light refreshments were provided. In our
27 preliminary discussions, we identified a number of topics that were used to frame the panel discussion. 1. Setting reasonable expectations. Including Defining your needs; Starting too low and thinking too small; Doing your homework; Assessing your value in the marketplace 2. Work-life balance. Including Dual-career negotiations; Family needs 3. Making the request. Including Packaging the ask; Beginning the conversation 4. Dealbreakers.
ii. President’s Gender Equity Advisory Committee Co-PI Julia McQuillan is the liaison between the UNL CCSW and the University system-wide (4 campus) President’s Gender Equity Advisory Committee. This group meets approximately 4 times per year. The purpose of this Committee is to advise the University President. The Committee’s charge is: “To provide opportunity for representatives of the campuses to share experiences and perspectives related to gender equity and to explore “best practices” on the campuses to determine whether they should be adopted on a university-wide basis; to evaluate and monitor gender equity at the University of Nebraska, particularly university-wide policies that may have a differential effect on women; to advise the President on the above issues and to recommend university-wide rules and policies related to gender equity. “Responsibilities include reviewing the annual reports from the four Chancellor’s commissions on the Status of Women to note patterns, strengths, weaknesses, progress, issues, and best practices which may need to be addressed from a university-wide approach. The committee shall submit any findings, analysis, and proposals to the President. The committee may submit other periodic reports to the President describing its activities and the progress to the campuses in implementing gender equity policies and recommendations.” Through serving on this university-wide committee, co-PI McQuillan learned about a “Management Leadership Series” at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC). Co-PI and ADVANCE Director Holmes and co-PI McQuillan were invited to attend this 8 session (monthly) series in which 4 to 5 hour sessions were offered on effective leadership practices. This outstanding program provided many ideas to use for promoting leadership among STEM women at UNL, and ideas for institutionalizing leadership training opportunities for all faculty at UNL. We are still in the process of exploring how to translate the program from UNMC to UNL. In addition, Holmes attended a meeting of the U-wide committee to discuss having a Nebraska Higher Education Recruiting Consortium (HERC). We discussed the challenges of dual career hiring and the expense of losing excellent faculty, and the possibilities of a system-wide solution. The U- wide gender equity committee continues to work on this issue; it will be a major focus of an all day retreat on June 19, 2009. In addition to dual career hiring challenges and opportunities, the University of Nebraska President has asked the Gender Equity Advisory Committee to explore the tenure system at the four campuses and the use of non-tenure track faculty positions (e.g. professors of practice in research or teaching, or, at the medical school, clinical faculty). The President supported the professor of practice option, and would now like information about the possible differential benefits/costs of this option for gender equity concerns. The committee members have been reading research (much of which is from ADVANCE institutions) about the timing of tenure and family demands as barriers to women in higher education, but also the problems of women faculty being relegated to part time, lecturer, and other non-tenure track positions. We will explore various options for crafting faculty work arrangements that benefit both the institutions and the goals of retaining excellent and diverse faculty representation. The University-Wide Gender Equity Advisory Committee has been involved in the work/life balance brochure because many of the policies are system-wide (instituted by the board of regents).
28 iii. Diversity Initiative PI Couture used data collected from AAU institutions by The Advisory Board to develop a diversity initiative at UNL. This Initiative involves enhancing activities to recruit and retain a diverse faculty and study body at UNL. She is working with Associate Vice Chancellor Jacobson and ADVANCE Director Holmes to integrate and institutionalize ideas for Best Practices from the Recruit-Nebraska and Promote-Nebraska committees with the diversity initiative plans.
iv. Engineering and Arts and Sciences Activities Monthly meeting with Associate Dean of Engineering and Dean of Arts and Sciences helps us to ensure that we are coordinating our efforts with efforts in both colleges.
v. Recruit- and Promote-Nebraska Committees The faculty serving on these committees have already begun to foster communication between departments and colleges.
vi. Results of Search Committee chair focus groups These results will help us to work with the office of Equity, Access and Diversity to customize search committee member training specifically focused for faculty.
vii. HERC explorations We have begun to communicate with other academic institutions in the region to discuss methods to address the mutual challenges of dual career opportunities.
viii. COACHE survey user’s workshop – connections with other institutions interested in recruiting and retaining faculty and creating institutions that will foster success for all.
ix. Table Summarizing Additional Synergistic Activities Who We Department or How We Worked Outcome(s) Worked With Program Together
Co-sponsored a talk by Holmes to UNL community on ADVANCE; Communication; Jan Deeds and Women’s McQuillan attended the annual Holmes and McQuillan Kris Baack, co- Leadership Nebraska Women in Higher are members of the chairs of WLC Coalition (WLC) Education Leadership Conference Coalition to disseminate information about ADVANCE-Nebraska
New courses taught by STEM faculty for the WGS program: - Holmes’ teaches part of WGS - Alexandra Basolo of Biological Communication; Sciences will teach Women’s and Holmes and McQuillan Margaret Jacobs Gender Studies also serve on the -Donna Woudenberg and Patti Program Director Board of the WGS Boehner of the School of Natural Program Resources teach “Women and Natural Resources” Increased participation in ADVANCE programs due to assistance in publicity by WGS
29 Who We Department or How We Worked Outcome(s) Worked With Program Together
Institutional To obtain data on Rapid turnaround on requests for Judy Joy Research and faculty rank, gender, data Planning salaries
Developed a proposal to form a Nancy Myers, Higher Education Recruitment Director of Human Resources Communication Consortium (HERC) in Nebraska; Organization Development Myers serves as an administrative coach for Holmes
There will be 6 positions reserved UNL Childcare for new faculty; Tish Roland Communication Center Director New hires in STEM were notified in time to participate in the first lottery
Conference call with McQuillan and Falci to exchange information Northeastern on how to study Dissemination of network survey Sociology faculty networks, how methods Department to gather data, measure concepts, get good response rates
Combine ADVANCE’s First external speaker, Dr. Heidi STEM “Paths to Success” Schellman gave a talk in the Department STEM luncheon series Physics and Astronomy Colloquium Departments speakers with Department on “Recent Hot coordinators department colloquia Physics Results from Fermi Lab”.
Ed Wimes, Interim Associate to the President/ UN System Conversation has begun on how to Communications: Assistant Vice Gender Equity construct a University-wide McQuillan also serves President of Advisory mechanism to address dual career on the GEC board Academic Committee opportunities. Affairs for Diversity
Sociologists affiliated with ADVANCE ADVANCE programs share ideas, McQuillan Sanity Listserv approaches and solutions via a listserv
2. Describe the major findings resulting from these activities Our major findings to date are insights into what programs and procedures work best for our program and what our principal challenges have been in the first year.
30 a. Challenges in the first year: Areas of Difficulty/Resistance and Strategies to Address Them Challenge / Difficulty Resistance Strategy to Address
ADVANCE is a large and multi-faceted program; it We have a core group of people who have been has been a challenge for us to generate a clear and working on a concise, coherent message. concise message for faculty and administration to understand the scope of the program
Passage of anti-affirmative action Proposition 424, Fortunately, there is an exemption to federally- now Article I, Section 30 amendment to Nebraska’s funded programs in the amendment. We continue constitution to report in public venues that ADVANCE’s aim is to level a most uneven playing field, and to publicize the data that supports the assertion of the lack of a level playing field. We have found that peer-reviewed data can have a powerful impact on some scientists’ perceptions of ADVANCE issues.
A small number of faculty are not ready for change; Focus on departments most likely to lead to this is of greatest concern when there is more than success at first. We hope that these will serve as one in a given department models for other departments over time.
b. What an ADVANCE program needs for success • Extra financial support from the institution – this announces the level of institutional support to any persons resisting the concept, it helps to stretch the budget, it begins to institutionalize the support structure that will effect change. We are fortunate in having extra resources from the Chancellor’s and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs offices for salary for qualified dual career partners, and from the Vice Chancellor for Research for assistance with startup funds for qualified dual career partners. • Buy-in at the highest levels of the institution – this greatly reduces the amount of time needed for approvals of new procedures, as well as the obvious message from the top that the goals of the ADVANCE program are being taken seriously. • Buy-in at the faculty level – colleagues can effect change within their own departments and networks on campus. Respected faculty can have a profound impact on their colleagues when they voice support for ADVANCE goals. To achieve buy-in from faculty, they should be consulted and asked to participate whenever possible. • To be prepared to spend time and funds on communication: a uniform look to publications, handouts, etc; you will need professional photographs of STEM women from campus. • Programs that support women on campus, including effective and already-proven professional development workshops, such as COACh; and networking strategies (we use our listserv, E-news, website and luncheons). • Institutional as well as national data to support the approach and focus of the ADVANCE program. • Widespread communication on campus with any other program that can work synergistically with ADVANCE (Women’s Studies, Theatre Department, Sociology and Psychology Departments, Statistics Departments). • Ask constituents on campus what they need and respond accordingly. • To better understand the search process for new faculty, ask the search committee chairs in a formal setting (e.g., a focus group). Although search procedures are guided by Equity, Access and Diversity guidelines, there is wide latitude in how each step proceeds. When collected and analyzed in light of the most recent literature, the campus as a whole uses
31 “Best Practices” to achieve a diverse faculty. However, only one or two of these practices are used in any given department in any given search. In addition, some departments engage in “Worst Practices” along with “Best”, such as over-scheduled interview visits, a lack of attention to non-work life in the area or a chance to see the campus or its environs, and a reticence to create an enthusiastic atmosphere under the misconception that appearing to be welcoming is tantamount to an actual job offer. Rather than delving into literature on their own, departments can inform each other of practices that work best for UNL through a framework such as an ADVANCE program. • To understand that communicating new (or even old) information once is not enough. Messages need to be repeated on a regular basis about Work-Life Balance policies at UNL, for example, or on what programs ADVANCE can support and on what we do not support. • An excellent external evaluator who visits the program early. • Allow needs to indicate meeting schedules. We originally planned more closely spaced meetings with some participants, less frequent meetings with others. As the program developed in the first six months, it became clear which groups were meeting productively and on what schedules. 3. Describe the opportunities for training and development provided by your project. What research and teaching skills and experience has the project helped provide to those who worked on the project?
a. Training for ADVANCE-Nebraska Personnel Event Who Attended Outcomes
University of Nebraska Medical Holmes and McQuillan conflict resolution, the budgeting Center Management Series, first process, working with strengths rather Thursday Sept., 2008 – May, 2009 than weaknesses, supporting a diverse workplace
UNL’s Administrative Coaching Holmes, enrolled by PI Holmes learned the method of program with Nancy Myers, Director Couture Appreciative Inquiry to help newly of Organization Development in forming groups find a common Human Resources mission. We used AI with the Internal Advisory Board and had much more productive meetings as a result.
COACHE (Collaborative on McQuillan McQuillan attended a one day “user’s Academic Careers in Higher workshop” with approximately 25 Education), the author of our campus leaders (deans, department climate survey instrument User’s chairs, provosts, etc.) who are working workshop issues relevant to hiring and retaining faculty. This workshop involved several panels on creating flexibility to support faculty job satisfaction, and how to “rethink” academic jobs and structures to accommodate the demands of contemporary higher education and faculty options for work. A presentation on peer mentoring was particularly useful from this workshop.
32 Event Who Attended Outcomes
NSF ADVANCE PI Meeting Couture, Holmes, Learned about the evaluation process, Jacobson and McQuillan budgets, dual career programs at other institutions,
Iowa State University’s ADVANCE Holmes, McQuillan Learned multiple models of faculty conference on The New Norm of work; networked with other ADVANCE Faculty Flexibility awardees; learned about other ADVANCE programs
American Sociological Association McQuillan Social Scientists on Advance teams from institutions all over the united states met at the Annual ASA meeting to share ideas, support, insights.
b. ADVANCE-Sponsored Training Activities Activity Who Participated Outcomes
Recruit-Nebraska and Promote- Couture, Holmes, Jacobson, Committee members introduced Nebraska initial meeting McQuillan, twelve committee to data on numbers of women members ( members given in receiving PhDs in STEM fields Appendix Section III-E.5) and on data on the impact of implicit bias in evaluations.
Appreciative Inquiry with Internal Couture, Holmes, Jacobson, IAB had a more clear idea of Advisory Board McQuillan, twelve committee their roles as Board members, ie, members to serve as the Programs eyes and ears, alerting co-PIs to additional needs or challenges; and to serve as cheerleaders for the program and its activities
Workshop for department Chairs Thirty faculty (college deans and An increased awareness among on “Work-Family Balance Issues department chairs) faculty chairs that the on-campus for Recruitment and Retention of visit of faculty applicants needs Faculty” conducted by Ann to be a process that attracts the Austin candidate.
Electrical Engineering Dept. sent -Michael Hoffman, Professor These faculty participated in the three members to the University - Jerry Hudgins, Professor and workshop and have brought Best of Michigan’s Science and Dept. Chair Practices Technology Excellence Program - Eva Schubert, Assistant (STEP, an ADVANCE) program Professor
4. Outreach Activities Describe outreach activities your project has undertaken. Who Presented Audience Number of Outcomes Presentations
33 Holmes College of Arts & Twice Information Sciences chairs and disseminated on directors ADVANCE programs and opportunities; on broadening applicant pools for upcoming searches
Holmes College of Engineering Once Information chairs disseminated on ADVANCE programs and opportunities; on broadening applicant pools for upcoming searches
Holmes Institute of Agricultural Once Information and Natural Resources disseminated on chairs and directors ADVANCE programs and opportunities
Holmes Deans and Directors Twice Information disseminated on ADVANCE programs and opportunities; on ADVANCE progress and achievements
Holmes Chancellor’s monthly Dissemination of Commission on the upcoming ADVANCE Status of Women programs
Holmes and McQuillan UN System Gender Twice Information Equity Advisory disseminated on Committee ADVANCE programs and opportunities
Holmes Women’s Leadership once Information Coalition disseminated on ADVANCE programs and opportunities
Section I-E. Publications and Products 1. What have you published as a result of this work? • Journal Publications None to report yet. • Books or other non-periodical, one-time publications None to report yet. • Local publications: A local newspaper for UNL faculty and staff, The Scarlet, published two front-page articles about ADVANCE-Nebraska and STEM women at UNL. The first article, published on September 11,
34 2008 was a front page debut of the ADVANCE grant for UNL and the program’s focus on STEM fields (http://scarlet.unl.edu/?p=167). Another front page article appeared on February 19, 2009 featuring four women in science who are making an impact on their fields of study. One of the women featured in the article was an ADVANCE-Nebraska dual career hire, Linxia Gu, Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering. (http://scarlet.unl.edu/?p=1207). 2. What website or other Internet site have you created? http://advance.unl.edu/ http://www.unl.edu/svcaa/faculty/policies/work_life_balance.shtml 3. What other specific products (databases, physical collections, educational aids, software, instruments, or the like) have you developed? See Appendix Section III-D. Section I-F. Contributions Now we invite you to explain ways in which your work, your findings, and specific products of your project are significant. Describe the unique contributions, major accomplishments, innovations, and successes of your project relative to: 1. Contributions Within Discipline: The principal discipline(s) of the project How have your findings, techniques you developed or extended, or other products from your project contributed to the principal disciplinary field(s) of the project?
Because this field applies more to science and engineering grants, we interpret it to apply here to activities that have contributed to the advancement of women in STEM on the UNL campus:
a. Dual Career process We have developed a mechanism to hire dual academic career partners when it is possible by contacting the candidates early (i.e., as soon as they are short-listed), and by communicating with college deans and departmental chairs through one central office (ADVANCE) that is housed in the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs office, where the hires are made. It is essential to have deans and department chairs who are willing to participate in a dual career hire. Such a procedure was unanimously requested by STEM department chairs as we were writing the proposal for the ADVANCE program and we were able to get it operational early in the first year. It may serve as a model for wider implementation by the University.
b. Improved communication among STEM departments on campus News items of interest to STEM faculty, new research results on women in STEM and work-life balance, news items about STEM faculty on campus: this information is now disseminated to STEM faculty on a semi-regular (about twice monthly) basis. It is a means of networking researchers, educators, and outreach personnel with like interests, as well as informing faculty of policies already in place that they might not be aware of.
c. Gathered best practices for faculty searches from those extant across campus Our focus groups of search committee chairs revealed some Best Practices already in effect, and some not-so-great practices that can be changed. In addition, faculty who participated in the focus groups have already brought improved search practices back to their own departments.
d. Improved Work-Life Balance policies and procedures website, the principal source on campus for information on this topic We have improved the organization of, presentation of, and utility of this website for faculty use. Now, information about policies is directly linked to the forms and added detail necessary to take
35 advantage of policies intended to assist faculty with work-life balance. We anticipate increased use of these policies in the future.
e. Changed faculty job advertisement language Making a statement on the job advertisement that UNL is now an ADVANCE Institution sends the message to potential new hires and to existing faculty that our program is supported from the highest levels within the institution.
f. Held open positions in new daycare facility for new hires; communicated these openings to new faculty hires Faculty work hard to hire a new colleague; it would be less than welcoming if, after touting our new daycare [to open August, 2009], new faculty were told that there was no room for their children. We have begun to assist with work-life balance with the new set of incoming STEM faculty. 2. Contributions to Other Disciplines of science or engineering We interpret this field to indicate how our project might contribute to the advancement of women in STEM disciplines in general, rather than just on our campus.
a. Dual Career procedure can serve as a model for other academic institutions The establishment of a central office to communicate among the constituents for dual career hires has greatly facilitated hires at UNL and can be replicated elsewhere. In addition, our procedure, including letters to search committee chairs and to short-list candidates, is vetted by the Equity, Access and Diversity Office and can also be replicated elsewhere.
b. Work-life balance policies and their dissemination can serve as a model for other academic institutions
c. We are exploring the establishment of a HERC for Nebraska HERC is the Higher Education Recruitment Consortium that allows academic dual career couples to find positions in the same geographic area. ADVANCE is providing support for the exploratory stages of establishing a HERC. As the lack of a position for a partner is a significant barrier to women’s employment in academia, a HERC can serve to advance women in academia in our geographic region, rather than at UNL alone. 3. Contributions to Human Resource Development How have results from your project contributed to human resource development in STEM?
a. Graduate Student Training Four graduate students (Master’s candidates) are working with Falci and McQuillan on Master’s Theses from the baseline data collection. One graduate student is funded through the grant working with Falci on various analyses of the data
b. Graduate Student Models for Success in STEM Paths to Success luncheon series provides graduate students in STEM with role models who demonstrate work-life balance.
c. Diversity Initiative and its integration with ADVANCE-Nebraska UNL is launching a major initiative to increase the diversity of its faculty and student body in Fall 2009 entitled “The Diversity Initiative”. This Initiative was in the planning stages when Proposition 424 was placed on the 2008 statewide ballot to eliminate affirmative action hiring practices in state and local governments. Chancellor Harvey Perlman pledged in his 2008 State of the University address that the amendment would not slow efforts to diversify the UNL campus, even though the
36 initiative passed resoundingly (in part due to mis-information about the impact of the ballot, and not least because of its title: “The Civil Rights Initiative” [sic]). The Diversity Initiative has goals, objectives and programs that are aligned with those of ADVANCE-Nebraska, and we will be co-sponsoring chair and faculty workshops in the coming year to disseminate and help faculty implement best practices to broaden and deepen applicant pools for faculty positions. Our first chair workshop is planned for September 17 and will feature results from the focus groups of search committee chairs conducted by ADVANCE-Nebraska and a presentation on applicant pool data from ADVANCE’s Recruit-Nebraska Committee.
d. Changes in data gathering by Institutional Research As the ADVANCE-Nebraska evaluation team gathered data during our first year, we noticed areas where data gathering and reporting by UNL’s Institutional Research and Planning office could be improved. For example, two of our target STEM departments were not required to collect space data. Beginning the next fiscal year (2009-10), these departments will participate in the annual space survey.
e. Changes in data gathering by the Office of Equity, Access and Diversity (EAD) The EAD office compiles data on searches for every position administered by the UNL campus, making it time-consuming to weed out search data (applicant pools, hiring) just for faculty, let alone for STEM faculty. We will be working with EAD to have their notification of permission to search forms indicate whether the position is faculty or not, and whether it is tenure-track.
f. Recruit-Nebraska and Promote-Nebraska Committees As indicated in “Activities and Findings” (Section I-D.c.i.), these committees of tenured faculty have been meeting every two to three weeks since their inception in February, 2009. They have already begun to share what they have learned with the faculty in their own departments. This includes: size of the applicant pools by gender for each sub-discipline, the numbers of women in STEM departments and how these compare to national averages (Donna Nelson’s data), and the impact of implicit bias, the use of different language to evaluate male v. female applications. These Committees will be presenting their finding along with promotion of Best Practices to all STEM search committee chairs beginning Fall, 2009. 4. Contributions to Resources for Research & Education How have results from your project contributed to physical, institutional, and information resources for research and education (beyond producing specific products reported elsewhere)? The ADVANCE program enabled Assistant Professor of Sociology Falci to conduct original research on social networks in academia. We modified COACHE surveys to incorporate information from faculty in all ranks, not just pre- tenured faculty. This “all rank” survey is now being used by four other academic institutions. Additionally, the COACHE team is applying for grant funding to create a survey specifically focused on full professors to assess engagement, productivity, and satisfaction. Falci developed a new graduate level social network analysis class taught in the 3-week summer pre-session (2009). Nine graduate students enrolled in the course, seven from the Department of Sociology and two from the Business College. The seminar introduced social network analysis to graduate students, emphasizing its theoretical, methodological, and substantive foundations. Students learned about key network concepts and how to collect network data; performed basic network analyses and graph visualization; and explored the application of social network analysis in empirical research within sociology and related disciplines. 5. Contributions Beyond Science and Engineering How have results from your project contributed to the public welfare beyond science and engineering (e.g., by inspiring commercialized technology or informing regulatory policy)?
