The University of Texas at El Paso



The University of Texas at El Paso

NSF ADVANCE: Institutional Transformation for Faculty Diversity

Faculty Work Life Survey

Comparison of 2003 and 2007 Results

Evaluation Report

Igor Ryabov

Ann Darnell

1. Introduction

Faced with the problem of enhancing opportunities for women in science and engineering, the National Science Foundation launched the ADVANCE program in 2001 with the goal “to develop systemic approaches to increase the representation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers, thereby contributing to the development of a more diverse science and engineering workforce.” (NSF, 2008).[1] The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) was one of the 4-year colleges and universities that was awarded a NSF ADVANCE 5-year grant. The UTEP ADVANCE program is funded for 5 years (2003-2008). While serving as a model for other institutions that desire to increase the representation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering, UTEP has set a target to improve climate for women via transforming institutional culture (views, attitudes, norms and shared beliefs) as one of its priority goals. With the purpose of assessing the success of this effort, the UTEP ADVANCE evaluators administered a survey to faculty about work life at UTEP. The instrument, included at the end of this report, is based on the “Study of Faculty Work Life” survey that was developed by the Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute at the University of Wisconsin Madison. The survey establishes a baseline of the issues concerning recruitment, retention and departmental, college and overall university climate and culture.

By using the findings of the survey, this report examines the progress made by UTEP ADVANCE in improving institutional climate for female faculty in science and engineering. The report begins by describing the survey’s methodology, the process used to administer the survey, and the demographics of the respondents. The results are then presented in Section 3, where the subsections are organized by the major categories of the instrument: the hiring process, resources, departmental interactions and decision making process, perceptions of gender diversity, the tenure process, and other results. The report ends with a summary.

2. Methodology

In order to capture the institutional climate change at the beginning and the end of the UTEP ADVANCE program, the ADVANCE team administered the “Study of Faculty Work Life at the University of Texas at El Paso” in two waves – three years apart. The first wave was administered in paper format during the spring semester of 2004. The administration of the survey’s second wave took place in the fall of 2007. This time the survey was entirely web-based.

The survey contains 54 questions. The scale used generally ranged from very satisfied to very unsatisfied. Questions 1-5 pertain to employment history, including the positions held at UTEP. The satisfaction of respondents with the hiring and tenure processes at UTEP is measured by questions 6-9 and 10-16, respectfully. Questions 17-24 relate to professional activities, while satisfaction with UTEP as an institution is measured by questions 25-28. Attitudes towards diversity issues and sexual harassment are evaluated by questions 29-33. Questions 34-49 determine to what extent faculty at UTEP are able to balance their professional and personal lives. Finally, individual’s demographic data, including age, gender, ethnicity and citizenship status, are recorded by questions 50-54.

The questionnaire was sent to all full-time faculty in the 18 science and engineering departments funded through the NSF ADVANCE grant.[2] All tenured, tenure-track faculty and full-time lecturers were asked to complete the survey. Table 1 shows the distribution of the targeted population and respondents by gender, ethnicity (White, Hispanic, Other), position (Professor, Associate, Assistant, and Lecturer) and department. Departments were grouped by whether they were in a Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics (STEM) field or in a Social and Behavioral Sciences (S & BS) field.

Overall, the rate of response was 42% in 2004 and 46% in 2007. An analysis of sample composition by gender reveals that, although the men constituted the majority of respondents in both waves, the share of women in the sample has increased significantly since 2004. In all likelihood, the increased presentation of women in science and engineering departments is a direct result of the ADVANCE effort aimed at recruitment and retention of female faculty.

Table 1: Distribution by Gender, Ethnicity, Position and Department, Waves 1 and 2

|  |Targeted Population |Respondents |

|  |2004 (Wave 1) |2007 (Wave 2) |2004 (Wave 1) |2007 (Wave 2) |

|  |N=301 |N=324 |N=126 (42%) |N=149 (46%) |

| | | | | |

|Gender |21% Female |25% Female |30% Female |37% Female |

|  |80% Male |75% Male |70% Male |63% Male |

|  | | | | |

|Ethnicity |60% White |59% White |64% White |61% White |

|  |22% Hispanic |27% Hispanic |25% Hispanic |28% Hispanic |

|  |18% Other |14% Other |11% Other |11% Other |

| | | | | |

| Position |29% Professor |29% Professor |30% Professor |26% Professor |

|  |24% Associate |27% Associate |25% Associate |32% Associate |

|  |27% Assistant |29% Assistant |29% Assistant |33% Assistant |

|  |20% Lecturer |15% Lecturer |16% Lecturer |10% Lecturer |

|  | | | | |

|Department |57% STEM |58% STEM |56% STEM |54% STEM |

|  |43% S & BS |42% S & BS |44% S & BS |46% S & BS |

The multivariate analyses, the results of which are discussed in the next section, were performed with the help of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The Bonforroni method of comparing multiple means was used in the analysis. If many tests are done on the same data this increases the chance of spurious correlation and some kind of correction is needed (e.g., Bonforroni). For the sake of parsimony, below we present only those results that showed significant gender-based differences according to the Bonforroni tests.

3. Results

3.1 Hiring Process

Overall, roughly three quarters of all faculty, regardless of gender, ethnicity, position, or discipline, felt that they were naïve about the hiring process in 2004, and male faculty were more satisfied with the overall hiring process than women. Specifically, men were more positive about their hiring process experience than women in the areas of resources, effort to meet the candidate, interactions with the search committee and negotiation. Significant differences were also observed in 2004 between associate professors and non-tenure-track faculty in responses to the questions of whether faculty in the department made en effort to meet the candidate and whether a respondent felt naïve about the negotiation process.

Table 2: Hiring Process

Wave 1

Percent who Strongly Agree or Somewhat Agree

| |Gender |Ethnicity |Position |Discipline |

| |M |F |

Wave 2

Percent who Strongly Agree or Somewhat Agree

| |Gender |Ethnicity |Position |Discipline |

| |M |F |

In contrast to the 2004 findings, we found only one significant gender difference in the area of hiring process, that is the overall satisfaction (p ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download