37
See responses to #1. Section II. Report on NSF Indicators and Program Evaluation Section II-A. Evaluation Plan Overview Regular meetings are held to discuss the various evaluation components. Most meetings involve the core evaluation team (Nancy Busch, Mindy Anderson-Knott, and Julie McQuillan), as well as Holmes and Hochstein. Additional people that have attended meetings periodically include Christina Falci, Patricia Hill, Michelle Johnston, and Dan Hoyt. Through these meetings, the evaluation team developed an event evaluation survey, a faculty exit survey, a chair exit survey, and a set of questions for the focus groups with the search committee chairs. Communications between the evaluation team and personnel from the ADVANCE-Nebraska Office have been beneficial both from an evaluation development and a programmatic standpoint. The discussions have been fruitful and have resulted in mid-course programmatic corrections and changes in evaluation planning. With input from the external evaluator, Ann Austin, an evaluation plan was developed to outline the core components to be evaluated. The following table summarizes the evaluation plan for ADVANCE- Nebraska. Goal Goal/Objective/ Activities Process Evaluation Outcome # Outcome Evaluation 1 Increase the Recruitment 1. Ambassador reports (tracking # of women number of Ambassadors recruits in the applicant pool); 2. in the women STEM Possibly an item on PeoplAdmin STEM faculty at UNL. asking how they heard about job applicant pool RECRUIT-NE Post-search surveys of search develops and committees and department chairs distributes (value of materials, how materials "recruitment" best were used) practice materials for departments Showcase Visitors 1. Informal followup interviews with visitors (perceptions of UNL, likelihood of applying or recommending others apply); 2. tracking their name in future applicant pools; 3. Possibly PeoplAdmin to track references Department 1. Departmental reports (tracking Diversity Grants recruits in applicant pool from departmental efforts); 2. Possibly PeoplAdmin
Dual Career 1. # of Dual Career hires made with # of women Program assistance from ADVANCE- hired into Nebraska; 2. Post-search survey of STEM search committees, department tenure and chairs, and candidates (perceptions of tenure-track dual career process) positions at UNL
38 PROMOTE-NE Post-search surveys of search develops and committees and department chairs distributes (value of materials, how materials "evaluation of were used) applicants" best practice materials for departments 2 Increase the PROMOTE-NE 1. Annual survey of P&T committees 1. # of retention of develops and (value of materials, how materials STEM women STEM distributes were used); 2. COACHE (perceptions women faculty and "promotion" best of fairness of the evaluation process) faculty support their practice materials retained; 2. promotion into for departments # of STEM positions of Information 1. COACHE (clarity and satisfaction women leadership. regarding Family with policies); 2. Post-search surveys promoted in Work of candidates (clarity and satisfaction rank; 3. # of Arrangements with policies) STEM (FFA), Family women in Friendly Policies leadership (FFP), and UNL positions daycare are clarified and disseminated Paths to Success Post-event surveys (networking, value luncheons of event's content) Writing retreats Post-event surveys (networking, value of event's content) and informal followups to track productivity of writing
Professional Post-event surveys (networking, value development of event's content, planned use of workshops material learned)
3 Conduct Map network COACHE and Networking Surveys Network innovative structures in Structures research on STEM and what network departments and connection structures best empirically to support the correlate network productivity academic structures with and success of faculty productivity satisfaction women STEM and job faculty, and what satisfaction factors Replicate COACHE and Networking Surveys # of network contribute to the programmatic connections development of elements that supportive enhance formal networks. and informal faculty networks
39 SECTION II-B. Report of Key Indicators Tables 1A -1D (Appendix Section III-A) list the number of men and women tenured and tenure- track faculty by department, rank and gender. Figure 1a shows that the percent of women tenured and tenure-track faculty is the highest for Social and Behavioral Sciences (SBS) in the College of Arts and Sciences, higher than all three STEM disciplines and SBS IANR. In 2008, 40% of all tenured and tenure-track faculty in SBS College of Arts and Sciences were women. In comparison, less than 20% of the faculty in other STEM and SBS disciplines were women, with 19% in STEM College of Arts and Sciences, 16% in SBS in the Institute of Agricultural and Natural Resources (IANR), 13% in STEM IANR, and 10% in STEM College of Engineering. From 2005 to the present, the percentage of women has increased in all disciplines except STEM IANR, which has remained at 13% since 2005. SBS IANR showed the most substantial increase from 2005 to the present, doubling from 8% women in 2005 to 16% in 2008. Figure 1a. Percent of UNL Tenured and Tenure track Faculty who are Women, in STEM and SBS Fields by College from 2005-2008. (Data from Tables 1A-1D)
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 STEM A & S STEM Engineering STEM IANR SBS A & S SBS IANR
Figure 1b shows the percentage of STEM tenured and tenure-track faculty that are women by rank from 2005 to 2008 (Table 1, Appendix Section III-A), with N representing the number of women. As the figure illustrates, women make up a larger percentage of assistant professors, followed by associate professors, and then full professors in STEM departments. The number of women has increased over time in the assistant professor and associate professor ranks, while the number at the full professor rank is stable, indicating a retention issue for associate and/or fully promoted women STEM faculty. In 2005, there were 20 women assistant professors in STEM disciplines, which rose to 24 in 2008. The number of women associate professors rose from 21 to 26 in the same time period. Because of this increase in assistant and associate professors, the difference between those ranks and full professors has grown over time. In 2005, 23% of STEM assistant professors and 15% of associate professors were women, compared to only 8% of full professors. In 2008, 26% of STEM assistant professors and 20% of associate professors were women, compared to only 8% of full professors.
40
Figure 1b. Percent of UNL Tenured and Tenure track Faculty who are Women, in STEM Fields by Rank from 2005-2008. (Data from Tables 1A-1D)
30% N=24 N=24 N=20 25% N=19 N=26 20% N=26 N=24 N=21 15%
10% N=20 N=20 N=19 N=20
5%
0% 2005 2006 2007 2008
Assistant Associate
Tables 2A-2D (Appendix Section III-A) provide the gender composition of STEM and SBS departments for tenured, tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty. Of the women employed in STEM positions that most likely require a PhD, less than a quarter (16-23%) were in non-tenure track positions between 2005 and 2008. Figure 2 shows that the percentage of men in non-tenure track positions is lower than that for women. Between 13-15% of STEM male faculty and 14-17% of SBS male faculty employed in PhD level STEM positions were in non-tenure track positions. In SBS, the percentage of women employed in non-tenure track positions is the highest, followed by women in STEM. About one-third of SBS female faculty (29-33%) and 16-24% of STEM female faculty employed in PhD level positions were in non-tenure track positions. It is interesting to note that the gap between genders employed in STEM non-tenure track positions has increased over time, while the gap in SBS has narrowed. The gap between men and women in STEM was only 4% in 2005 (15% males, 19% females), but has grown to 10% in 2008 (13% males, 23% females). The gender gap in SBS went from a 20% difference in 2005 (14% males, 33% females) to 13% in 2008 (16% males, 29% females). Figure 2. Percent of UNL Faculty in Non-Tenure Track PhD level STEM and SBS Positions by Gender from 2005-2008. (Data from Tables 2A-2D).
35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 STEM Women STEM Men SBS Women SBS Men
41
The outcomes of tenure reviews for STEM and SBS faculty are provided in Tables 3A-3B (Appendix Section III-A). Most faculty who applied for tenure were approved between 2005 and 2008 (Figure 3). There is no gender difference in tenure denials. Only two STEM faculty members were denied tenure, both of whom were male. Only one SBS faculty member was denied tenure, a female. We do not have data for persons who were discouraged at the departmental level from applying for tenure. The process of being promoted to associate professor occurred simultaneously with the tenure process for all faculty in STEM and SBS departments between 2005-2008. Because assistant professors attaining tenure were also promoted to associate professor at the same time, the data for promotion to associate is not presented here. Figure 3. Tenure Review Outcomes for STEM and SBS Disciples by Gender, 2005-2008. (Data from Tables 3A-3B) 100% 2 1 80% 60% 17 45 4 40% 8 Denial 20% Approval 0% STEM STEM Men SBS SBS Men Women Women
Tables 4A-4B (Appendix Section III-A) show the outcomes of promotion to full professor reviews for STEM and SBS faculty. Most faculty who applied for promotion were promoted to full professor between 2005 and 2008 (Figure 4). Of the three promotion denials in STEM, one was a woman and two were men. There were no promotion denials in SBS. We do not have data for persons who were discouraged at the departmental level from applying for promotion to full. Figure 4. Promotion Review Outcomes for STEM and SBS Disciplines by Gender: Associate to Full Professor, 2005-2008. (Data from Tables 4A-4B) 100% 1 2 80% 60% 46 38 40% 6 Denial 20% Approval 0% STEM STEM Men SBS SBS Men Women Women
Table 5A (Appendix Section III-A) provides the number of years at the associate professor rank for faculty hired as assistant professors. Figure 5 shows that in STEM departments, relatively few female associate professors who were hired as assistant professors have been at the associate rank for more than 8 years. The N in the figure above represents the number of associate professors with more than 8 years in that rank. From 2005 to 2008, only 8-13% of all STEM female associate professors who were originally hired as assistant professors have been associate professors for more than 8 years. In comparison, a much higher percentage of STEM male associate professors (39-42%) have been at that rank for more than 8 years. The trend has remained stable for both men and women in STEM from 2005 to 2008.
42
In contrast, within SBS, the rates of women at the associate rank for more than 8 years are higher than the rates for men. The rates within SBS fluctuate over time, but the number of associate professors is low and the interpretation of this data should take that into account. Men and women were in rank for nearly equal durations in 2005, with approximately 37% of all associate professors being at that rank for more than 8 years. However, the gap increased to a 19% difference in 2007, with 33% of women and 14% of men at the associate professor rank for more than 8 years. It is worth noting that although STEM men appear to be stalled at the associate professor rank, the distribution of years in rank for women and men associate professors is quite different over all. Fifty percent of women STEM associate professors have been at that rank only 0-2 years, while only 26% of men have been. The numbers are similar for SBS women and men (46% v. 26%). It is likely that the distribution of time in rank for women will become more similar to mens’, and thus will become more evenly distributed as newly hired assistant professors progress towards promotion. Most women associate professors in STEM at UNL have only been in that rank for a short time, so the timing of promotion for these women is still unknown. There is no gender difference to discuss among those hired as associate professors because there were no STEM women and only one SBS woman associate professor who was hired at this rank (Table 5b in Appendix Section III-A). Figure 5. Years in Rank at the Associate Professor Level for STEM and SBS Faculty Hired as Assistant professors, 2005-2008. (Data from Table 5a)1
60%
N=4 50% N=41 N=45 N=46 N=43 40% N=3 N=3 N=4 N=3 30% N=2 20% N=1 N=1 10% N=3 N=2 N=3 N=3 0% 2005 2006 2007 2008
STEM Women STEM Men SBS Women SBS Men
The number of exiting faculty is presented by gender, rank and department in Table 6 (Appendix Section III-A). Figure 6 illustrates the number of STEM and SBS faculty who left UNL
1 Due to some inconsistencies in the institutional data with the variable indicating the date a professor achieved their current rank, we used the date they achieved tenure to create table 5. While it is possible that a few cases may differ in their tenure date compared to the date they became associate professors, we believe this is very rare and therefore feel comfortable using tenure date to represent the date they were promoted to associate professor. As illustrated in Tables 3 and 4, there were no cases in which a faculty member was granted tenure, but not promoted to associate professor between 2005 and 2008. We also realize that the data reported in Fig. 5 does not provide the best portrayal of the story of stalled associate professors, as this was created using several snapshots of data. In the future, we plan to conduct a cohort analysis to investigate this issue more thoroughly. However, for this report, we will discuss years in rank by using tenure date.
43 between 2003 and 2008. The average representation was computed using data from Table 1, and is the average from 2005 through 2008. These averages are not directly comparable (data from 2003 and 2004 are not used in the computation from table 1), but are useful for comparisons: STEM women made up roughly 25% of the assistant professors between 2005 and 2008. The exit data show that only one female STEM assistant professor left between 2003 and 2008. This constitutes 8% of all exiting STEM assistant professors; a much smaller percentage than what constitutes women STEM professors as a whole. Women appear much less likely than men to exit at the assistant professor rank in STEM disciplines, thus the retention of women STEM assistant professors is high. This is not the same pattern for SBS women assistant professors who made up less than half of all assistant professors (47%) between 2005 and 2008, and who represented 56% of the exits within this rank between 2003 and 2008 (56%). Exiting among women appears to be more common at higher ranks for the STEM disciplines. From 2005 to 2008, approximately 17% of associate professors in STEM departments were women, whereas they make up a larger proportion (27%) of STEM women associate professors who left UNL. The pattern was similar among STEM women full professors. Between 2005 and 2008, 8% of full professors were women, while 17% of full professors who exited were women. These data indicate that retention of tenured STEM women faculty is an area of concern for UNL. The pattern of higher female exits at the higher ranks in comparison to overall representation is not found among SBS female faculty. For the SBS departments at the associate and full professor ranks from 2005 to 2008, women comprised 48% and 20%, of positions respectively. In contrast, 40% of exiting SBS associate professors, and 20% of exiting SBS full professors were women. Figure 6. Voluntary, Non-Retirement Attrition by Rank and Gender for STEM and SBS disciplines, 2003-2008. (Data from Table 6) 100%
80% 4 3 8 60% 10 4 12 40% Men 5 20% 2 Women 3 2 1 0% 1
Table 7 (Appendix Section III-A) shows the number of tenure and tenure-track faculty hired each year by gender, rank and department. As shown in Figures 7a for STEM and 7b for SBS, the percentage of women hired as assistant professors has fluctuated over the years for both STEM and SBS. The largest difference is in 2008, where all three assistant professor hires (100%) in SBS were women, compared to only 3 of the 16 assistant professor hires (19%) in STEM.
44
Figures 7a and 7b. New Assistant Professor Hires in STEM and SBS Disciplines by Gender, 2005- 2008. (Data from Table 7) 100% 90% 80% 70% 8 9 60% 14 13 50% 40% Men 30% 20% 7 4 10% 4 3 0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 STEM STEM STEM STEM
100%
80% 3 5 60% 5 3 40% Men
20% 2 3 1 0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 SBS SBS SBS SBS
Figure 7c explores the distribution of new tenure and tenure-track hires by rank. Most new hires between 2005 and 2007 were assistant professors (84 hires), followed by full professors (15 hires) and associate professors (8 hires). The difference between STEM and SBS in hiring assistant professors is 12%, with STEM hiring women for 29% of their assistant professor positions, compared to SBS hiring women for 41% of these positions. The gap grows larger as rank increases. In STEM, only one (17%) of associate professors hired was a women and there were no women hired at the full professor rank (0%). In comparison, 50% of associate and full professors hired in SBS were women.
45
Figure 7c. New Tenure and Tenure-Track Hires in STEM and SBS Disciplines by Gender and Rank, 2005-2008. (Data from Table 7) 100%
80% 13 1 1 44 60% 5 13 40% Men 20% 9 11 18 Women 1 0%
In addition to the data requested in the toolkit, we obtained data from Equity, Access, and Diversity to examine gender differences in the applicant pool and hiring selection process. The number of faculty hired according to these data does not correspond to the new hire data represented in Table 7 due to search waivers not being included in the EAD data as well as some other inconsistencies in the EAD database (e.g., incomplete or inaccurate information). The data entered into the EAD database is entered by several different people and appears to be done inconsistently. The ADVANCE-Nebraska team is aware of the problem and will attempt to improve data entry into the EAD database in future years. The data presented in this report represents the 30 position openings in STEM and SBS from 2005 through 2007 in which all of the hiring data was completed. Figure 7d compares the percentage of women in UNL’s STEM and SBS assistant professor applicant pools compared to the percentage of women awarded doctorates according to NSF national figures (comparison data was not available for Construction Management or Communication Studies). The number in parentheses beside the department name represents the number of positions that were available. In most cases, the same number of faculty were hired with the following exceptions: Biology and Political Science only had only 2 hires, Construction Management did not have a hire, and Math and Psychology had 4 hires. In all of the disciplines in which UNL hired an assistant professor, the percentage of women in the applicant pool is lower than the national average of women receiving doctorates, with the exception of Anthropology and Geography (the national average was computed as an average of these two disciplines). Among the STEM departments, the largest discrepancies are in Biological Sciences and Statistics, with approximately a 33% difference between the applicant pool and doctorates awarded. The applicant pools for Math, Electrical Engineering, and Physics were all within 5% of the doctorates awarded.
46
Figure 7d. Applicant Pools for New Assistant Professor Hires in STEM and SBS disciplines by Gender, 2005-2007.
Biological Sciences (3) Chemistry (2) Computer Science & … Construction Management (1) Electrical Engineering (2) Geosciences (3) Indust&Mgmt Syst Engineering… Mathematics (2) Physics & Astronomy (4) Statistics (2) Anthropology & Geography (1) Psychology (3) Communication Studies (1) Political Science (3)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
NSF 2005 Doctorates Awarded to Women (%) UNL Assistant Prof Applicant Pool % Women
The biggest challenge appears to be getting women into the applicant pool, but as Figure 7e demonstrates, the succeeding steps in the hiring process show a better representation of women in STEM. Figure 7e shows the percentage of women, men, and gender undisclosed selected from their gender-specific applicant pools for the short list, as well as those who were hired, and those who declined the position. Among the 131 women in the female applicant pool, 13% were selected for the short list compared to only 8% of the 834 men selected from the male applicant pool, and 4% of the gender undisclosed selected from their pool of 97. Men and women were hired and declined job offers at similar rates; with approximately 1-2% of the applicant pool from each gender either hired or declined the offer.
47
Figure 7e. Selection for Short List, Hired, and Declined Offers among Applicant Pools for Assistant Professor Hires in STEM Disciplines by Gender, 2005-2007. 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Short List Hired Declined
Women Men Undisclosed Gender
While STEM women are being selected for the short list at a higher proportion than men and are being hired at similar rates, the representation of women in the applicant pool remains vitally important. Figure 7f displays the percentage of each gender at each stage in the hiring process, with the number of cases shown within each bar. The applicant pool shows the greatest gender difference with women representing 12% of the total applicant pool. As discussed earlier, a higher proportion of women are being selected from the female applicant pool than men selected from the male pool, but because the applicant pool itself has so few women, women only represent 20% of the short list pool. Similarly, while women are being hired from within the female applicant pool at rates similar or higher to that of men, they only represent 17% of all STEM faculty hired. Thus, despite the lack of gender disparities in the hiring process that takes place after the application phase, the number of women hired remains limited due to the small representation of women in the applicant pool. Figure 7f. Percentage of Women, Men, and Gender Undisclosed at Each Stage of the Hiring Process for STEM Assistant Professor Hires, 2005-2007.
100% 97 4 2 80%
60% 64 834 13 14 40% 20% 131 17 3 2 0% Applicants Short List Hired Declined
Women Men Undisclosed Gender The representation of University leadership is presented in Table 8 (Appendix Section III-A), including the number of full professors, leadership positions, and committee membership by gender. Figure 8a presents the leadership positions held by women faculty at UNL in 2008. Committee membership lists include faculty, but exclude adjunct faculty, staff, and students. Figure 8a shows the number of women represented in tenured full professor positions, leadership positions and powerful committee membership across the University and within STEM and SBS specifically. The committees that were included are listed in Table 8 in Appendix Section III-A. As a reference point to illustrate the pool from which leadership positions are typically drawn, 20% of all tenured full
48 professors at UNL are women. Of all leadership positions at UNL, including Presidents, Chancellors, Vice Chancellors, Deans, Associate and Assistant Deans, Directors, and Department Heads/Chairs, 24% are women. The percentage of women in leadership positions is slightly higher than the full professor pool, and the percentage of women represented in powerful committees is even higher, with 30% of University-wide powerful committee members made up of women. The representation of women on powerful STEM and SBS department level committees is lower at only 18%. Figure 8a. Tenured Full Professors, University Leaders, and Powerful Committees Membership by Gender, 2008. (Data from Table 8) 100% 80% 119 60% 468 91 417 40% 20% 51 118 28 90 0% Tenured Leadership UNL STEM/SBS Full Positions Committee Dept Professors Committee
Men Women
While the representation of women in leadership positions at UNL is higher than the pool of full professors, the representation of STEM women is lacking. Figure 8b shows the academic area of leadership positions for women only, which includes UNL women tenured full professors, University leaders, and committee membership by discipline. Of the 118 female tenured full professors at UNL, 17% are STEM and 9% are SBS. Of the 28 females in leadership positions at UNL, only one woman (4%) from SBS holds a leadership position, and there are no women from STEM in leadership positions (0%). Of the 26 STEM and 8f SBS departments, only one woman heads a department in SBS and there are no women department heads in STEM. Of the 51 women who serve on powerful University level committees, 22% are STEM and 20% are SBS. However, it is worth noting that one SBS female administrator is represented in five different University level committees, which may explain the higher percentage among SBS. Figure 8b. Distribution of UNL Women as Tenured Full Professors, University Leaders, and Memberships in Powerful Committees by Discipline, 2008. (Data from Table 8)
100%
80% 30 60% 87 27 40% 10 20% 11 20 11 0% 1 Tenured Full Professors Leadership Positions UNL Committee
STEM Women SBS Women Other UNL Women
49
1 The number of SBS department referenced here is 8 instead of 7 because Anthropology and Geography split into two separate departments in 2007. SECTION II-C. Salary Study 1. UNL Model Summary UNL uses an analysis of covariance, or hierarchical multiple regression, to describe the relationship between a continuous dependent variable (salary) and one or more nominal independent variables. In other words, the UNL study takes into account gender-neutral factors or variables which would be expected to affect differing salary levels. With regard to faculty in the university setting, these gender-neutral variables include a faculty member's college, division or departmental grouping; faculty rank, number of years in rank, tenure status, graduate faculty status, education level, number of years since award of a terminal degree, year hired, chairperson status, active or on leave of absence with full or partial pay, professorship stipend level, and type of professorship (Regent's, Distinguished, College, et. al.). After accounting for these gender-neutral variables, the analysis discloses whether there is any disparity in faculty salary levels which is attributable to gender. Federal courts have held that in order for the coefficient for gender in a statistical study as described above to be legally significant, the coefficient must be "statistically significant". In Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court approved a "two or three standard deviation test" for determining statistical significance in the context of employment discrimination cases. That test is equivalent to obtaining a p-value of .05 or less for the gender coefficient. Therefore, the salary differentials will be considered significant, both statistically and legally, if the p-value for the gender coefficient is .05 or less. 2. NSF ADVANCE Analysis Referring to the Toolkit, a similar framework as above is referenced. Specifically, "regressing salaries on gender, while controlling for [specific variables], allows you to determine the net effect of gender. The coefficient associated with gender can provide you with a measure of the magnitude of any statistically significant gender difference in pay" (pg. 17). However, unlike those variables listed above, the Toolkit mentions: rank, experience, years at institution, age, ethnicity, discipline, administrative appointment, and past administrative appointments for those faculty identified in STEM fields.
a. Variables "Past administrative appointments" was identified as a suggested variable. For this study, that particular variable was not used as the data do not exist currently. Also, several variables from the UNL operational model were used that fit into the Toolkit model or that reasonably match the intent of suggested variables. Specifically: Rank = Rank Experience = Years in rank, tenure status Years at institution = Hire year Ethnicity = Ethnicity Discipline = College Administrative appointment = Chair status, professorship, professorship class
b. Results The variables above were entered into a GLM procedure in SAS 9.2. The results revealed a p- value of .23 when comparing the salaries of men and women in STEM fields after controlling for the effects of the aforementioned variables. Therefore, no statistical difference exists between the
50 salaries of men and women STEM faculty at UNL for AY2008-09. Here is a summary table:
51 Section III. Appendices Section III-A. Baseline Demographics
52 TABLE 1A. Number and Percent of Women Tenured and Tenure track Faculty in STEM and SBS Fields by Rank and Department, 2005
Women Men Percent Women Assistant Associate Full Total Assistant Associate Full Total Assistant Associate Full Total STEM 20 21 20 61 67 123 227 417 23% 15% 8% 13% College of Arts & Sciences Biological Sciences 34310 491124 43% 31% 21% 29% Chemistry 0011 441220 0% 0% 8% 5% Computer Science & Engineering 2103 66820 25% 14% 0% 13% Geosciences 1023 241016 33% 0% 17% 16% Mathematics 1315 2101729 33% 23% 6% 15% Physics & Astronomy 0202 541221 0% 33% 0% 9% Statistics 0112 2248 0% 33% na 20% Total 711826 25 39 74 138 22% 22% 10% 16%
College of Engineering Architectural Engineering 2002 1438 67%0%0%20% Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 0112 03710 na 25% 13% 17% Civil Engineering 0101 28818 0% 11% 0% 5% Computer & Electronics Engineering 1001 2338 33%0%0%11% Construction Management 0000 3407 0% 0% na 0% Construction Systems 0000 45211 0% 0% 0% 0% Electrical Engineering 0000 18918 0% 0% 0% 0% Engineering Mechanics 0101 3418 0% 20% 0% 11% Industrial and Management Systems 0202 22610 0% 50% 0% 17% Mechanical Engineering 0011 46515 0% 0% 17% 6% Total 35210 22 47 44 113 12% 10% 4% 8%
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units Agronomy & Horticulture 2215 173139 67% 22% 3% 11% Animal Science 1225 441321 20% 33% 13% 19% Biochemistry 2013 32611 40% 0% 14% 21% Biological Systems Engineering 0000 55919 0% 0% 0% 0% Entomology 1001 0279 100% 0% 0% 10% Food Science & Technology 1113 12710 50% 33% 13% 23% Plant Pathology 1012 25512 33% 0% 17% 14% School of Natural Resources 2035 381930 40% 0% 14% 14% Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences 0011 121215 0% 0% 8% 6% Total 10 5 10 25 20 37 109 166 33% 12% 8% 13%
SBS 11811301213457048%38%20%30% College of Arts & Sciences Anthropology & Geography 3216 2079 60% 100% 13% 40% Communication Studies 1124 1023 50% 100% 50% 57% Political Science 1012 23712 33% 0% 13% 14% Psychology 3249 34916 50% 33% 31% 36% Sociology 2327 2057 50% 100% 29% 50% Total 10 8 10 28 10 7 30 47 50% 53% 25% 37%
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication 0000 0426 na 0% 0% 0% Agricultural Economics 1012 221317 33%0%7%11% Total 1 0 1 2 261523 33%0%6%8%
Source: Institutional Research and Planning, October, 2005
53 TABLE 1B. Number and Percent of Women Tenured and Tenure track Faculty in STEM and SBS Fields by Rank and Department, 2006
Women Men Percent Women Assistant Associate Full Total Assistant Associate Full Total Assistant Associate Full Total STEM 19 24 20 63 68 122 232 422 22% 16% 8% 13% College of Arts & Sciences Biological Sciences 35210 581124 38% 38% 15% 29% Chemistry 0011 541221 0% 0% 8% 5% Computer Science & Engineering 2103 56920 29% 14% 0% 13% Geosciences 1023 341017 25% 0% 17% 15% Mathematics 1225 281929 33% 20% 10% 15% Physics & Astronomy 0202 541120 0% 33% 0% 9% Statistics 1113 1258 50% 33% 17% 27% Total 8 11 8 27 26 36 77 139 24% 23% 9% 16%
College of Engineering Architectural Engineering 1102 2439 33% 20% 0% 18% Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 0101 03710 na 25% 0% 9% Civil Engineering 1102 29819 33% 10% 0% 10% Computer & Electronics Engineering 0101 43310 0% 25% 0% 9% Construction Management 0000 3407 0% 0% na 0% Construction Systems 0000 45211 0% 0% 0% 0% Electrical Engineering 0000 181019 0% 0% 0% 0% Engineering Mechanics 0101 2327 0% 25% 0% 13% Industrial and Management Systems 0112 1269 0% 33% 14% 18% Mechanical Engineering 0011 36615 0% 0% 14% 6% Total 2 6 2102247471168%11%4%8%
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units Agronomy & Horticulture 1315 182837 50% 27% 3% 12% Animal Science 1326 361221 25% 33% 14% 22% Biochemistry 3014 31610 50% 0% 14% 29% Biological Systems Engineering 0000 551020 0% 0% 0% 0% Entomology 0101 02810 na 33% 0% 9% Food Science & Technology 1012 22812 33% 0% 11% 14% Plant Pathology 1012 14510 50% 0% 17% 17% School of Natural Resources 2035 491932 33% 0% 14% 14% Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences 0011 121215 0% 0% 8% 6% Total 9 7 10 26 20 39 108 167 31% 15% 8% 13%
SBS 11 9 11 31 14 9 46 69 44% 50% 19% 31% College of Arts & Sciences Anthropology & Geography 2316 3069 40% 100% 14% 40% Communication Studies 2125 1023 67% 100% 50% 63% Political Science 0112 23712 0% 25% 13% 14% Psychology 3148 331016 50% 25% 29% 33% Sociology 3328 2057 60% 100% 29% 53% Total 10 9 10 29 11 6 30 47 48% 60% 25% 38%
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication 0 0 0 0 0336 na 0% 0% 0% Agricultural Economics 1012 301316 25% na 7% 11% Total1 0 1 2 3 3 162225%0%6%8%
Source: Institutional Research and Planning, October, 2006
54 TABLE 1C. Number and Percent of Women Tenured and Tenure track Faculty in STEM and SBS Fields by Rank and Department, 2007
Women Men Percent Women Assistant Associate Full Total Assistant Associate Full Total Assistant Associate Full Total STEM 24 26 19 69 65 117 231 413 27% 18% 8% 14% College of Arts & Sciences Biological Sciences 36211 391123 50% 40% 15% 32% Chemistry 1012 451120 20%0%8%9% Computer Science & Engineering 2103 57820 29% 13% 0% 13% Geosciences 0123 43916 0% 25% 18% 16% Mathematics 2136 362130 40% 14% 13% 17% Physics & Astronomy 0202 731121 0% 40% 0% 9% Statistics 2114 1269 67% 33% 14% 31% Total 10 12 9 31 27 35 77 139 27% 26% 10% 18%
College of Engineering Architectural Engineering 1102 2428 33% 20% 0% 20% Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 0 1 0 1 03710 na 25% 0% 9% Civil Engineering 1102 28919 33% 11% 0% 10% Computer & Electronics Engineering 0101 3339 0% 25% 0% 10% Construction Management 0000 1618 0% 0% 0% 0% Construction Systems 1001 45211 20%0%0%8% Electrical Engineering 2002 17917 67%0%0%11% Engineering Mechanics 0101 1427 0% 20% 0% 13% Industrial and Management Systems 0112 2158 0% 50% 17% 20% Mechanical Engineering 0011 35715 0% 0% 13% 6% Total 56213 19 46 47 112 21% 12% 4% 10%
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units Agronomy & Horticulture 1315 282535 33% 27% 4% 13% Animal Science 0213 151117 0% 29% 8% 15% Biochemistry 3003 3137 50%0%0%30% Biological Systems Engineering 1001 361019 25%0%0%5% Entomology 0101 11911 0% 50% 0% 8% Food Science & Technology 0112 12912 0% 33% 10% 14% Plant Pathology 1012 13610 50% 0% 14% 17% School of Natural Resources 2136 482032 33% 11% 13% 16% Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences 1012 321419 25%0%7%10% Total 98825 19 36 107 162 32% 18% 7% 13%
SBS 12 9 12 33 18 8 46 72 40% 53% 21% 31% College of Arts & Sciences Anthropology & Geography 1416 40610 20% 100% 14% 38% Communication Studies 2125 1023 67% 100% 50% 63% Political Science 0123 34613 0% 20% 25% 19% Psychology 2147 321116 40% 33% 27% 30% Sociology 5229 3058 63% 100% 29% 53% Total 10 9 11 30 14 6 30 50 42% 60% 27% 38%
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication 1001 1236 50%0%0%14% Agricultural Economics 1012 301316 25% na 7% 11% Total 2 0 1 3 421622 33%0%6%12%
Source: Institutional Research and Planning, October, 2007
55 TABLE 1D. Number and Percent of Women Tenured and Tenure track Faculty in STEM and SBS Fields by Rank and Department, 2008
Women Men Percent Women Assistant Associate Full Total Assistant Associate Full Total Assistant Associate Full Total STEM 24 27 20 71 70 109 237 416 26% 20% 8% 15% College of Arts & Sciences Biological Sciences 56213 581124 50% 43% 15% 35% Chemistry 1012 431118 20%0%8%10% Computer Science & Engineering 2103 37919 40% 13% 0% 14% Geosciences 0123 43916 0% 25% 18% 16% Mathematics 2136 262129 50% 14% 13% 17% Physics & Astronomy 0101 821222 0% 33% 0% 4% Statistics 2114 1269 67% 33% 14% 31% Total 12 11 9 32 27 31 79 137 31% 26% 10% 19%
College of Engineering Architectural Engineering 1102 2226 33% 33% 0% 25% Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 0101 0279 na 33% 0% 10% Civil Engineering 2103 37919 40% 13% 0% 14% Computer & Electronics Engineering 0101 2439 0% 20% 0% 10% Construction Management 0000 1618 0% 0% 0% 0% Construction Systems 1001 36211 25%0%0%8% Electrical Engineering 2002 351119 40%0%0%10% Engineering Mechanics 0101 2428 0% 20% 0% 11% Industrial and Management Systems 0011 2169 0% 0% 14% 10% Mechanical Engineering 0011 25714 0% 0% 13% 7% Total 65213 20 42 50 112 23% 11% 4% 10%
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units Agronomy & Horticulture 0325 362433 0% 33% 8% 13% Animal Science 0213 251118 0% 29% 8% 14% Biochemistry 1203 3249 25% 50% 0% 25% Biological Systems Engineering 1001 361019 25%0%0%5% Entomology 0101 11911 0% 50% 0% 8% Food Science & Technology 0112 22913 0% 33% 10% 13% Plant Pathology 1012 13610 50% 0% 14% 17% School of Natural Resources 2136 372131 40% 13% 13% 16% Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences 1113 541423 17% 20% 7% 12% Total 6119 26 23 36 108 167 21% 23% 8% 13%
SBS 16 10 11 37 15 9 46 70 52% 53% 19% 35% College of Arts & Sciences Anthropology & Geography 1416 3069 25% 100% 14% 40% Communication Studies 2024 1023 67% na 50% 57% Political Science 1124 34613 25% 20% 25% 24% Psychology 4138 321116 57% 33% 21% 33% Sociology 63211 3058 67% 100% 29% 58% Total 14 9 10 33 13 6 30 49 52% 60% 25% 40%
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication 2002 1236 67%0%0%25% Agricultural Economics 0112 111315 0% 50% 7% 12% Total 2 1 1 4 231621 50% 25% 6% 16%
Source: Institutional Research and Planning, October, 2008
56 TABLE 2A. STEM and SBS Departmental Gender Composition of Faculty Holding PhD's, 2005
Tenured and Tenure Track Non-Tenure Track Non-Tenure Non-Tenure Track as % Track as % STEM Fields % % All Faculty All Women All Women Women All Women Women College of Arts & Sciences 164 26 16% 42 6 14% 20% 19% Biological Sciences 34 10 29% 5 0 0% 13% 0% Chemistry 21 1 5% 8 2 25% 28% 67% Computer Science & Engineering 23 3 13% 2 0 0% 8% 0% Geosciences 19 3 16% 5 0 0% 21% 0% Mathematics 34 5 15% 14 3 21% 29% 38% Physics & Astronomy 23 2 9% 6 0 0% 21% 0% Statistics 10 2 20% 2 1 50% 17% 33%
College of Engineering 123 10 8% 24 4 17% 16% 29% Architectural Engineering 10 2 20% 3 0 0% 23% 0% Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 12 2 17% 2 1 50% 14% 33% Civil Engineering 19 1 5% 7 1 14% 27% 50% Computer & Electronics Engineering 9 1 11% 2 1 50% 18% 50% Construction Management 7 0 0% 2 0 0% 22% 0% Construction Systems 11 0 0% 2 0 0% 15% 0% Electrical Engineering 18 0 0% 2 0 0% 10% 0% Engineering Mechanics 9111%00na0%0% Industrial and Management Systems 12 2 17% 3 0 0% 20% 0% Mechanical Engineering 16 1 6% 1 1 100% 6% 50%
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 191 25 13% 19 4 21% 9% 14% Agronomy & Horticulture 44 5 11% 4 1 25% 8% 17% Animal Science 26 5 19% 3 2 67% 10% 29% Biochemistry 14 3 21% 3 0 0% 18% 0% Biological Systems Engineering 19 0 0% 0 0 na 0% 0% Entomology 10 1 10% 0 0 na 0% 0% Food Science & Technology 13 3 23% 0 0 na 0% 0% Plant Pathology 14 2 14% 1 0 0% 7% 0% School of Natural Resources 35 5 14% 5 1 20% 13% 17% Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences 16 1 6% 3 0 0% 16% 0%
TOTAL STEM 478 61 13% 85 14 16% 15% 19%
Tenured and Tenure Track Non-Tenure Track Non-Tenure Non-Tenure Track as % Track as % SBS Fields % % All Faculty All Women All Women Women All Women Women College of Arts & Sciences 75 28 37% 21 12 57% 22% 30% Anthropology & Geography 15 6 40% 4 1 25% 21% 14% Communication Studies 7 4 57% 4 3 75% 36% 43% Political Science 14 2 14% 0 0 na 0% 0% Psychology 25 9 36% 8 4 50% 24% 31% Sociology 14 7 50% 5 4 80% 26% 36%
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 25 2 8% 5 3 60% 17% 60% Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication 6 0 0% 3 3 100% 33% 100% Agricultural Economics 19 2 11% 2 0 0% 10% 0%
TOTAL SBS 100 30 30% 26 15 58% 21% 33%
Source: Institutional Research and Planning, October, 2005
57 TABLE 2B. STEM and SBS Departmental Gender Composition of Faculty Holding PhD's, 2006
Tenured and Tenure Track Non-Tenure Track Non-Tenure Non-Tenure Track as % Track as % STEM Fields % % of All Faculty All Women All Women Women All Women Women College of Arts & Sciences 166 27 16% 36 6 17% 18% 18% Biological Sciences 34 10 29% 6 0 0% 15% 0% Chemistry 22 1 5% 6 1 17% 21% 50% Computer Science & Engineering 23 3 13% 2 0 0% 8% 0% Geosciences 20 3 15% 1 0 0% 5% 0% Mathematics 34 5 15% 12 4 33% 26% 44% Physics & Astronomy 22 2 9% 8 1 13% 27% 33% Statistics 11 3 27% 1 0 0% 8% 0%
College of Engineering 126 10 8% 21 3 14% 14% 23% Architectural Engineering 11 2 18% 2 0 0% 15% 0% Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 1119%1 00%8%0% Civil Engineering 21 2 10% 3 1 33% 13% 33% Computer & Electronics Engineering 11 1 9% 2 1 50% 15% 50% Construction Management 7 0 0% 3 0 0% 30% 0% Construction Systems 11 0 0% 2 0 0% 15% 0% Electrical Engineering 19 0 0% 3 0 0% 14% 0% Engineering Mechanics 8113%00na0%0% Industrial and Management Systems 11 2 18% 4 0 0% 27% 0% Mechanical Engineering 16 1 6% 1 1 100% 6% 50%
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 193 26 13% 20 3 15% 9% 10% Agronomy & Horticulture 42 5 12% 5 0 0% 11% 0% Animal Science 27 6 22% 3 2 67% 10% 25% Biochemistry 14 4 29% 2 0 0% 13% 0% Biological Systems Engineering 2000%1 00%5%0% Entomology 11 1 9% 2 0 0% 15% 0% Food Science & Technology 14 2 14% 0 0 na 0% 0% Plant Pathology 12 2 17% 1 0 0% 8% 0% School of Natural Resources 37 5 14% 3 1 33% 8% 17% Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences 16 1 6% 3 0 0% 16% 0%
TOTAL STEM 485 63 13% 77 12 16% 14% 16%
Tenured and Tenure Track Non-Tenure Track Non-Tenure Non-Tenure Track as % Track as % SBS Fields % % of All Faculty All Women All Women Women All Women Women College of Arts & Sciences 76 29 38% 20 9 45% 21% 24% Anthropology & Geography 15 6 40% 5 1 20% 25% 14% Communication Studies 8 5 63% 3 1 33% 27% 17% Political Science 14 2 14% 0 0 na 0% 0% Psychology 24 8 33% 7 3 43% 23% 27% Sociology 15 8 53% 5 4 80% 25% 33%
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 24 2 8% 7 4 57% 23% 67% Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication 6 0 0% 7 4 57% 54% 100% Agricultural Economics 18 2 11% 0 0 na 0% 0%
TOTAL SBS 100 31 31% 27 13 48% 21% 30%
Source: Institutional Research and Planning, October, 2006
58 TABLE 2C. STEM and SBS Departmental Gender Composition of Faculty Holding PhD's, 2007
Tenured and Tenure Track Non-Tenure Track Non-Tenure Non-Tenure Track as % Track as % STEM Fields % % of All Faculty All Women All Women Women All Women Women College of Arts & Sciences 170 31 18% 34 9 26% 17% 23% Biological Sciences 34 11 32% 4 0 0% 11% 0% Chemistry 22 2 9% 9 2 22% 29% 50% Computer Science & Engineering 23 3 13% 3 0 0% 12% 0% Geosciences 19 3 16% 3 1 33% 14% 25% Mathematics 36 6 17% 12 5 42% 25% 45% Physics & Astronomy 2329%2 00%8%0% Statistics 13 4 31% 1 1 100% 7% 20%
College of Engineering 125 13 10% 25 5 20% 17% 28% Architectural Engineering 10 2 20% 1 0 0% 9% 0% Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 1119%1 00%8%0% Civil Engineering 21 2 10% 8 2 25% 28% 50% Computer & Electronics Engineering 10 1 10% 2 1 50% 17% 50% Construction Management 8 0 0% 3 0 0% 27% 0% Construction Systems 1218%1 00%8%0% Electrical Engineering 19 2 11% 4 0 0% 17% 0% Engineering Mechanics 8 1 13% 2 1 50% 20% 50% Industrial and Management Systems 10 2 20% 2 0 0% 17% 0% Mechanical Engineering 16 1 6% 1 1 100% 6% 50%
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 187 25 13% 22 6 27% 11% 19% Agronomy & Horticulture 40 5 13% 5 0 0% 11% 0% Animal Science 20 3 15% 2 2 100% 9% 40% Biochemistry 10 3 30% 1 0 0% 9% 0% Biological Systems Engineering 20 1 5% 2 1 50% 9% 50% Entomology 1218%1 00%8%0% Food Science & Technology 14 2 14% 0 0 na 0% 0% Plant Pathology 12 2 17% 0 0 na 0% 0% School of Natural Resources 38 6 16% 6 2 33% 14% 25% Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences 21 2 10% 5 1 20% 19% 33%
TOTAL STEM 482 69 14% 81 20 25% 14% 22%
Tenured and Tenure Track Non-Tenure Track Non-Tenure Non-Tenure Track as % Track as % SBS Fields % % of All Faculty All Women All Women Women All Women Women College of Arts & Sciences 80 30 38% 22 11 50% 22% 27% Anthropology & Geography 16 6 38% 3 1 33% 16% 14% Communication Studies 8 5 63% 3 2 67% 27% 29% Political Science 16 3 19% 1 1 100% 6% 25% Psychology 23 7 30% 10 4 40% 30% 36% Sociology 17 9 53% 5 3 60% 23% 25%
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 25 3 12% 5 3 60% 17% 50% Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication 7 1 14% 4 3 75% 36% 75% Agricultural Economics 18 2 11% 1 0 0% 5% 0%
TOTAL SBS 105 33 31% 27 14 52% 20% 30%
Source: Institutional Research and Planning, October, 2007
59 Table 2D. STEM and SBS Departmental Gender Composition of Faculty Holding PhD's, 2008
Tenured and Tenure Track Non-Tenure Track Non-Tenure Non-Tenure Track as % Track as % STEM Fields % % of All Faculty All Women All Women Women All Women Women College of Arts & Sciences 169 32 19% 35 10 29% 17% 24% Biological Sciences 37 13 35% 4 0 0% 10% 0% Chemistry 20 2 10% 8 2 25% 29% 50% Computer Science & Engineering 22 3 14% 3 1 33% 12% 25% Geosciences 19 3 16% 3 1 33% 14% 25% Mathematics 35 6 17% 12 3 25% 26% 33% Physics & Astronomy 23 1 4% 4 2 50% 15% 67% Statistics 13 4 31% 1 1 100% 7% 20%
College of Engineering 125 13 10% 22 5 23% 15% 28% Architectural Engineering 8225%100% 11% 0% Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 10 1 10% 1 0 0% 9% 0% Civil Engineering 22 3 14% 7 3 43% 24% 50% Computer & Electronics Engineering 10 1 10% 0 0 na 0% 0% Construction Management 800%400% 33% 0% Construction Systems 1218%1 00% 8% 0% Electrical Engineering 21 2 10% 3 0 0% 13% 0% Engineering Mechanics 9111%00na 0% 0% Industrial and Management Systems 10 1 10% 3 1 33% 23% 50% Mechanical Engineering 15 1 7% 2 1 50% 12% 0%
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 193 26 13% 24 6 25% 11% 19% Agronomy & Horticulture 38 5 13% 5 0 0% 12% 0% Animal Science 21 3 14% 2 2 100% 9% 40% Biochemistry 12 3 25% 1 0 0% 8% 0% Biological Systems Engineering 2015%2 00% 9% 0% Entomology 1218%2 00% 14% 0% Food Science & Technology 15 2 13% 0 0 na 0% 0% Plant Pathology 12 2 17% 1 0 0% 8% 0% School of Natural Resources 37 6 16% 6 3 50% 14% 33% Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences 26 3 12% 5 1 20% 16% 25%
TOTAL STEM 487 71 15% 81 21 26% 14% 23%
Tenured and Tenure Track Non-Tenure Track Non-Tenure Non-Tenure Track as % Track as % SBS Fields % % of All Faculty All Women All Women Women All Women Women College of Arts & Sciences 82 33 40% 25 14 56% 23% 30% Anthropology & Geography 15 6 40% 6 1 17% 29% 14% Communication Studies 7 4 57% 4 3 75% 36% 43% Political Science 17 4 24% 1 1 100% 6% 20% Psychology 24 8 33% 10 6 60% 29% 43% Sociology 19 11 58% 4 3 75% 17% 21%
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 25 4 16% 3 1 33% 11% 20% Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication 8 2 25% 3 1 33% 27% 33% Agricultural Economics 17 2 12% 0 0 na 0% 0%
TOTAL SBS 107 37 35% 28 15 54% 21% 29%
Source: Institutional Research and Planning, October, 2008
60
TABLE 3. STEM & SBS Tenure Review Outcomes by Gender and College, 2005-2008
STEM FIELDS # Reviews # Approvals # Denials Year: 2005 Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total Arts & Sciences 2 4 6 246 0 0 0 Engineering 1 4 5 145 0 0 0 Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 0 7 7 077 0 0 0 # Reviews # Approvals # Denials Year: 2006 Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total Arts & Sciences 1 2 3 112 0 1 1 Engineering 2 4 6 235 0 1 1 Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 3 5 8 358 0 0 0 # Reviews # Approvals # Denials Year: 2007 Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total Arts & Sciences 2 4* 6 24* 6 0 0 0 Engineering 0 5 5 055 0 0 0 Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 2 5** 7 25** 7 0 0 0 # Reviews # Approvals # Denials Year: 2008 Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total Arts & Sciences 1 1 2 112 0 0 0 Engineering 0 3 3 033 0 0 0 Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 3 3 6 336 0 0 0
SBS FIELDS # Reviews # Approvals # Denials Year: 2005 Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total Arts & Sciences 3 1 4 213 1 0 1 # Reviews # Approvals # Denials Year: 2006 Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total Arts & Sciences 2 0 2 202 0 0 0 Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 1*** 1**** 2 1*** 1**** 2 0 0 0 # Reviews # Approvals # Denials Year: 2007 Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total Arts & Sciences 2 1 3 213 0 0 0 # Reviews # Approvals # Denials Year: 2008 Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total
61
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 1 1 2 112 0 0 0
*Received tenure at rank of Professor **Received tenure in a change from a non-tenured faculty rank (Associate Research Professor) to a tenured faculty rank (Associate Professor) ***Received tenure at rank of Associate Professor without promotion to Professor ****Received tenure along with a promotion from Associate Professor to Professor
Source: Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2005-2008
62
TABLE 4. STEM & SBS Promotion Review Outcomes by Gender and College: Associate to Full Professor, 2005-2008
STEM FIELDS # Reviews # Approvals # Denials Year: 2005 Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total Arts & Sciences 0 6 6 05 5 0 1 1 Engineering 2 2 4 12 3 1 0 1 Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 1 5 6 15 6 0 0 0 # Reviews # Approvals # Denials Year: 2006 Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total Arts & Sciences 12 3 12 3 0 0 0 Engineering 1 4 5 13 4 0 1 1 Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 0 2 2 02 2 0 0 0 # Reviews # Approvals # Denials Year: 2007 Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total Arts & Sciences 13 4 13 4 0 0 0 Engineering 0 2 2 02 2 0 0 0 Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 0 7* 7 07* 7 0 0 0 # Reviews # Approvals # Denials Year: 2008 Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total Arts & Sciences 05** 5 05** 5 0 0 0 Engineering 0 4 4 04 4 0 0 0 Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 1 6 7 16 7 0 0 0
Social and Behavioral Sciences FIELDS
# Reviews # Approvals # Denials Year: 2005 Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total Arts & Sciences 1 3 4 13 4 0 0 0 Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 1 0 1 10 1 0 0 0 # Reviews # Approvals # Denials Year: 2006 Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total Arts & Sciences 0 1 1 01 1 0 0 0 Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 0 2 2 02 2 0 0 0 Year: 2007 # Reviews # Approvals # Denials
63
Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total Arts & Sciences 0 1 1 01 1 0 0 0 Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 # Reviews # Approvals # Denials Year: 2008 Women Men Total Women Men Total Women Men Total Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units 1 0 1 10 1 0 0 0
* Promotion to Associate Professor of Practice ** Promotion to Professor of Practice
Source: Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
2005-2008
64
TABLE 5A. Years in Rank at the Associate Professor Level for STEM and SBS Faculty Hired as Assistant Professors, 2005-2008
Year: 2005 STEM SBS Women Men Women Men Years in % of % of Number Number % of Men Number Number % of Men Rank Women Women 0-2 11 55% 31 27% 3 38% 4 36% 3-5 5 25% 24 21% 0 0% 3 27% 6-8 2 10% 13 12% 2 25% 0 0% 9-11 2 10% 22 19% 2 25% 2 18% 12-14 00%65%113%00% 15 or more 00%1715%00%218% Year: 2006 STEM SBS Women Men Women Men Years in % of % of Number Number % of Men Number Number % of Men Rank Women Women 0-2 15 42% 28 25% 4 50% 1 13% 3-5 4 11% 28 25% 0 0% 3 38% 6-8 14 67% 12 11% 0 0% 1 13% 9-11 3 8%1917%338%225% 12-14 00%109%113%00% 15 or more 00%1715%00%113% Year: 2007 STEM SBS Women Men Women Men Years in % of % of Number Number % of Men Number Number % of Men Rank Women Women 0-2 12 50% 29 27% 5 56% 2 29% 3-5 8 33% 25 23% 1 11% 2 29% 6-8 14%1211%00%229% 9-11 3 13% 12 11% 2 22% 0 0% 12-14 00%1615%111%00% 15 or more 00%1514%00%114% Year: 2008 STEM SBS Women Men Women Men Years in % of % of Number Number % of Men Number Number % of Men Rank Women Women 0-2 14 54% 25 26% 4 44% 2 25% 3-5 8 31% 22 23% 3 33% 3 38% 6-8 14%99%00%225% 9-11 28%99%222%00% 12-14 14%1819%00%00% 15 or more 00%1414%00%113%
Source: Institutional Research and Planning, 2005-2008
65 TABLE 5B. Years in Rank at the Associate Professor Level for STEM and SBS Faculty Hired as Associate Professors, 2005-2008
Year: 2005 SBS STEM Women Men Women Men Years in % of % of Number Number % of Men Number Number % of Men Rank Women Women 0-2 0 0% 2 40% 0 0% 0 0% 3-5 0 0% 2 40% 0 0% 1 100% 6-8 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 9-11 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 12-14 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 15 or more 0 0% 1 20% 0 0% 0 0% Year: 2006 SBS STEM Women Men Women Men Years in % of % of Number Number % of Men Number Number % of Men Rank Women Women 0-2 0 0% 3 60% 0 0% 0 0% 3-5 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 6-8 0 0% 1 20% 0 0% 0 0% 9-11 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 12-14 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 15 or more 0 0% 1 20% 0 0% 0 50% Year: 2007 SBS STEM Women Men Women Men Years in % of % of Number Number % of Men Number Number % of Men Rank Women Women 0-2 0 0% 1 20% 0 0% 1 50% 3-5 0 0% 2 40% 0 0% 0 0% 6-8 0 0% 1 20% 0 0% 0 0% 9-11 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 12-14 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 15 or more 0 0% 1 20% 0 0% 0 50% Year: 2008 SBS STEM Women Men Women Men Years in % of % of Number Number % of Men Number Number % of Men Rank Women Women 0-2 0 0% 3 43% 1 0% 1 0% 3-5 0 0% 2 29% 0 0% 0 50% 6-8 0 0% 1 14% 0 0% 0 0% 9-11 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 12-14 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 15 or more 0 0% 1 14% 0 0% 0 50%
Source: Institutional Research and Planning 2005-2008
66 TABLE 6. STEM and SBS Voluntary, Non-Retirement Attrition, by Rank and Gender, 2003-2008
STEM Fields Assistant Associate Full Professor Women Men Women Men Women Men College of Arts & Sciences 0 5 1 3 1 1 School of Biological Sciences 000001 Chemistry 000000 Computer Science & Engineering 000000 Geosciences 020100 Mathematics 010000 Physics & Astronomy 001100 Statistics 020110
Institute of Agriculture and Natural (IANR) Academic Units 031318 Agronomy and Horticulture 010002 Animal Science 001002 Biochemistry 010111 Biological Systems Engineering 000000 Entomology 000000 Food Science and Techonology 000000 Plant Pathology 000001 School of Natural Resources 0101*00 Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences 000102
College of Engineering 141201 Architectural Engineering 100100 Chemical Engineering 000000 Civil Engineering 010000 Computer & Electronics Engineering 010000 Construction Management 010000 Construction Systems 000000 Electrical Engineering 000001 Engineering Mechanics 010000 Industrial and Management Systems 001000 Mechanical Engineering 000100
STEM TOTAL 1 12 3 8 2 10
SBS Fields Assistant Associate Full Professor Women Men Women Men Women Men College of Arts & Sciences 5 3 2 3 1 2 Communication Studies 000100 Anthroplogy and Geography 010001 Psychology 311010 Political Science 111101 Sociology 100100
Institute of Agriculture and Natural (IANR) Academic Units 010002 Agricultural Economics 010002 Agricultural Leadership Education and Communication 000000
SBS TOTAL 542314
* Research Associate Professor (Tenure-Track)
Source: Payroll, January, 2003-April, 2008
67 TABLE 7. Number and Percent of New-Hires in STEM and SBS Fields by Rank and Department, 2005-2008
Assistant Associate Full STEM Fields Men Women % Women Men Women % Women Men Women % Women College of Arts & Sciences Biological Sciences 4 450%0 0na0 0na Chemistry 3 125%0 0na0 0na Computer Science & Engineering 2 133%0 0na0 0na Geosciences 400%00na100% Mathematics 2133%00na100% Physics & Astronomy 300%00na100% Statistics 0 2 100% 0 0 na 0 0 na
College of Engineering Architectural Engineering 200%00na00na Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 00na00na00na Civil Engineering 1267%00na100% Computer & Electronics Engineering 200%00na100% Construction Management 100%00na100% Construction Systems 2 133%0 0na0 0na Electrical Engineering 2 133%0 0na0 0na Engineering Mechanics 200%00na00na Industrial and Management Systems 100%00na00na Mechanical Engineering 100%00na00na
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units Agronomy & Horticulture 100%00na100% Animal Sciences 2 133%0 0na0 0na Biochemistry 1150%00na100% Biological Systems Engineering 1150%00na200% Entomology 00na00na100% Food Science & Technology 200%00na100% Plant Pathology 1 150%0 0na0 0na School of Natural Resources 2133%100%00na Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences 200%4120%100%
TOTAL STEM 44 18 29% 5 1 17% 13 0 0%
Assistant Associate Full SBS Fields Men Women % Women Men Women % Women Men Women % Women College of Arts & Sciences Anthropology & Geography 200%00na00na Communication Studies 00na00na00na Political Science 3 1 25% 1 0 0% 0 1 100% Psychology 3 350%0 0na0 0na Sociology 3 5 63% 0 1 100% 0 0 na
Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources (IANR) Academic Units Agricultural Leadership Education & Communication 00na00na100% Agricultural Economics 200%00na00na
TOTAL SBS 13 9 41% 1 1 50% 1 1 50%
Source: Institutional Research and Planning, 2005-2008
68 Table 8. Faculty Leadership Positions, 2008.
All Number of Women Faculty Faculty All STEM SBS Tenured Full Professors 586 118 20 11 Full Professors 608 123 20 11 STEM Department Heads/Chairs 26 0 0 0 SBS Department Heads/Chairs* 8 1 0 1 Deans 15 4 0 0 Associate Deans 19 8 0 0 Center Directors 38 9 0 0 President, Chancellor, Vice chancellors 13 6 0 0 TOTAL LEADERSHIP 119 28 0 1 * Anthropology and Geography split into two departments and now have two chairs Source: Institutional Research and Planning, October, 2008
University Professorships Committee 11 4 2 0 Instructional Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC) 18 5 0 1 International Programs Advisory Council (IPAC) 9 4 0 3 General Purpose Classroom Committee (GPAC) 13 3 0 0 Source: Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, 2008
Research Council 15 8 2 1 Radiation Safety Committee 9 1 1 0 Research Advisory Board (RAB) 22 7 4 1 Institutional Review Board (IRB) 12 4 0 1 Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) 15 3 1 1 Conflict of Interest in Research Committee (CIRC) 9 1 0 1 Institutional Biosafety Committee 6 0 0 0 Source: Office of Research, 2008
Academic Planning Committee 14 4 1 0 Rights and Responsibilities Committee 5 3 0 1 Curriculum Committee 12 4 0 0 Source: Institutional Research and Planning and Faculty Senate Website, 2008
Promotion and Tenure Committee (P&T) 276 44 32 12 Executive Committee 50 9 7 2 Graduate Admissions Committee 181 37 17 20 Source: Individual Departments, 2008 (Missing 3 departments)
TOTAL University-wide Committees 170 51 11 10 TOTAL Department-level Committees 507 90 56 34
69
Section III-B. Focus Group Study Questions The following is a guide to the questions asked during the focus groups of Search Committee Chairs. As is usual with focus groups, each subsequent groups may have had slightly different wording; we try to include all topics covered by the three groups in this synopsis. Introduction You were asked to participate because you have all served as a chair of Search Committee. The purpose of these focus groups are just to talk about how does the process work. One of the things that we’re realizing is that different departments do things differently and we’re hoping that we can talk about some of those differences today and just get a feel for what departments are doing. There’s no right or wrong answers but rather, people might have different experiences or opinions, so we’re hoping that you’ll feel free to share your point of view, even if it might be a little bit different than what somebody else has said here today. Before we get started, we have just a few ground rules to follow. This is strictly a research project, so your participation does not help or harm your relationship with the university. • Make sure you speak up, we’re recording this session today; we want to make sure that we get all your comments and hear you clearly. • Please allow only one person to speak at a time. • We’re going to be on a first name basis today, but in our later reports, no names are going to be included in any of the analyses. • Be assured that everything that we talk about today will remain confidential. • We’re guessing that some of you are probably familiar with each other and just out of respect for each other and the research we ask that whatever we’ve discussed today stays inside this room. • So, just to warm up, we will go around the room and say your first name and let us know how many committees you’ve been on and how many times you’ve been on the Search Committee Chair.
Q1: We’ve invited you today to help us learn more about how the Faculty Search Process works in your department. So, to help us sort of get in the groove and thinking about all of this, I’d like you to talk me through how all of this works. If it helps, you might want to think of me as a newcomer in your department, somebody who’s never done this before and needs to know the nuts and bolts about how the process works. The first question that we have for you is, help me understand how the Search Committee was formed. How did somebody like you, or me, get involved and how are you either selected to be part of the committee, or selected to be the chair of that committee- so, if anyone would jump in and feel free. Q2: Are graduate students always included on the committee? Q3: Does the chair/head of the department appoint the chair of the Search Committee? Q4: Does the chair/head select committee members alone or in consultation with the Search Committee Chair [or is there some other mechanism to populate the committee]? Q5: You mentioned something about the burden of serving on these committees, so [the composition of the committee involves] not only finding people in the right discipline or the right area, so that you have coverage across the areas, but this idea of not burdening people is also taken into consideration? Q6: Anything else about how committees are formed that is important? Q7: What size are [the search] committees? (i.e., how many people serve on a typical search committee?) Q8: Now that the committee has been selected, I’m guessing that the recruitment process begins? How does this phase of the process work? Could you tell me how your department or your
70 committee goes about advertising, recruiting, [etc] before you actually bring somebody in. How does that process work and who does it? Q9: Do you do have some restrictions on where you’re publishing the ads and what size they are [e.g., based on price, space]? Q10: Some of you have mentioned going to conferences to find potential candidates. How do you go about that? How do you know who’s a potential candidate, is that pretty clear? Again, I’m very unfamiliar with this process, so… Q11: When you say networking, you say, “We’re advertising, do you have any new students coming in?”- and that sort of thing? Q12: So out of all these different tactics, listservs, different sorts of publications, journals, word of mouth, sending emails to colleagues, going to conferences- what’s the most effective? So, just anecdotally from what you see…? Q13: You mentioned seeking diversity in the applicant pools, so not only just for that specific job, but also a wide variety- so not just a certain area, but a wide variety of people that might fit in that area, is what you’re going after so…and women, old, young, all sorts of different things. : Is that something that other departments are considering- that, you only need to make special efforts for certain groups or certain kinds of people? Q14: Alright, so you’ve done all your advertising and recruiting, and how many applicants you usually get? Q15: How do you go about reviewing all of these and who does what in this process? So, reviewing and evaluating, how does that all work? Anywhere from having 20 to 400 applicants? Q16: So who establishes the criteria- or is it already set before reviewing? Q17: So you prioritize [to create a short list]? Create a rank order? Q18: Is there, is there usually agreement between committee members about what, how this rank order goes- do you usually agree on who’s number one, two and three and that works smoothly or is there a lot of debate that goes on between committee members? Q19: Are all committee members involved in each stage of this process, so, even when you’re at conventions, or when you do phone interviews, are all committee members- or does the chair take the lead on some of these? Q20: Now all the applicants have been reviewed and evaluated and let’s say you have your short list of three - does everyone [i.e., each department] do the same kind of campus visit for short- list candidates? What happens for the candidate; do they all give a presentation? How long is the visit? How is it scheduled? Are meals planned, who attends what meal and what does the department pay for? Q21: Now that you’ve brought the candidates to campus, what happens next? Does the search committee make a recommendation? Is there a written summary for each candidate, and if so, who is responsible for the write-up?
71 Section III-C. Network and COACHE Surveys Additional Material 1. Falci Seed Grant Proposal to Conduct Networking and COACHE Surveys
SEED GRANT APPLICATION Faculty Networks and Departmental Climates in STEM at UNL Spring 2008 Christina Falci Assistant Professor Department of Sociology
72 Conceptual Overview The under representation of women and minorities on STEM department faculty is a serious problem in American Academic science (Beyond Bias and Barriers 2007). Many institutions and scholars are attempting to identify the barriers to having a more proportionally representative academic STEM workforce. One avenue of exploration is the importance of social networks for productivity and satisfaction. It is often theorized that a lack of inclusion in social networks disadvantages underrepresented faculty in STEM departments. Research in non-academic settings shows that network structure, i.e., the characteristics of the ties among actors within a network, is associated with worker productivity and perceptions of work climates (Burt 2000; Cross and Cummings 2004; Cummings and Cross 2003; Kildruff and Corley 2000; Casciaro 1998; Mehra, Kilduff and Brass 2001; Reagans and Zuckerman 2001; Sparrowe et al 2001). Research also shows that network structure varies by gender and race in non-academic settings (Burt 1998; Brass 1985; Ibarra 1992 & 1997). No research has investigated the social network structure of faculty within academia. It is unknown what type of “inclusion” is necessary for faculty to be productive and satisfied with departmental climates. Furthermore, no research has empirically tested how network structure varies by race and gender in academia, and whether the effect of network structure on faculty outcomes varies by gender and race. In order to create sustained departmental transformation for promoting and retaining under-represented faculty in STEM departments, we need to understand these basic research questions. Building on previous research in non-academic settings, we expect network structure to explain why under-represented faculty in STEM departments tend to have lower levels of productivity and less positive perceptions of departmental climate (Cole and Zuckerman 1984; Etzkowitz, Kemelgor, and Uzzi, 2000; Fox 2001; Mehra, Kilduff and Brass 1998; Xie and Shauman 1998; Turner & Myers 2000). Network structure is identified by measuring connections among faculty, such as having someone to ask for advice, to collaborate with or to socialize with. These connections can either provide access to critical resources or block the flow of resources necessary for success within academia to a faculty member. These connections can also provide opportunities to develop collegiality among departmental members, and a lack of connection should result in feelings of isolation and marginalization. Network theory predicts that both an actor’s location within a network and the overall structure of the network will present opportunities and impose constraints on an actor’s behavior and shape an actor’s perception of their environment (Brass et al 2004; Friedkin 2004; Kilduff, Tsai and Hanke 2006; Pescosolido and Rubin 2000; Wasserman and Faust 1994; Wellman 1988; Coleman 1988). Thus, two levels of network structure (the individual and departmental level) are likely to be important to faculty productivity and perceptions of departmental climates. Using a network mapping survey, this research will gather network data on STEM faculty at UNL to identify the network structure of faculty. Several network connections will be measured: research collaborations, committee memberships, informal mentoring and personal ties. Dr. Christina Falci will use network analysis to create numerous network structure measures both at the individual level, such as degree (number of ties within the network) and eigenvector centrality (the number of ties that are close to resource-providers), and at the departmental level, such as density (the percentage of possible network ties that are actual network ties) and clustering (the extent to which network ties are segmented into partitions or subgroups based on actor commonalities (e.g., gender). Upon creating these network measures, Dr. Falci will use hierarchical linear regression models to assess how individual and departmental measures of network structure correlate with productivity indicators (papers published, grant funds obtained) and measures of departmental climates (via the COACHE climate survey). We expect that there may be more than one ideal network structure for an individual and that the ideal network structure may vary by gender (Burt 1998). This research will be the first application of network analysis to academia and will contribute to our fundamental understanding of what type(s) of networks foster the success of underrepresented persons in STEM departments. This research has four objectives:
73 1. Identify actor network locations (individual level network structure) that are most conducive to high levels of faculty productivity and positive perceptions of departmental climates. Three characteristics of actor location are expected to be important for productivity and climate perceptions (degree, nestedness and centrality). The most connected, central and nested actors within departmental networks should have greater access to resources leading to higher productivity and subsequent promotion. Furthermore, these actors will have a higher frequency of social interaction with other network actors preventing feelings of isolation and marginalization and providing the opportunity to develop positive affect towards other faculty and the department. 2. Identify race and gender variation in an actor’s location within a social network, productivity and climate perceptions. It is hypothesized that underrepresented faculty will have actor locations with lower levels of connectivity, centrality and nestedness. This variation in network locations may result in under-represented faculty having fewer resources to succeed and fewer opportunities to develop positive perceptions of departmental climates. 3. Identify the departmental network structure characteristics that are most conducive to high levels of faculty productivity and positive perceptions of departmental climates. Three characteristics of departmental structure are hypothesized to be important for productivity and climate perceptions (cohesion, hierarchy and clustering). Departments with high cohesion, low hierarchy, and low clustering will have more productive faculty and more positive climate perceptions. These departmental network structures should foster exchange, collective action, cooperation and mutual trust among faculty members. 4. Identify race and gender variation in the effect of network structure on actor productivity and climate perceptions. The effect of actor location and departmental network structure on productivity and perceptions of departmental climate is hypothesized to vary by gender and race. The benefits from advantageous actor locations may not be as large for underrepresented faculty as it is for represented faculty. Furthermore, the disadvantages of departmental structures characterized by high levels clustering, low cohesion and high hierarchy will especially compromise the productivity and satisfaction of underrepresented faculty.
Timeline February 2008: Develop Network Survey Instrument and IRB. BOSR will aid with the development and testing of the Network Survey Instrument. BOSR will also help with the IRB proposal for the project. February 2008: Database of Faculty in STEM. BOSR, in conjunction with Institutional Research at UNL, will compile an excel spreadsheet containing the following information on each faculty member in all STEM departments: first and last name, rank, tenure status, full-time, email address, gender, race, department, college (A&S, Engi or IANR), and cip. This database will be provided to COACHE for use in their web-based survey administration. This data will also be merged with the data from the BOSR Network Survey. March 2008: BOSR Network Survey. BOSR will administer a survey to all faculty in STEM departments at UNL. The survey will measure five network ties among faculty: research collaborations, membership on departmental service committees, membership on graduate student committees, informal mentoring, and personal connections. The survey will also ask questions about faculty productivity, such as publications and grants, and teaching and service responsibilities of faculty. April 2008: COACHE Survey. COACHE will administer an online climate survey to all faculty in STEM departments at UNL. The survey will ask faculty to assess their experiences regarding promotion and tenure, the nature of their work, policies and practices, and the culture and collegiality on their campuses. Summer 2008: BOSR Data Formatting, Cleaning and Merging. BOSR will put the data from the network survey into a format appropriate for social network analysis. BOSR will also receive
74 identified data from COACHE for the sole purpose of merging the network survey data with the data from the COACHE survey. Once the data has been merged and cleaned, BOSR will provide a de- identified data file to begin data analysis. Fall 2008: Data Analysis. Dr. Christina Falci will be conducting two phases of data analysis. First, social network analysis will be conducted on the network data to create measures of social network structure. Multiple individual and departmental level network measures of network structure will be created. Second, a series of hierarchical linear regression models will assess the associations among individual and departmental measures of network structure, faculty productivity/demographics and perceptions of departmental climates. Spring 2009: Manuscript Preparation. Manuscripts will be prepared for presentations at national research conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals.
Outcomes The use of social network theory and methods is gaining favor across numerous disciplines. Most network research on organizations has taken place outside of academia. In this research project, we will bring this rapidly advancing theory and method to the academic setting. We expect that applying a network approach will provide new insight into the difficulties promoting and retaining women and minorities in STEM departments. We also expect network mapping to be a useful tool for aiding the process of institutional transformation. Network structure has the advantage of moving beyond individual perception. It is not possible for any one individual network member to know all of the connections among members of their department. Mapping departmental networks will provide a complete visual representation of these connections, and provide an objective and visually intuitive means of identify “problem areas.” Furthermore, knowing the network structure of STEM departments will provide baseline data from which to help inform future efforts to enhance the retention and promotion of women and minority faculty in STEM departments.
Budget and Justification BOSR List of faculty emails, Network mapping survey and Data merging BOSR has been instrumental in developing a high quality network mapping survey. This survey will be administered to all faculty in the 26 departments (about 20 faculty in each department) at UNL. BOSR is working with the office of Institutional Research to compile a database of the faculty who will be surveyed. This database will be used for administration of the network map survey administration and COACHE. Once the network mapping data collection is complete, BOSR will have to manipulate the network data into a format suitable for network analysis. Once the COACHE survey collection is complete, BOSR will merge data from COACHE with the network mapping survey. We have an arrangement with COACHE to receive a confidential identified copy of the COACHE survey data. COACHE Survey The estimated cost of the COACHE survey is $37,500. This cost includes the standard $20,000 fee for a three year membership to COAHCE. The remaining $17,500 provides funds for programming new skip patterns in the COAHCE survey and adding additional survey questions. COACHE is designed to only survey non-tenured faculty. At our request, however, COACHE will adapt their survey and administer it to all faculty in STEM departments at UNL. Data Analysis Purchasing social network analysis software, UCINET, will aid in the analysis of the network data. The cost of this software for a single user within an academic setting is $195.
Budget Summary 1. BOSR ($7999.98 total) a. Development and testing of Network Survey 854.40 b. Project Management 2,163.12 i. Faculty Database Compilation ii. Web Administration of Network Survey c. Pre-notification mailings 545.00 d. Data Formatting, and Cleaning 3,510.00
75 e. Data merging with COACHE 540.00 f. Clerical Support 387.16 2. COACHE Survey administration 37,500.00 3. Statistical Software Package (UCINET) 195.00__ TOTAL $45,694.68 References Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. 2007. Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering (U.S.). The National Academies Press: Washington, D.C. Borgatti, S. P. and P. C. Foster, 2003. “The network paradigm in organizational research: a review and typology. Journal of Management 29:991-1013. Brass, D. J., J. Galaskiewicz, H. R. Greve, and W. Tsai. 2004. “Taking stock of networks and organizations: a multilevel perspective.” Academy of Management Journal 47:795-817. Brass, Daniel J. 1985. “Men’s and Women’s Networks: A Study of Interaction Patterns and Influence in an Organization.” Academy of Management Journal 28:327-343. Burt, R.S. 1998. “The Gender of Social Capital.” Rationality and Society 10:5-46. Burt, R.S. 2000. “The Network Structure of Social Capital.” Research in Organizational Behavior 22:345- 423. Casciaro, T. 1998. “Seeing things clearly: social structure, personality, and accuracy in social network perception.” Social Networks 20:331-351. Cummings J.N. and R. Cross. 2003. “Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance.” Social Networks 25:197-210. Cross, R. and J.N. Cummings. 2004. “Tie and Network Correlates of Individual Performance in Knowledge-Intensive Work.” Academy of Management Journal 47:928-937. Cole, J. and H. Zukerman. 1984. “The Productivity Puzzle: Persistence and Change in Patterns of Publication Among Men and Women Scientists.” Pp. 217-56 in Women in science, Advances in motivation and achievement; v.2, edited by M.W. Steinkamp and M.L. Maehr. Greenwich, Conn.: Jai Press. Coleman J.S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: 95- 121. Etzkowitz, H., C. Kemelgor, and B. Uzzi. 2000. Athena Unbound: The Advancement of Women in Science and Technology. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Friedkin, N.E. 2004. “Social Cohesion.” Annual Review of Sociology 30:409-425. Fox, M.F. 2001. “Women, Science, and Academia: Graduate Education and Careers.” Gender & Society 15:654-666. Ibarra, H. 1992. “Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm.” Administrative Science Quarterly 37:422–447 Ibarra, H. 1997. “Paving an Alternative Route: Gender Differences in Managerial Networks.” Social Psychology Quarterly 60:91-102. Pescosolido, B.A. and B.A. Rubin. 2000. “The Web of Group Affiliations Revisited: Social Life, Postmodernism, and Sociology.” American Sociological Review 65:52-76. Kilduff, M., B. Tsai, and R. Hanke. 2006. “A Paradigm too Far? A Dynamic Stability Reconsideration of the Social Network Research Program.” Academy of Management Review 31:1031-1048. Kilduff, M. and K.G. Corley. 2000. “Organizational culture from a network perspective” Pp.211–221 in N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, and M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture & climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
76 Mehra, A., M. Kilduff and D. J. Brass. 1998. “At the margins: A distinctiveness approach to the social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups.” Academy of Management Journal 41:441– 452. Mehra, A., M. Kilduff and D. J. Brass. 2001. “The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance.” Administrative Science Quarterly 46:121–146. Reagans, R., and E.W. Zuckerman. 2001. “Networks, diversity and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams.” Organization Science 12:502-517. Sparrowe, R. T., R. C. Liden, S. J. Wayne and M.L. Kraimer. 2001. “Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups.” Academy of Management Journal, 44: 316–325. Turner, S.V. and S.L. Myers. 2000. Faculty of Color in Academe: Bittersweet Success. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Wellman, B. 1988. “Structural analysis: from method and metaphor to theory and substance.” Pp. 19-61 in B. Wellman and S.D. Berkowitz (Eds.), Social Structures: A Network Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wasserman, S., and K. Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Xie, Yu and K.A. Shauman. 1998. “Sex Differences in Research Productivity Revisited: New Evidence about an Old Puzzle.” American Sociological Review 63:847-870.
77 2. IRB Approval for Network and COACHE Surveys
78 3. Flow Chart for COACHE Survey
79 Section II. Tenure & Promotion (Assistant Professors)
TENURE? RANK? Full YES GO TO QC19 (b) (c) Professor
NO Associate GO TO QA19 Professor
Assistant Professor
Q21. Q22. Q20. Q19. I find the tenure I find the body of Q23. I find the tenure criteria I find the tenure standards (the evidence that will be Sense of whether or (what things are process in my performance threshold) considered in making not I will achieve evaluated) in my department to be… in my department to my tenure decision to tenure is… department to be… be… be…
Q24a. Q24f. Q24d. Clear: Q24b. Q24c. Q24e. Clear: Clear: a scholar (e.g., Clear: Clear: Clear: a member of the a colleague in your research and creative a teacher? an advisor to students? a campus citizen? broader community department? work)? (e.g., outreach)?
Q25a. Q25f. Q25d. Reasonable: Q25b. Q25c. Q25e. Reasonable: Reasonable: a scholar (e.g., Reasonable: Reasonable: Reasonable: a member of the a colleague in your research and creative a teacher? an advisor to students? a campus citizen? broader community department? work)? (e.g., outreach)?
Q27b. Q26. Q27a. On what non- Consistent messages Tenure decisions here performance-based from tenured faculty in are made primarily on Disagree criteria are tenure my dept about tenure performance-based decisions in your dept requirements. criteria. Agree primarily made?
Don’t GO TO Q28A know
Decline 80 Section II. Tenure & Promotion (Associate Professors & Full Professors)
TENURE? RANK? Full YES (b) (c) Professor
NO Associate Professor
Assistant GO TO Q19 Professor
QA20. QA21. QA22. QA19. I believe that the I believe that the I believe that the body I believe that the tenure criteria (what tenure standards (the of evidence considered tenure process in my things are evaluated) performance threshold) in making a tenure department is… in my department in my department decision is… are… are…
QA24a. QA24f. QA24d. Clear: QA24b. QA24c. QA24e. Clear: Clear: a scholar (e.g., Clear: Clear: Clear: a member of the a colleague in your research and creative a teacher? an advisor to students? a campus citizen? broader community department? work)? (e.g., outreach)?
QA25a. QA25f. QA25d. Reasonable: QA25b. QA25c. QA25e. Reasonable: Reasonable: a scholar (e.g., Reasonable: Reasonable: Reasonable: a member of the a colleague in your research and creative a teacher? an advisor to students? a campus citizen? broader community department? work)? (e.g., outreach)?
QA27b. QA26. QA27a. On what non- Consistent messages Tenure decisions here performance-based from tenured faculty in are made primarily on Disagree criteria are tenure my dept about tenure performance-based decisions in your dept requirements. criteria. Agree primarily made?
Don’t GO TO know QB19
Decline 81 Section II. Tenure & Promotion (Associate Professors)
TENURE? RANK? Full YES GO TO QC19 (b) (c) Professor
Associate NO Professor
Assistant GO TO Q19 Professor
QB21. QB22. QB20. QB23. QB19. I find the promotion I find the body of I find the promotion Sense of whether or I find the promotion standards (the evidence that will be criteria (what things not I will be promoted process in my performance threshold) considered in making are evaluated) in my from associate to full department to be… in my department to my promotion decision department to be… professor is… be… to be…
QB24a. QB24f. QB24d. Clear: QB24b. QB24c. QB24e. Clear: Clear: a scholar (e.g., Clear: Clear: Clear: a member of the a colleague in your research and creative a teacher? an advisor to students? a campus citizen? broader community department? work)? (e.g., outreach)?
QB25a. QB25f. QB25d. Reasonable: QB25b. QB25c. QB25e. Reasonable: Reasonable: a scholar (e.g., Reasonable: Reasonable: Reasonable: a member of the a colleague in your research and creative a teacher? an advisor to students? a campus citizen? broader community department? work)? (e.g., outreach)?
QB26. QB27a. QB27b. Consistent messages Decisions to promote On what non- from full profs in dept from assoc. to full prof. performance-based Disagree about reqs for being are made primarily on criteria are promotion promoted from assoc. performance-based decisions in your dept to full prof. criteria. Agree primarily made?
Don’t GO TO know Q28a
Decline 82 Section II. Tenure & Promotion (Full Professors)
Full Professor
TENURE? RANK? Associate YES GO TO QA19 (b) (c) Professor
Assistant GO TO Q19 Professor
NO
QC20. QC21. QC22. QC19. I believe that the I believe that the I believe that the body I believe that the promotion criteria promotion standards of evidence that is promotion process in (what things are (the performance considered in making a my department is… evaluated) in my threshold) in my promotion decision department are… department are… is…
QC24a. QC24f. QC24d. Clear: QC24b. QC24c. QC24e. Clear: Clear: a scholar (e.g., Clear: Clear: Clear: a member of the a colleague in your research and creative a teacher? an advisor to students? a campus citizen? broader community department? work)? (e.g., outreach)?
QC25a. QC25f. QC25d. Reasonable: QC25b. QC25c. QC25e. Reasonable: Reasonable: a scholar (e.g., Reasonable: Reasonable: Reasonable: a member of the a colleague in your research and creative a teacher? an advisor to students? a campus citizen? broader community department? work)? (e.g., outreach)?
QC26. Consistent messages from full profs in dept GO TO about reqs for being QB27 promoted from assoc. to full prof.
83 Section III. The Nature of Your Work
Q28b. Q29c. Q28a. The number of hours Q29a. Q29b. The degree of The way you spend you work as a faculty The level of the The number of courses influence you have your time as a faculty member in an average courses you teach you teach over the courses you member week. teach
Q29d. Q29f. Q30b. Q29g. The discretion you Q29e. The quality of The amount of time The quality of graduate have over the content The number of undergraduate you have to conduct students with whom of the courses you students you teach students with whom research/produce you interact. teach you interact creative work
Q32. Q30c. Q30d. Q31. The amount of access The amount of external The influence you have The quality of facilities you have to Teaching funding you are over the focus of your (i.e., office, labs, Fellows, Graduate expected to find research/creative work classrooms) Assistants, et al.
Q33a. Q33b. Q33c. Q33d. GO TO Clerical/ administrative Research services Teaching services Computing services Q34a services
84 Section IV. Policies & Practices RANK? Full GO TO (c) Professor Q35
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Q34a (5) Q34a (6) Q34a (7) Q34a (1) Q34a (3) Q34a (4) Importance: Q34a (2) Importance: Importance: Importance: Importance: Importance: Professional Importance: Professional Travel funds to present Formal mentoring Periodic, formal Written summary of assistance in obtaining Informal mentoring assistance for papers or conduct program performance reviews performance reviews externally funded improving teaching research grants
Q34b (5) Q34b (6) Q34b (7) Q34b (1) Q34b (3) Q34b (4) Effectiveness: Q34b (2) Effectiveness: Effectiveness: Effectiveness: Effectiveness: Effectiveness: Professional Effectiveness: Professional Travel funds to present Formal mentoring Periodic, formal Written summary of assistance in obtaining Informal mentoring assistance for papers or conduct program performance reviews performance reviews externally funded improving teaching research grants
Q34a (12) Q34a (8) Q34a (9) Q34a (14) Q34a (16) YES Importance: Q34a (13) Importance: Importance: Importance: Importance: Peer reviews of Importance: Paid or unpaid Paid or unpaid Financial assistance Spousal/partner hiring teaching or research/ Childcare research leave personal leave with housing program creative work TENURE? (b) Q34b (12) Q34b (8) Q34b (9) Q34b (14) Q34b (16) Effectiveness: Q34b (13) Effectiveness: Effectiveness: Effectiveness: Effectiveness: Peer reviews of Effectiveness: Paid or unpaid Paid or unpaid Financial assistance Spousal/partner hiring teaching or research/ Childcare research leave personal leave with housing program creative work NO
Q34a (10) Q34a (15) Q34a (11) Importance: Importance: Importance: Upper limit on Stop-the-clock for Upper limit on teaching committee parental or other family obligations assignments reasons
Q34b (10) Q34b (15) Q34b (11) Effectiveness: Effectiveness: Effectiveness: Upper limit on Stop-the-clock for Upper limit on teaching committee parental or other family obligations assignments reasons 85 Section IV. Policies & Practices (cont.)
Q35a. Q35b. Q35c. Q35d. My institution does My institution does My dept colleagues do My dept colleagues do what it can to make what it can to make what they can to make what they can to make NO TENURE? having children and the raising children and the having children and the raising children and the (b) tenure-track tenure-track tenure-track tenure-track YES compatible. compatible. compatible. compatible.
Assistant Professor QA35a. QA35c. My institution does My dept colleagues do RANK? Associate what it can to make what they can to make (c) Professor family obligations and family obligations and post-tenure faculty post-tenure faculty Full career compatible. career compatible. Professor
Q35e. Q36. Q37. My colleagues are Satisfaction with your Satisfaction with the GO TO respectful of my efforts compensation (that is, balance between Q38a to balance work and your salary and professional time and home responsibilities. benefits)? personal/family time?
86 Section V. Climate, Culture & Collegiality
Q38a. Q38b. The fairness with The interest tenured Assistant TENURE? which your immediate NO faculty in your Professor (b) supervisor evaluates department take in your work your career
YES Q38c. RANK? Associate The fairness with (c) Professor which your work is evaluated.
Full Professor
Q38e. Q38f. Q39a. Q39b. Q39c. Q38d. Your opportunities to Your opportunities to Amount of professional Amount of personal Amount of professional The value faculty in collaborate with collaborate with pre- interaction you have interaction you have interaction you have your department place tenured faculty in your tenure faculty in your with tenured facutly in with tenured faculty in with pre-tenure faculty on your work. department department your department your department in your department
Q39d. Q41a. Q41b. Amount of personal Q40. Q42a. Q42b. The intellectual vitality The intellectual vitality interaction you have How well you “fit” in On the whole, my On the whole, my of tenured faculty in of pre-tenure faculty in with pre-tenure faculty your department department is collegial. institution is collegial. your department your department in your department
Q43a. Q43b. Q43c. Receive fair treatment Receive fair treatment Receive fair treatment GO TO from my colleagues from my colleagues from my colleagues Q44a regardless of: regardless of: regardless of: gender race/ethnicity sexual orientation
87 Section VI. Global Satisfaction
Q44a. Q44b. Q46b. Q45a. Q45b. Q46a. Two (and only two) Two (and only two) Chief academic officer Satisfaction with your Satisfaction with your Who serves as the best aspects about worst aspects about seems to care about department as a place institution as a place to chief academic officer working at your working at your the quality of life for to work? work? at your institution? institution institution pre-tenure faculty.
Q46c. Q48a. Q47. Q48. Chief academic officer Why do you plan to If I could do it over, I How long do you plan No more seems to care about remain at your would again choose to to remain at your than 5 yrs the quality of life for institution for no more work at this institution. institution? tenured faculty. than 5 years? All other responses
Q49. Q50a. Q51. Q52. Candidate for tenure- How do you rate your The number one thing Discuss any aspect of track position asked TENURE? NO institution as a place that you feel your faculty employment not about your department (b) for pre-tenure faculty to institution could do to covered, or covered as a place to work, work? improve the workplace. insufficiently. would you...
Q50b. How do you rate your YES institution as a place for tenured faculty to work? GO TO REVIEW PAGE
88 4. Data Collection Methodology Report
2008 Survey on Promoting Success among UNL Faculty Data Collection Methodology Report
Prepared: January 2009
The contents of this report conform to our highest standards for data collection and reporting. If you should have any questions or concerns regarding the information reported within, please contact us
89 CONTENTS
Methodology Report ...... 2
Appendix A: Survey Instrument Text ...... 4
Appendix B: Pre-notification Letter ...... 17
Appendix C: Invitation and Reminder E-mail Text ...... 18
Appendix D: Additional Study Information Text ...... 20
Appendix E: COACHE Pre-notification Letter ...... 23
90 METHODOLOGY REPORT
Introduction This report presents an account of the design and fielding of the 2008 Survey on Promoting Success among UNL Faculty. The 2008 Survey on Promoting Success among UNL Faculty was conceived as a vehicle for assessing University of Nebraska science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) tenured and tenure-track faculty professional and social networking. The survey was fielded via the Web during spring semester 2008 by the Bureau of Sociological Research (BOSR) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL).
The Sample A list of tenured and tenure-track faculty whose primary academic appointment (tenure home) is in 1 of 26 STEM departments was provided to the Bureau of Sociological Research (BOSR) by UNL’s Institutional Research and Planning (IRP). The list contained 467 faculty members. The sample list was generated by IRP as of October 2007. Due to the gap in time between the generation of the sample and the fielding of the survey (March 2008), it was found (post-data collection) that three faculty members were not included on the list who should have been and 15 members were included who should not have been (due to a change in employment, death, etc.)
The Survey Instrument The survey consisted of eight sections. The first section asked about time spent doing teaching, research and service. The second, third, and fourth sections consisted of questions about the respondent’s work and non-work related interactions with tenured and tenure-track faculty members within and outside of his/her primary department. The fifth section included questions about the respondent’s research activities since January 2005. The sixth section asked questions concerning the respondent’s teaching and service activities. Section seven asked with whom the respondents had served on UNL graduate student or service committees during the past academic year. The final section consisted of demographic items. Each survey was tailored to include information specific to each department including a list of names of all tenured and tenure-track faculty members in the department in the second, third, fourth, and seventh sections. A sample of the content of the survey instrument can be found in Appendix A. The survey was hosted and maintained on BOSR’s secure servers using LimeSurvey software.
Fielding Data collection began March 20, 2008, and ended July 1, 2008. In order to increase response rates, a paper pre-notification letter was sent before an e-mail invitation. The pre-notification letter was signed by the Vice Chancellor for Research, Prem Paul, and included an incentive of a pen provided by the Vice Chancellor’s office. A copy of this letter can be found in Appendix B. In addition to the pre-notification letter, an e-mail invitation and three e-mail reminders (sent only to non-responders) were sent to respondents. The text for these e-mails can be found in Appendix C. Due to a number of internal requests for information about the study, additional information about the research was posted on BOSR’s Web site. The text of this information can be found in Appendix D.
Response Rate The response rate for the 2008 Survey on Promoting Success among UNL Faculty was calculated using the adjusted sample size (compensating for the change in total number of eligible faculty members due to the changes in IRP’s data). The over all completion rate for the survey is 59.78% (n = 272). A response rate for each of the included 26 STEM departments was also calculated. The individual departmental completion rates range from 12.50% to 94.74%.
COACHE As part of this research project, Harvard University was contracted to complete an additional Web survey with the same sample of faculty. The survey, Collaborative on Academic Careers in
91 Higher Education (COACHE) Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey, was fielded during the latter half of the field period of the 2008 Survey on Promoting Success among UNL Faculty. Pre-notification letters for the COACHE survey were sent to sampled faculty on April 28, 2008. Included with the pre-notification letters was a small Post-it note incentive provided by the Vice Chancellor of Research’s office. A copy of the COACHE pre-notification letter can be found in Appendix E. Questions about the methodology and fielding of the COACHE survey should be directed to Kiernan Mathews at Harvard University by telephone at (617) 496-9348 or by email at [email protected]. Contact Information For additional information about the 2008 Survey on Promoting Success among UNL Faculty, please contact the Principal Investigator, Dr. Christina Falci, by calling (402) 472-3762 or by sending an e-mail to [email protected]. Any questions regarding this report can be directed to the Bureau of Sociological Research at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln by calling (402) 472-3672 or by sending an e-mail to [email protected].
92 APPENDIX A: SURVEY TEXT
93 89
94 90
95 91
96 92
97 93
98 94
99 95
100 96
101 97
102 98
103 99
104 100
105 APPENDIX B: PRE-NOTIFICATION LETTER
106 APPENDIX C: E-MAIL TEXT
E-mail Invitation SUBJECT: Survey on Promoting Success among UNL Faculty Dear {FIRSTNAME} {LASTNAME}, I am writing to ask your help in understanding what leads to success or roadblocks for faculty at UNL. The best way to learn about this topic is by directly asking faculty. You have been selected to participate in this project because you are a tenured or tenure-track faculty member in the <
First E-mail Reminder Subject: Survey on Promoting Success among UNL Faculty Dear {FIRSTNAME} {LASTNAME}, Last week I sent you an email asking for your help with a study about promoting faculty success at UNL. Your views and experiences are very important. Please complete the Survey on Promoting Success among UNL Faculty within the next week. It should take you about 20 minutes. To access the survey simply click on the link below. I am especially grateful for your help with this important study. {SURVEYURL} If you have difficulties accessing the survey on the Internet or if you have questions about the survey, please contact Amanda Richardson. She can be reached by telephone at 472-3672 or by email at [email protected]. Sincerely, Prem S. Paul Vice Chancellor for Research & Economic Development ------Click here to do the survey: {SURVEYURL}
Second E-mail Reminder Subject: Please help us complete a UNL study Dear Colleague, We know that faculty members are very busy at the end of the Spring semester. Therefore, we hope summer is a better time to spend twenty minutes completing the Survey on Promoting Success among UNL Faculty. If you’ve received this email, then you haven’t done the survey yet. Please click your unique link here {SURVEYURL} and complete the survey.
107 Every faculty members’ participation is crucial because we need a response rate of 80% within each department for the data to be optimally useful for research publications. You only have a few weeks left to provide your insights and experiences because we’re ending the survey July 1, 2008. We will send you one more reminder the week before the study ends. If you do not want the final reminder, then reply to this email and Amanda Richardson, our project manager, we will make sure we no longer contact you about this project. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us directly. Thank you in advance, Julia McQuillan, Associate Professor of Sociology ([email protected]) Christina Falci, Assistant Professor of Sociology ([email protected]) For additional information about this UNL study, please go to http://bosr.unl.edu/faculty_success.html
Final E-mail Reminder Subject: Last chance to help us complete a UNL study Dear Colleague, You only have a few days left to help us by providing your experiences and insights. Please complete the Survey on Promoting Success among UNL Faculty now by clicking your unique link here {SURVEYURL} This survey ends July 1, 2008. Every faculty members’ participation is crucial because we need a response rate of 80% within each department for the data to be optimally useful for research publications. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us directly or respond to this email. Thank you in advance, Julia McQuillan, Associate Professor of Sociology ([email protected]) Christina Falci, Assistant Professor of Sociology ([email protected]) For additional information about this UNL study, please go to http://bosr.unl.edu/faculty_success.html
108 APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL SURVEY INFORMATION TEXT
Survey on Promoting Success among UNL Faculty Below you will find additional information about the Survey on Promoting Success among UNL Faculty pertaining to: The Principal Investigators Network Mapping and Analysis (Why are faculty names in the survey?) Confidentiality Data Security The NSF Advance-IT connection If you have additional questions or concerns not addressed within the content on this page, then please contact the Principal Investigators Christina Falci (2-3792; [email protected]) or Julia McQuillan (2-6616; [email protected]).
The Principal Investigators Christina Falci is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in 2006. Her broad research objective is to understand the social determinants of mental health and health risk behaviors. She is also developing an expertise in the methodology of Network Analysis. This methodological focus has expanded her substantive research interest into the sociology of organizations. The purpose of the Survey on Promoting Success among UNL Faculty is to explore the link between network structure and worker productivity and satisfaction. Research in non-academic settings shows that network structure is associated with worker productivity and perceptions of work environments, but to date there is no information if similar dynamics occur within an academic setting. For more information about network analysis please see the section below on Network Mapping and Analysis. Julia McQuillan is an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology and Director of the Bureau of Sociological Research. She has been at UNL in the Department of Sociology since 1998. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of Connecticut. She is primarily a methodologist, therefore she collaborates with researchers on a variety of topics (e.g. juvenile delinquency, labor markets and wages, work stress and health outcomes). Her substantive research focus in the last few years has been on the social and behavioral consequences of infertility. She has long had an interest in the sociology of gender, and has collaborated with faculty in other disciplines (e.g. marketing, children’s literature, geography) to bring gender theory to shed light on unanswered questions.
Network Mapping and Analysis (Why are faculty names in the survey?) A network mapping survey entails identifying the connections among people within a network, such as faculty within a department, college, discipline or university. A network connection can measure any form of interpersonal interaction occurring between two people in the network, such as communication, exchange, friendship, etc. Generally, network connections are measured by providing a list of names of all individuals within the network to participants in the study. Then, study participants are asked to indicate who they are connected to, to what degree and in what way. It is also possible to identify network connection by asking study participants to provide the names of individuals within the network with whom they are connected. When participants select or identify another person in the survey, they create a “tie” with that person. It would be impossible to create a network tie between two individuals within a network without using the names of the individuals in the network. We recognize that providing names and identifying interpersonal connections is personal and sensitive information. Please see the confidentiality section below where we describe in detail how your confidentiality and the confidentiality of the people you name will be maintained. Upon measuring the ties among individuals within a network, network analysis is the statistical analytic technique used to describe patterns of ties among people in the network. Individuals are often connected to one another in numerous ways. Network analysis allows us to identify and
109 describe the connections among individuals, as these connection patterns likely influence the perceptions and behaviors of individuals within the network. One purpose of this project is to determine whether the pattern of ties among faculty within, and across, departments relates to faculty job satisfaction and productivity.
Confidentiality To make it easier for faculty to participate in the study, we have provided you with the names of the people in your department. We have also provided ways to add names of other faculty members for people who hold joint appointments and/or engage in activities with UNL faculty outside of their primary department. THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS AND ADMINISTRATORS ON CAMPUS WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ANY FACULTY NAMES. The staff in the Bureau of Sociological Research (BOSR) will convert this data so that each faculty member and each department will have a unique numeric code used for analyses and reporting (for example, fac001 and depart01). Only BOSR staff will have the link between codes and names, and this information will be secure. Using these alpha-numeric codes will keep all of the data confidential. SPECIFICALLY, FACULTY NAMES AND DEPARTMENTS WILL NOT BE PART OF THE DATA PROVIDED TO THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS. The investigators will only have access to coded data that allows us to see how many connections (ties) there are within and across departments among faculty, but we will not know who the faculty member is or in what department he/she resides. Furthermore, the principal investigators will take all necessary precautions to avoid deductive disclosure. In other words, if it is possible to identify individuals from a combination of their responses, then this information will not be made available in any reports. Finally, administrators on campus will not have access to the data.
Data Security Our web server runs Debian Linux 4.0 64-bit. It has a static private IP address, which means it isn't accessible outside of the router connecting Bessey, Oldfather, and Burnett halls. Another Debian Linux server acts as a firewall, routing HTTP from the outside world to the web server. Both firewall and web server use gShield which creates a list of firewall rules using iptables to block all unnecessary ports. The firewall server runs Snort, an intrusion detection system. Both firewall and webserver also run portsentry, fail2ban, logcheck, tiger, and chkrootkit, which are security utilities for detecting problems. Logs from all servers are emailed to a private email address and checked daily. The webserver software is Apache2.2, the survey software is Limesurvey 1.70+, and data is stored in a MySQL 5.032 database, listening on the localhost only. Limesurvey has its own username and password. Two administrators only have the root usernames and passwords to both the firewall and web server. There are only two regular user accounts on the server, belonging to the system administrators. Usual precautions are taken regarding changing and length of passwords. All servers have automatic updates. BOSR staff export data from the web server and store it on a Windows 2003 32-bit SP2 file server in private folders protected by NTFS security user permissions. Staff computers are connected to an active directory server, and thus all user accounts centrally controller. Access to private folders containing data is rigorously monitored and controlled. All workstations connecting to the file server as well as the file server itself have private static IP addresses. Workstations all run Windows XP SP2 and have firewall permissions set by group policy from the active directory server, and dropped connections to the firewall are logged. All file servers are stored in a locked, dedicated server room in Oldfather Hall. The room is temperature controlled and has a motion-detector alarm directly connected to the UNL police. Two staff have a key to this room, as well as the police and building maintenance. All servers are kept logged off, and again, only two system administrators have the admin passwords to the file server. Backups are performed hourly to hard drives on another Windows 2003 server, 64-bit, SP2 in a locked room in Oldfather Hall, protected with another alarm system. Two staff secretaries and two system administrators have physical access to this machine. A monthly offline backup is also kept, stored on NTFS-encrypted USB drives. No over writing of old data is done, however when the drives are removed from service, which is generally done in a 3-
110 year cycle before the drives can suffer failures, we use Eraser to delete all data from the disks. Should any drives fail before we can erase them, we store them permanently in a locked file cabinet in the secure server room. No off-site backups are currently kept.
Connection to the NSF Advance-IT Grant Application The primary purpose of this project is to conduct original research that will be disseminated through scientific conference presentations and peer-reviewed journal publications. Because network analysis has not been done on academic departments that differ substantially from those of commercial business interests, there are innovative, substantive research questions that will be addressed by this project. In business organizations, several studies (Ibarra 1992; Ibarra 1997 2000; McGuire 2000; Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne and Kraimer 2001; Bass 1985; Burt 1998) show that there are individual differences in network structure among male and female managers (independent of job title) and that these differences in connectedness within a network structure are related to job experiences. Professors differ substantially from business managers, and the structure of universities is substantially more decentralized than in business. Therefore, one purpose of this project is to determine whether network structures differ among individuals, and whether these differences are related to job satisfaction and productivity. The results of the study also may be useful for another purpose. One of the principal investigators for the Survey on Promoting Success among UNL Faculty project is also a co- investigator for an NSF ADVANCE-IT (Institutional Transformation) proposal. The purpose of ADVANCE grants is "Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers (ADVANCE)" (Program Solicitation NSF 07-downloaded April 4, 2008: 582; http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf07582/nsf07582.txt). The UNL NSF ADVANCE –IT proposal is designed to support efforts to help UNL faculty better represent the full range of talent available, by reducing barriers to participation of underrepresented faculty in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. The proposed ADVANCE programs build on existing programs at UNL designed to foster success for all faculty and to grow the pool of talented applicants for UNL positions. Most of the planned ADVANCE program activities are open to all STEM faculty at UNL (men and women) and several are open to all faculty regardless of discipline. If the UNL NSF ADVANCE grant application is funded, the current survey will provide useful baseline data to compare to subsequent surveys that are a part of the ADVANCE-IT project. For the ADVANCE project, faculty will be surveyed two additional times, in 2010 and 2012. All data collection will follow the confidentiality and data security guidelines described above. The ADVANCE surveys, compared to the current survey, will provide measures of changes in faculty connections as the program unfolds. If changes in network structures are associated with ADVANCE program elements, then important potential mechanisms of institutional change will been elucidated.
111
APPENDIX E: COACHE PRE-NOTIFICATION LETTER
112
113
5. Baseline Data Collection (Spring 2008): Analysis of Nonresponse to the Network and UNL COACHE Surveys University of Nebraska- Lincoln
ANNUAL REPORT
ADVANCE-Nebraska Program
The UNL ADVANCE Program Office Address: 21 Canfield is supported by a grant from Lincoln, NE 68588-0420 the National Science Phone: 402-472-3304 Foundation. FAX: 402-472-6276 http://advance.unl.edu [email protected]
114 1. Introduction In the Spring of 2008, the Office of Research at UNL funded two surveys of STEM faculty: the Network Survey and the UNL COACHE Climate Survey. The Network Survey asked faculty to report on their research accomplishments, teaching productivity and service workload. It also contained a network mapping survey instrument to identify connections among faculty within and across STEM departments at UNL. Three network ties were measured: research exchange, friendship and committee co-membership. The UNL COACHE Survey asked faculty to assess their experiences regarding promotion and tenure, the nature of their work, institutional policies and practices, and the culture and collegiality within their primary departments. In Fall 2009, UNL was awarded an NSF ADVANCE Grant and the two surveys became the baseline data collection for ADVANCE-Nebraska. This report describes the data collection process, issues that arose during the process of data collection, the overall response rates to the surveys, and variation in nonresponse across demographic characteristics of faculty. Table 1 and 2 identify response rates at the individual (N= 452) and department level (N= 26) to each survey. As part of the baseline data collection efforts, UNL’s Institution Research and Planning provided demographic characteristics of all UNL STEM faculty. This population level information allows for an assessment of the variation in nonresponse across demographic characteristics of faculty. Table 3 reports demographic characteristics of the UNL STEM faculty population (N=452), the respondents to the Network Survey (N=274), and the respondents to the UNL COACHE Survey (N=201). Tables 4 and 5 report results from bivariate analysis of nonresponse to the Network and UNL COACHE Surveys, respectively. Table 6 reports the results of multivariate analysis of nonresponse to both the Network and UNL COACHE Surveys.
2. Data Collection Prior to the initiation of ADVANCE-Nebraska, Dr. Christina Falci was awarded an Internal UNL Faculty Seed Grant in the Spring 2008 entitled “Faculty Networks and Departmental Climates in STEM at UNL.” This internal grant provided the fund to collect baseline survey data from UNL STEM faculty for ADVANCE-Nebraska. The baseline data collection was comprised of two surveys (the Network Survey and the UNL COACHE Survey) and archival data from UNL’s Institute of Research and Planning (IRP). UNL’s Bureau of Sociological Research (BOSR) administered the Network Survey to UNL STEM faculty via the web beginning March 20, 2008. The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) at Harvard University administered the UNL COACHE Survey to STEM faculty at UNL via the web beginning April 28, 2008.
a. Population list issues IRP performed a data extract on the personnel database in Fall 2007 to identify all eligible faculty in the survey population. The population of the survey is comprise of faculty whose primary academic appointment is in a STEM department, who are tenured or have a tenure-track appointment and who are not in their first year at UNL. The population list was generated as of October 2007 and contained 467 faculty. At this time, the principal investigator were unaware that IRP performs the yearly update of the personnel database in the spring semester. As a result, it was found (post-data collection) that three faculty members were not included on the list who should have been and 15 members were included who should not have been (due to a change in employment, death, etc.). The final number of eligible faculty invited to participate in the survey was 452.
b. Another Survey The same week the Network Survey was fielded, a graduate student at UNL also fielded a survey related to their dissertation research called “Faculty Approaches to Quality Improvement.” The primary focus of the survey pertained to quality improvement and accountability of teaching. The
115 population for the research included faculty member at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln who had taught at least one undergraduate course at some point in the last two years. The project did not survey all faculty in the specified population, rather a random sample of population. Thus, only a subset of faculty in the population for the Network and UNL COACHE Surveys were invited to participate in this additional and unrelated survey. Nevertheless, fielding two surveys to the same research subject places a high response burden on participants. Therefore, the burden of response for some of the faculty in the population of our study was increased by an invitation to participate in an additional unrelated survey.
c. Participant Concerns The fielding of the Network Survey elicited several responses from the population of the study. In fact, due to the large number of requests for information about the study, additional information about the research was posted on BOSR’s Website. This web supplement contained additional information about the principal investigators, social network analysis, confidentiality, data security and the survey’s connection to UNL’s NSF ADVANCE Grant application. Several other issues also became clear upon fielding the survey, such as a concern with how the administration will “use” the data and a general skepticism of social scientific research. The web supplement provided information about the principal investigators to emphasize that the survey data would primarily be used for academic research. Importantly, administrators would not have access to the data. Rather, administrators would only see aggregated descriptive reports from the data. Concerns regarding what the administration would do with the data probably developed from past experiences with the Gallup Survey. During the 2005-2006 academic year, UNL’s administration had Gallup administer a climate survey to all faculty at UNL. To this day faculty still “complain” about the Gallup Survey and many faculty were displeased with how the “results” of the Gallup Survey were reported back to the departments. Some of the bad feelings to the Gallup Climate Survey were so negative that upon fielding the Network Survey, one faculty member wanted to know how “the data would be used against them.” Clearly, the Gallup Survey provided a pre- context from which to interpret the purpose of the Network and UNL COAHCE Surveys. The web supplement described social network analysis in an attempt to appease concerns about privacy and confidentiality. Collecting network data is inherently sensitive because it requires participants to name names (e.g., who do you hang-out with socially?). In fact, the names of all faculty within the participants department appeared on the survey instrument. While the information is sensitive or considered private, it is necessary to use names when collecting network data because it is impossible to create a relational tie between two individuals within a network without knowing the names of both individuals. Providing the names of others and seeing one’s own name on a survey also raised concerns among the participants about confidentiality. The web supplement elaborated extensively about how confidentiality of participants would be maintained. Specifically, it assured participants that the principal investigators would not have access to faculty names or the name of the department. Rather, BOSR provided a de-identified data file to the principal investigators. BOSR staff converted the sensitive data (i.e., faculty names and department identification) into unique numeric code (for example, fac001 and depart01). Using this alpha-numeric coding system keeps the data confidential (faculty names and department names were not part of the data provided to the principal investigators). The principal investigators only have access to coded data allowing them to see how many connections (relational ties) there are within and across departments among faculty, while not knowing who the faculty member is or in what department he/she resides. In addition to concerns about who would have access to the data and how confidentiality would be maintained, faculty expressed concerns about data security. Specifically, how the collected data would be protected. Therefore, the web supplement provided detailed data security information so participants, especially computer scientists, would be less concerned with the data being compromised over the internet.
116 Finally, some participants held negative attitudes toward NSF ADVANCE Programs and social science research resulting in negative attitudes toward the surveys. In fact, one faculty member filed a formal IRB complaint about the survey. This faculty member claimed that faculty had not been fully “informed” about the potential “adverse effects” resulting from the study. Specifically, it was his belief that an ADVANCE program at UNL would lead to the preferential treatment of women in hiring, promotion and access to resources. The IRB board did not share this faculty members concerns. Other faculty members were skeptical about the validity of social science research. Some complained that survey was “subjective” and that the questions asked would lead to “biased” results.
3. Response Rates With the goal of collecting complete social network data, the response rates for the study must be very high (over 70%). Several procedures were implemented to foster high survey response rates. First, Dr. Falci, Dr. McQuillan and Mindy Anderson Knot made short presentation to STEM faculty department chairs/heads requesting that they encourage their faculty to complete the upcoming surveys. Second, a pre-notification letter was sent by the Vice Chancellor for research at UNL asking faculty to participate in both surveys. The first pre-notification letter for the Network Survey included an incentive of a pen provided by the Vice Chancellor’s office. The second pre- notification letter for the UNL COACHE survey included an incentive of a post-it note provided by the Vice Chancellor’s office. Third, an e-mail invitation and three e-mail reminders (sent only to non- responders) were sent to respondents soliciting participation for each survey. Finally, the Dean of each college sent each department chair/head an email requesting the chair to send out a departmental email encouraging faculty to participate in the surveys. With these efforts, we attained an overall response rate of 60% for the Network Survey and 45% to the UNL COACHE Survey (see Table 1). Table 1: Response Rates for Network and COACHE Surveys Network COACHE Combined Respondents 274 60.6% 201 44.5% 169 37.4% Non-respondents 178 39.4% 251 55.5% 283 62.6% Notes: Total N= 452 23% of faculty (N=105) responded to the Network Survey but not the COACHE Survey.
7% of faculty (n=32) responded to the COACHE survey but not the Network Survey. There was considerable variation in departmental response rates (Table 2). For the Network Survey, the highest department response rate was 95% and the lowest response rate was 13%. Nine out of twenty STEM departments had response rates at or above 70% for the Network Survey. Thus, it will be possible to explore the complete networks of these nine departments. At the same time, it will still be possible to explore aspects of a faculty members personal network (i.e., describe the connections they reported in the Network Survey) for any faculty who responded to the Network Survey. For the UNL COACHE Survey, the highest department response rate was 90% and the lowest response rate was 13%.
117 Table 2: Response Rates by Department for the Network and UNL COACHE Survey Survey Survey Survey Network Coache Network Coache Network Coache
Department A B C Response Rate 76% 40% 47% 32% 44% 33%
Department DEF Response Rate 79% 47% 60% 90% 52% 33%
Department GH I Response Rate 57% 61% 89% 75% 75% 33%
Department JKL Response Rate 42% 50% 43% 57% 95% 47%
Department MNO Response Rate 50% 29% 60% 35% 42% 50%
Department P Q R Response Rate 73% 47% 61% 46% 22% 11%
Department S T U Response Rate 64% 34% 54% 54% 80% 60%
Department V W X Response Rate 55% 60% 18% 24% 90% 60%
Department Y Z Response Rate 75% 54% 13% 13% Table 3 (on the next page) reports the univariate demographic characteristics for the UNL STEM population and the respondents to each survey. There are few demographic differences between the population characteristics compared to respondent characteristics. Subsequent sections of this report provide a comprehensive assessment on variation in across these faculty demographic characteristics.
118 Table 3: Univariate Statistics of Demographic Characteristics for the Study Population and Survey Respondents UNL STEM Network Survey COACHE Survey Combined Survey Population Respondents Respondents Respondents percent n percent n percent n percent n Female 14% 65 15% 40 14% 28 15% 25 Nonwhite 19% 87 17% 47 15% 31 16% 27 Rank Assistant 19% 85 20% 55 18% 37 20% 33 Associate 30% 135 27% 75 30% 61 28% 48 Full 51% 232 53% 144 51% 103 52% 88 Academic Area Physical Sciences 14% 63 16% 43 12% 24 12% 20 Bioloigcal Sciences 10% 43 10% 28 9% 19 10% 17 Agriculture / Natural Resources 31% 138 31% 86 31% 63 33% 55 Eng. / Computer Sci./ Math /Stat 46% 208 43% 117 47% 95 46% 77
mean st.dev. mean st.dev. mean st.dev. mean st.dev. Full-Time-Equivalency .96 .12 .95 .13 .95 .13 .95 .13 Apportionment Percentage Research 46.41 22.31 46.56 23.15 46.70 23.27 46.28 23.55 Teaching 35.70 19.44 33.47 19.91 33.90 19.59 33.21 20.46 Service 7.73 6.20 7.47 6.27 7.55 6.94 7.37 6.63 Extension 5.47 16.85 5.62 16.72 4.93 16.42 5.06 16.53 Administration 4.64 18.73 6.78 22.88 6.79 23.35 7.92 25.28 N 452 274 201 169
119 a. Network Nonresponse Table 4a shows variation between respondents and non-respondents to the Network Survey by Full-Time-Equivalency (FTE) and apportionment. The average FTE is identical between Network Survey respondents and non-respondents. Minimal differences occur between respondents and non-respondents across faculty apportionment. A few differences pertain to administration and teaching apportionment. Faculty members with a higher administrative apportionment were less likely to be non- respondents. The mean administrative apportionment of respondents is 6.8 compared to 1.3 among non-respondents. The administrators are primarily comprised of department chairs\heads. It is not surprising that they were more likely to respond as they received an email from the Dean of their college requesting them to participate in the survey and asking them to encourage their faculty to participate. Faculty members with a higher teaching apportionment were more likely to be non-respondents. The mean teaching apportionment of respondents is 33.5 compared to 39.1 among non- respondents. The Network Survey clearly focused more on the research connections among and accomplishments of faculty. Faculty with high teaching apportionments may have felt marginalized and that the survey did not pertain to faculty with their unique teaching appointments. In fact, one faculty member with a high teaching apportionment contacted the principal investigators and stated that the Network Survey reinforced the devaluation of faculty teaching.
Table 4a: Bivariate analysis of nonresponse to the Network Survey Response Nonresponse mean std mean std Full Time Equivalency 1.0 .1 1.0 .1 Apportionment Research 46.6 23.2 46.2 21.0 Teaching 33.5 19.9 39.1 18.2 Administration 6.8 22.9 1.3 8.3 Service 7.5 6.3 8.1 6.1 Extension 5.6 16.7 5.2 17.1 N (total = 452) 274 178
Table 4b shows variation between respondents and non-respondents to the Network Survey by gender, race, rank and academic area. Nonresponse to the Network Survey did not meaningfully vary by gender (38% of women and 40% of men did not respond). There is a tendency for nonwhite faculty to have higher rates of nonresponse (46%) compared to white faculty (38%). Also, associate professors have higher rates of non-response (44%) compared to assistant (35%) and full (38%) professors. Finally, professors in Engineering, Computer Science, Math or Statistics departments had the highest non-response rates (44%), followed by Agricultural or Natural Resources faculty (38%). The nonresponse rates were slightly lower for faculty in the Physical (32%) and Biological (35%) sciences faculty.
120 Table 4b: Bivariate analysis of nonresponse to Network Survey Response Nonresponse Gender Male 60% 40% (234) (153) Female 62% 38% (40) (25)
Race Nonwhite 54% 46% (47) (40) White 62% 38% (227) (138)
Rank Assistant 65% 35% (55) (30) Associate 56% 44% (75) (60) Full 62% 38% (144) (88)
Academic Area Physics 68% 32% (43) (20) Biological Sciences 65% 35% (28) (15) Engineering /Computer Sci. / Math /Statistics 56% 44% (117) (91) Agriculture/Natural Resource 62% 38% (86) (52) N (total = 452) 274 178 Notes : The cell sizes are in parentheses. b. UNL COACHE Nonresponse Table 5a shows variation between respondents and non-respondents to the UNL COACHE Survey by FTE and apportionment. The average FTE is identical between respondents and non- respondents. Minimal differences occur between respondents and non-respondents across faculty apportionment. Like the Network Survey, however, a few differences pertain to administration and teaching apportionment. Analogous to the Network Survey, faculty with a higher teaching apportionment were more likely to be non-respondents and faculty with a higher administrative apportionment were less likely to be non-respondents. The administrators are primarily comprised of department chairs\heads who received an email from the Dean of their college requesting them to participate in the survey and asking them to encourage their faculty to participate. The Network Survey had a clear research focus; therefore, faculty with a higher teaching apportionment may have felt marginalized or that the survey did not pertain to faculty with their unique teaching appointments.
121 Table 5a: Bivariate analysis of nonresponse to the COACHE Survey Response Nonresponse mean std mean std Full Time Equivalency 1.0 .1 1.0 .1 Apportionment Research 46.7 23.3 46.2 21.6 Teaching 33.9 19.6 37.1 19.2 Administration 6.8 23.3 2.9 13.8 Service 7.5 6.9 7.9 5.5 Extension 4.9 16.4 5.9 17.2 N 201 251
Table 5b shows variation between respondents and non-respondents to the UNL COACHE Survey by gender, race, rank and academic area. Nonresponse to the UNL COACHE Survey did not meaningfully vary by gender (55% of women and 57% of men did not respond) or rank (56% of assistant professors, 55% of associate professors, and 56% of full professors did not respond). There is a tendency for nonwhite faculty to have higher rate of nonresponse (64%) compared to white faculty (53%). Finally, professors in Physical Sciences had the highest non-response rates (62%).
Table 5b: Bivariate analysis of nonresponse to COACHE Survey Response Nonresponse Gender Male 45% 55% (173) (214) Female 43% 57% (28) (37)
Race Nonwhite 36% 64% (31) (56) White 47% 53% (170) (195)
Rank Assistant 44% 56% (37) (48) Associate 45% 55% (61) (74) Full 44% 56% (103) (129)
Academic Area Physics 38% 62% (24) (39) Biological Sciences 44% 56% (19) (24) Engineering /Computer Sci. / Math /Statistics 46% 54% (95) (113) Agriculture/Natural Resource 46% 54% (63) (75) N (total = 452) 201 251 Notes : The cell sizes are in parentheses.
122 c. Nonresponse Summary Table 6 reports the results from a multivariate analysis of nonresponse to the Network and UNL COACHE Surveys. The results of this analysis are very consistent with the results from the previously reported bivariate analysis. For both the Network and UNL COAHCH Surveys, nonwhite faculty members are more likely to be non-respondents. Also, faculty members with higher teaching apportionments are more likely to be non-respondents and faculty members with higher administrative appointments are the least likely to be non-respondents. Faculty members in Engineering, Computer Science, Math or Statistics are more likely to be non-respondents to the Network Survey, whereas faculty in the Physical Sciences are more likely to be non-respondents to the UNL COACHE survey. Associate professors were more likely to be non-respondents, especially in comparison to assistant professors, to the Network Survey. For the UNL COACHE survey, however, full professors are most likely to be non-respondents. One slight difference occurs between the bivariate and multivariate analyses. Women appear somewhat less likely to be non-respondents to the Network Survey compared to men. Table 6: Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis of Nonresponse Network COACHE Survey Survey OR OR Female .927 1.048 Nonwhite 1.421 1.694 Rank Assistant c .679 1.003 Full c .922 1.228 Apportionment Research a .988 .988 Administration a .968 .981 Service a .975 .979 Extension a .990 .997 Academic Area Biological Sciences b .783 1.242 Physical Sciences b .696 1.595 Agriculture/Natural Resource b .870 1.081 Notes: models adjust for departmental clustering. The coefficients predict odds of nonresponse (OR= odds ratio). FTE is not included in these models due to the lack of variation in this variable (almost all faculty have an FTE of 1). a Teaching apportionment is the omitted reference group. b Engineering/Computer Science/Mathematics/Statistics is the omitted reference group. c Associate professor is the omitted reference group. 4. Reflections and Future Directions Two additional waves of data collection are planned within the ADVANCE-Nebraska time frame. The second wave of data collection will be administered Spring 2011, the 3rd year of ADVANCE- Nebraska, and the third wave of data collection will be administered Spring 2013, the 5th year of ADVANCE-Nebraska. For the next two waves of data collection, we will focus on developing new survey administration protocols with the goal of increasing our response rates. We are considering several options. First, the week the surveys are fielded we will hold an informational meeting about the survey and the purpose of social network analysis. Second, we may change the survey administration process by providing both a web or paper survey options. Another possible alternative is to administer the survey in person during a faculty meeting. Third, we will increase the visibility of the principle investigators and emphasize the academic research component of the study. Fourth, we will modify the use of administration during the survey administration process. We will ask the administration, especially deans, to send faculty chairs/heads an email requesting that the chair encourage their faculty to fill out the surveys, but all direct correspondence to faculty participants for the survey administration will only come from the principal investigators.
123 Section III-D. Surveys Used by ADVANCE-Nebraska 1. Faculty Exit Survey
124 2. Exit Survey for Department Chair of Exiting Faculty Member
125 3. Faculty Network Survey
UNL STEM Faculty Network Survey
First, we would like to ask about the time you spend on teaching, research and service.
Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement. 1) In the past month, I have been able to dedicate enough time to my research. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree
2) Overall this semester (spring 2008), the
3) In the past month, approximately what percentage of your time did you spend on teaching, research and service? ___ % Teaching (course prep, class time, & mentoring graduate and undergraduate students) ___ % Research (research & grant applications) ___ % Service (at the departmental, university & national level) 100% TOTAL (The percentages should total to 100%.)
© University of Nebraska Board of Regents
126 Now we would like to ask you some questions about your work and non-work related interactions with tenured and tenure-track faculty members within and outside the
4) Have you received helpful research related information, advice or equipment from each of the following faculty members in the
Once a A few times A few times Once a week Never semester a semester a month or more or less
Faculty name #1
Faculty name #2
Faculty name #3
5) From how many UNL faculty members outside of the
5a) In the spaces below, please type in the first & last name and select the primary departmental affiliation for each UNL faculty member outside of the
First Name Last Name Department
drop down box
drop down box
drop down box
drop down box
drop down box
6) From how many faculty members at other institutions have you received helpful research related information, advice or equipment during the 2007-2008 academic year? if none, please enter “0”____
© University of Nebraska Board of Regents
127 7) Have you provided research related information, advice or equipment to each of the following faculty members in the
Once a A few times A few times Once a week Never semester a semester a month or more or less
Faculty name #1
Faculty name #2
Faculty name #3
8) To how many UNL faculty members outside of the
8a) In the spaces below, please type in the first & last name and select the primary departmental affiliation for each UNL faculty member outside of the
First Name Last Name Department
drop down box
drop down box
drop down box
drop down box
drop down box
© University of Nebraska Board of Regents
128 9) Thinking about non-work related interactions, have you spent free time together (such as eating dinner, working out, or other leisure activities) or discussed personal matters (such as family celebrations or difficulties) with each of the following faculty members in the
Once a semester or A few times a A few times a Once a week Never less semester month or more
Faculty name #1
Faculty name #2
Faculty name #3
10) With how many UNL faculty members outside of the
10a) In the spaces below, please type in the first & last name and select the primary departmental affiliation for each UNL faculty member outside of the
First Name Last Name Department
drop down box
drop down box
drop down box
drop down box
drop down box
© University of Nebraska Board of Regents
129 Next we would like to ask about your research activities from January 2005 until now (roughly the past three years). You might find it helpful to have a copy of your vita handy when answering these questions in the survey.
11) How many peer-reviewed journal articles have you published since January, 2005 (roughly the past three years)? Please include research not yet published, but accepted for publication. if none, please enter “0” ______(if more than “0” then ask 11a and b) 11a) On how many of these peer-reviewed journal articles are you the first author? if none, please enter “0” ____ 11b) How many of these peer-reviewed journal articles are published in journals covered by the Thomson ISI database (i.e., science citation index)? if none, please enter “0” _____
12) How many book chapters or reports in edited volumes have you published since January, 2005 (roughly the past three years)? Please include research not yet published, but accepted for publication. if none, please enter “0” _____ (if more than “0” then ask 12a) 12a) On how many of these chapters or reports are you the first author? if none, please enter “0” _____
13) How many books have you published since January, 2005 (roughly the past three years)? Please include research not yet published, but accepted for publication. if none, please enter “0” _____ (if more than “0” then ask 13a) 13a) For how many of these books are you an editor? if none, please enter “0” ____
14) Please list any other types of scholarly publications you have had since January, 2005 (roughly the past three years).
15) Since January 2005 (roughly the past three years), have any of your scholarly activities been externally funded through grants or contracts? Please do not include consulting services. 1. Yes 2. No (skip question 15a)
15a) In total, approximately how much external funding have you received since January 2005? _____
© University of Nebraska Board of Regents
130 Now we would like to ask about teaching and research assistants.
16) Do you currently have any teaching assistants being paid to work for you? 1. Yes 2. No (skip question 16a)
16a) Thinking about all of your teaching assistants, how many hours per week are your teaching assistants paid to work for you? Please report the total number of hours summed for all of your teaching assistants currently working for you. 1. 10 hours or less per week 2. 11-20 hours per week 3. 21-30 hours per week 4. 31-40 hours per week 5. 41-50 hours per week 6. More than 50 hours per week
17) Do you currently have any graduate research assistants being paid to work for you? 1. Yes 2. No (skip question 17a)
17a) Thinking about all of your current graduate research assistants, how many hours per week are your graduate research assistants paid to work for you? Please report the total number of hours summed for all of your graduate research assistants currently working for you.
1. 10 hours or less per week 2. 11-20 hours per week 3. 21-30 hours per week 4. 31-40 hours per week 5. 41-50 hours per week 6. More than 50 hours per week
© University of Nebraska Board of Regents
131 Now we would like to ask about your current service and teaching responsibilities.
18) During the 2007-2008 academic year, how many courses will you have taught? if none, please enter “0” ____ (if zero, skip question 18a)
18a) Of these courses, how many were courses that you had not previously taught (i.e., new preps)? if none, please enter “0” _____
19) During the 2007-2008 academic year, how many course buyout(s)/release(s) did you use? if none, please enter “0” _____
20) How many UNL graduate student committees are you currently serving on? Please include graduate students within and outside of the
18a) On how many of these committees are you the chair/advisor? if none, please enter “0” _____ 18b) How many of these committees are for graduate students within the
21) How many UNL undergraduate students are you currently providing research mentorship to through the UCARE program, an independent study, or in any other way? if none, please enter “0” _____
22) How many UNL undergraduate students are you currently advising? if none, please enter “0” ____
23) How many UNL service committees are you currently serving on? Please include committees within and outside of the
23a) How many of these committees are within the
23b) Are you currently serving on any of the following committees for the
© University of Nebraska Board of Regents
132 Next we would like to ask about whom you have served on UNL graduate student or service committees with during the fall 2007 to spring 2008 academic year. Remember your answers to these questions will be confidential; specifically, your name and the name of your colleagues will be converted to numeric identification numbers.
24) Have you served on a UNL service and/or a graduate student committee with each of the following faculty members during the 2007-2008 academic year? Please include committees within or outside of the
Both service graduate student Neither service & committee committee committee graduate student only only committee
Faculty name #1
Faculty name #2
Faculty name #3
Finally, we have a few questions about you.
25) What is your current academic rank at UNL?
1. Professor 2. Associate Professor 3. Assistant Professor 4. Professor of Practice 5. Lecturer 6. Other title (e.g., Administrative, Adjunct, Emeritus, other) 7. Prefer not to answer
26) Do you have a joint appointment?
1. yes 2. no
© University of Nebraska Board of Regents
133 27) What is your gender?
1. Male 2. Female 3. Prefer not to answer
28) Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin?
1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t Know 4. Prefer not to answer
29) What is your race/ethnicity? Check all that apply.
1. White 2. Black or African American 3. American Indian or Alaska Native 4. Asian 5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 6. Other 7. Prefer not to answer
30) Please tell us anything else about the survey questions or being a faculty member that you would like us to know.
Thank you for participating in this study!
© University of Nebraska Board of Regents
134 Section III-E. Additional Appendices 1. First Year Calendar of Activities
ADVANCE‐Nebraska Calendar
Date Activity/Event Short Description 9/1/2008 ADVANCE‐Nebraska start date 9/1/2008 ADVANCE‐Nebraska Office opened Office renovated and ready to go for Advance‐Nebraska 9/2/2009 ADVANCE Grant Announcement Reception and announcement of the UNL Advance Grant. Mary Anne speaks on the new Advance office 9/3/2009 ADVANCE‐Nebraska Rollout Public announcement of award and reception for faculty, sponsored by the Office of Research 9/15/2009 ADVANCE Newsletter 1st Advance newsletter goes out 9/15/2008 Blackboard Site central location for evaluation data, all evaluation committee members 9/24/2009 Advance photo shoot Pictures are taken of women scientists at UNL
10/1/2008 ADVANCE website live http://advance.unl.edu 10/2/2008 Leadership Institute Mary Anne Holmes and Julia McQuillan attend the University of Nebraska Medical School (UNMC) Management Leadership Series 10/3/2008 Internal Advisory Board First meeting of the IAB, the board charge, and discussion of dual‐career hires 10/15/2009 ADVANCE Newsletter newsletters are added to web archive 10/17/2008 ADVANCE listserv live [email protected] listserv for all interested faculty & staff 11/1/2008 COACHE Reports Customized reports from COACHE survey will be completed 11/7/2009 IAB Meeting Discussion of announcements, events, and quarterly report 11/15/2009 ADVANCE Newsletter newsletter gaining support of STEM faculty 12/1/2008 First Interim Report include baseline Networking and COACHE surveys, past and upcoming events, summary of goals and what has been accomplished, website announcement 12/2/2008 Kickoff "Paths to Success" Luncheon Dr. Anne Vidaver, Professor of Plant Pathology at UNL Presents, "An Iconic Perspective of Women in Science, or didn't I know I was a Pioneer". 12/2/2008 Supplemental Report to PO within 3 months of A) project implementation & mgmt team, B)internal start date advisory committee, C) external advisory committee 12/4/2008 Leadership Institute Mary Anne Holmes and Julia McQuillan attend the Gallup Leadership Institute meeting 12/5/2008 Evaluation Meeting making sense of the COACHE data 12/15/2009 ADVANCE Newsletter 1/1/2009 Supplemental Report to PO within 4 months of A)Timeline: including benchmarks for the major project start date activities & who responsible, B) the Advance‐NE website URL
135 1/5/2009 Dual‐Career Hire ADVANCE‐Nebraska has its first dual career hire, Linxia Gu, Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering
1/8/2009 Leadership Institute Mary Anne Holmes and Julia McQuillan attend the Gallup Leadership Institute meeting
1/14/2009 Evaluation Meeting Discussion of COACHE data
1/15/2009 PI Meeting Discussion of modified Advance activities, NSF JAM and Ann Austin visit in February
1/15/2009 Advance Newsletter News and Announcements, coming events for ADVANCE‐Nebraska, and recently published articles relevant to faculty 1/21/2009 Evaluation Meeting Discussion of COACHE data and new charts to review
1/28/2009 Women's Leadership Coalition Mary Anne gives presentation at the Women's Leadership Coalition: The Whys and Hows of ADVANCE‐ Nebraska 2/1/2009 Supplemental Report to PO with 5 months of A)Evaluation Plan w/measurable objectives and start date benchmarks for project activities, B) Dissemination plan 2/1/2009 Database Quantitative institutional transformation indicators , baseline data for the indicators to be included in first annual report 2/5/2009 Leadership Institute Mary Anne Holmes and Julia McQuillan attend the Gallup Leadership Institute meeting 2/9/2009 Evaluation Meeting Discussion of Data 2/15/2009 ADVANCE Newsletter News and Announcements, coming events for ADVANCE‐Nebraska, and recently published articles relevant to faculty 2/19/2009 Evaluation Meeting Discussion of Data 2/20/2009 Recruit‐NE and Promote‐NE Meeting 1st Joint Committee Meeting to charge the ADVANCE‐ Nebraska committees 2/20/2009 February Forum Mary Anne talks with students for UNL's Center for Math and Science Education February Forum at Cornhusker Hotel in Lincoln, NE 2/20/2009 Nebraska Women in Science Conference Dr. Tracy Frank, UNL Department of Geosciences is key‐ note speaker for Nebraska Women in Science 2/24/2009, External Evaluator Visit Ann Austin, ADVANCE‐Nebraska's external evaluator 02/25/2009 meets with the Advance group and presented for all the UNL Department Chairs 2/26/2009 IAB Meeting Roundtable discussions on issues and concerns, marketing techniques, and how to become advocates for Advance‐Ne. 3/1/2009 Second Interim Report Due 3/2/2009 COACh Professional Development Workshop Two workshops: The Art of Strategic Performance and Strategies for Leading Change by Lee Warren and Nancy Houfek from Harvard University 3/13/2009 Paths to Success Luncheon Dr. Kimberly Espy, Associate Vice Chancellor, Office of Research: Walking the Career Family Tightrope
3/15/2009 Dual‐Career Hire Drs. Carina Curto and Vladimir Itskov join the Mathematics Department in August of 09, making them Advance's second dual‐career hire
136 3/15/2009 ADVANCE Newsletter News and Announcements, coming events for ADVANCE‐Nebraska, and recently published articles relevant to faculty 3/25/2009 Web Meeting Meet with Advance web team 3/30/2009 PI Meeting External Advisory Board: Shirley Malcolm resigns, Program discussion for 09‐10, elevator speech for ADVANCE on campus, HERC 4/1/2009 Evaluation Meeting discussion of data 4/15/2009 Promote‐Ne Meeting organizing materials and slides 4/15/2009 ADVANCE Newsletter News and Announcements, coming events for ADVANCE‐Nebraska, and recently published articles relevant to faculty 4/17/2009 Nebraska Women in Higher Education Julia McQuillan scheduled to give a presentation on the Leadership Conference Advance program at the Women in Higher Education conference. 4/20/2009 Recruit‐Ne Meeting discussion of data and preparing for summer work 4/27/2009 PI Meeting Update on HERC, Budgeting dual career, and COACHE survey results 4/28/2009 Web Meeting Updates for the website and program modifications, additions of several forms for programs
4/28/2009 Paths to Success Luncheon Dr. Heidi Schellman, Professor of Physics at Northwestern University and board member of the FERMI Lab, talk entitled " No Daughter of Mine is going to CalTech!" 4/29/2009 Showcase Visit Dr. Victoria Brown‐Kennerly, Research Instructor from Washington University in St. Louis
5/1/2009 Web Meeting with Academic Affairs Change Family Friendly Policies to Work‐Life Balance 5/4/2009 Evaluation Meeting 5/6/2009 Recruit‐Ne and Promote‐Ne Joint meeting Discussion on how two groups are progressing and how can work together 5/7/2009 Leadership Institute Mary Anne and Julia graduate from the management series 5/8/2009 Smart Women Smart Money Conference Jill attends conference in Omaha, sponsored by the State Treasury office 5/12/2009 Web Update meeting 5/15/2009 ADVANCE Newsletter Barbara Couture sends out personal letter for Advance newsletter to all STEM faculty, now 500 on the listserv 5/18/2009 PI Meeting Writing retreat modifications and discussion on how to approach more STEM faculty, HERC update, CITE theatre ensemble, hiring recommendations for the Recruit‐Ne committee, findings from the focus groups 5/19/2008 HERC Meeting Organization and funding meeting for developing a HERC at UNL 5/20/2009 Evaluation Meeting 5/21/2009 Promote‐Ne Meeting organize slides for September meetings 6/1/2009 Annual Report due to NSF
137 2. Procedure to Inform Applicants for Faculty Positions of UNL/ADVANCE’s Dual Career Program • Office of Equity, Access and Diversity sends the title for each newly approved short list for each position and the name of the search committee chair to the ADVANCE office via fax. • Holmes contacts the chair and obtains the short list of candidates. • Program manager Hochstein sends a letter to each short-listed candidate that explains the dual career procedure and a copy of a brochure providing information on all work-life balance policies at UNL. • Candidates with potential dual career opportunities that will help ADVANCE-Nebraska increase the number of women faculty in STEM departments are encouraged to contact Holmes for further information. • For candidates that do contact the ADVANCE office, Holmes c.v. and letter of interest from the candidate’s partner which constitutes permission for Holmes to contact the appropriate (partner’s) department chair and dean. • If the primary partner receives an offer, and the department chair of the partner’s potential department(s) finds that the c.v. indicates that the partner is qualified for a faculty position and will fit programmatically, the department chair will communicate with the department faculty and the ADVANCE office pays for the partner to visit campus for an interview. • The partner’s potential departmental faculty meet and vote the candidate up or down. • For positive votes, the ADVANCE office provides ¼ of salary for three years while a permanent funding stream is worked out in the appropriate college, and the Office of Research provides 1/3 of an appropriate startup fund for the partner.
138 3. Letter to Short List Candidates for Faculty Positions, re: Dual Career Program DATE Dear XX, I write to congratulate you on being invited to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for an interview for the ______position in the ______(department). Permit me to introduce myself. I am Mary Anne Holmes, project director for UNL’s ADVANCE-IT grant from the National Science Foundation (http://www.advance.unl.edu). The goal of this program, ADVANCE-NE, is to increase the number of women in tenured and tenure-leading faculty positions in science, engineering, mathematics and technology (STEM) departments on the UNL campus. Nationally, approximately 80% of women in STEM fields have an academic partner. One of our key strategies for ADVANCE-NE is to foster a family friendly university that is responsive to the needs of dual career couples. The ADVANCE-NE office, which operates independently of each department’s search process, is eager to work with women in STEM fields who have an academic partner and with applicants for positions in other disciplines whose partner is a woman in a STEM field. If you or your partner is a woman in a STEM field, we invite the partner to send a current c.v. and letter of interest to this office, attn: Mary Anne Holmes, Director, Advance-NE, at any time (sooner is better). Electronic copies of the c.v. and letter (to [email protected]) are preferred. We strongly urge your partner to study the website of the department s/he may wish to join, and write a statement about how s/he will fit in and contribute to the department’s mission in the letter of interest. If an appropriate tenure-leading position is available and your partner is qualified to fill it, your partner may be invited to the UNL campus to interview as near to the time of your interview as possible. I assure you that we will not release any information that you provide without your permission. You and/or your partner are welcome to contact the ADVANCE-NE office by email or by phone (402-472-5211) at any time for further information or clarification of this process. UNL is committed to hiring excellent faculty. It is a great place to work. We support faculty by providing professional development opportunities, including grant-writing workshops, technical writing assistance and workshops on writing, time management and mentorship. There is undergraduate assistance for teaching and research. We provide multiple informal networking opportunities across campus. UNL has a comprehensive set of work-life balance policies, including tenure interruption, active service and modified duties (including short-term, part-time tenure appointments), parental leaves for births and adoptions, family caregiving leaves, leaves for serious illness or injury, and leaves for research, creative, or teaching purposes. UNL offers an on-campus daycare facility (to open Fall, 2009) and mother’s rooms located around the campus (see the enclosed brochure or visit our website for more information). The ADVANCE-NE office is available to provide further information on these and other work-life balance programs offered at UNL. Sincerely, Mary Anne Holmes Director, Advance-Nebraska
139
4. Tracking form for potential Dual Career hires ADVANCE-Nebraska
Dual Career Tracking Form
The person below will or has received an offer for an academic position at UNL. Their spouse may be eligible for an academic position in a potential department listed below.
Primary Hire: Job# Dept. Dept: Chair: Date of offer:
Partner
Name Specialty: Potential Areas of Hire: Letter of Interest & CV attached Contacts Chair: Dean: ADVANCE ACTIONS
Follow-up: Date
Follow-up: Date
Follow-up: Date
Follow-up: Date
140 5. ADVANCE-Nebraska Committees Recruit-NE (statistics) • Andrzej Nowak, Robert W. Brightfelt Professor of Engineering and Professor of Civil Engineering • Concetta DiRusso, Professor, Department of Nutrition • Elizabeth "Libby" G. Jones, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Civil Engineering • Susan Hermiller, Professor, Mathematics • Erin Blankenship, Associate Professor, Statistics • Merlin Lawson, Professor and Emeritus Dean (Graduate College), Geosciences
Promote-NE (evaluation) • Sunil Narumalani, Professor, School of Natural Resources • Alexandra Basolo, Professor, School of Biological Sciences • Tracy Frank, Associate Professor, Geosciences • Xiao Cheng Zeng, Ameritas University Professor, Department of Chemistry • Brian Robertson, Professor, Mechanical Engineering • Shireen Adenwalla, Associate Professor, Physics
Chair of Committee in bold
Committee Charges Recruit-NE The charge of the Recruit-Nebraska committee is to help faculty in our STEM departments get first-hand knowledge of the number of potential female candidates with PhDs in their academic areas and to equip faculty with Best Practices for recruitment of women to applicant pools. This committee of six faculty members (five members and a chair) is modeled after the University of Michigan’s STRIDE Committee (http://sitemaker.umich.edu/advance/stride).
Promote-NE The charge of the Promote-Nebraska Committee is to help faculty in our STEM departments get first-hand knowledge of the impact of implicit (unconscious) biases that may be present when performing faculty evaluations. Typical evaluation activities where bias can be present include: reviewing applications for faculty positions, conducting annual faculty evaluations, and reviewing promotion and tenure materials.
141 6. Agenda for External Evaluator’s First Visit Ann Austin Erickson Professor of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education ADVANCE-Nebraska External Evaluator Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:00am – 11:30am Advance Office , 21 Canfield Administration, UNL City Campus 10:30am – 11:00am Barbara Couture, Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs & ADVANCE PI Evelyn Jacobson, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs 208 Canfield Administration 11:30am – 1:00pm Dean/Chair Workshop UNL City Union, room posted 2:30pm – 4:30pm UNL ADVANCE Evaluation Committee 318 C Love Library
7:00 Dinner
Wednesday, February 25, 2009 9:00am – 10:00am ADVANCE Website Team Meeting 318 C Love Library 10:00am – 10:30am Christina Falci, Social Networks Research 318 C Love Library 10:30am – 11:30am Evaluation Committee 318 C Love Library 11:30am -12:30pm Co-PI Luncheon Barbara Couture, Evelyn Jacobson, Mary Anne Holmes, Namas Chandra, David Manderscheid, Julia McQuillan, Nancy Busch, Mindy Anderson-Knott, Jill Hochstein, Jim Lewis 318 C, Love Library 1:30pm – 3:00pm UNL ADVANCE Evaluation Committee 318 C, Love Library 3:00pm – 4:00pm Advance Office, 21 Canfield
143