Mary Frank Fox Co-Principal Investigator Georgia Tech ADVANCE Conference March 2005 NSF ADVANCE Research Program.

Mary Frank Fox

Co-Principal Investigator

Georgia Tech ADVANCE Conference

March 2005

NSF ADVANCE Research Program

OUTLINE

I. GT Advance Research Program

II. Interviews with GT Women Faculty

III. Interviews: Findings and Implications

IV. Survey of Peer Institutions

V. GT and Peer Institutions

I. GT ADVANCE Research Program

• Tied to GT’s “integrated institutional approach” to positive outcomes-and best practices-for faculty

A. Survey of GT Faculty Perceptions, Needs, and Experiences, 2002/03 • Report online at:

www.advance.gatech.edu/ADVSURV_NSFREPORT.pdf

B. Follow-up interviews with GT women faculty, Summer 2004

C. Survey of faculty in (8) Peer Institutions, 2003/04

D. Follow-up to original GT faculty of survey, 2005/06

E. Interface with support of GT Tenure and promotion ADVANCE Committee (PTAC), 2002-04

• PTAC Report, David L. McDowell, Chair (online at: www.advance.gatech.edu/ptac

• Awareness of Decisions in Evaluating Promotion and Tenure (ADEPT), Carol Colatrella, team leader: instruments, case studies, and reference materials (www.adept.gatech.edu)

II. Interviews with GT Women Faculty

• Follow-up to Survey of GT FacultyA. Aim and Issues including:

• Participation: importance of having an academic career, and involvement in decision making.

• Performance: meaning of “success” and “satisfaction.”

• Advancement: criteria for promotion, application of criteria, and critical transitions.

B. Method• Subjects identified

with aim for distribution across fields, ranks, and racial/ethnic groups.

• Data collected in semi-structured interviews (60-90 minutes each), conducted in Summer 2004.

CollegeJunior Rank

Senior Rank

Computing 0 3

Engineering 2 4

Sciences 4 2

Ivan Allen 3 2

Total 9 11

Requests for Interviews = 24

Positive Response = 20 (85%)

• Coding and analysis– Two-levels of coding– Electronic file of responses thus coded– Frequency tables generated– Roster created with “quotes” for response-

categories of questions identified from tables

III. Interviews: Findings and Implications

A. Findings in Key Areas• Participation and Performance• Participation in Decisions Making• Advancement

Assistant to Associate: consistent criteria reported and application said to “vary with candidate.”

Associate to Full: consistent citation of criteria, but with less understanding at lower ranks; application of criteria said to “vary with candidate.”

B. Implications for Practice and Policy• Guidelines for advancement• Pathways for involvement in decision making

IV. Survey of Peer Institutions

A. Aim: survey of women and men faculty-to provide data in comparative context

B. Questions/Issues:Cover areas in survey of GT faculty• Teaching and research• Work environments• Processes of evaluation• Work-family arrangements

C. Method• Group surveyed:

Stratified random sample of men faculty (by field) and population of women faculty (except for sampling in life sciences and psychology) in:

• Computing• Engineering• Sciences (six science fields in GT College of Sciences)

Within eight peer institutions: Carnegie Mellon; Cornell; MIT; Purdue; Stanford; U. of California-Berkley; U. of Illinois-Champaign/Urbana; U. of Texas-Austin.

• Mail survey in up to four waves of mailing, 2003/04.

N surveyed: 965 (527 men, 438 women)

Response Rate: 65% (65% men, 65% women)

V. Georgia Tech and Peer Institutions: Comparative Survey Findings

A. Key areas in which survey findings from peer institutions are similar to – and different from – those at GT.

Respondents to GT Survey* (N)

College Men WomenComputing 8 5

Engineering 57 34

Sciences 35 18

Total 100 57Response rate to GT survey:   76% (70% men, 85% women)*IAC responses not included here

Figure 1. Current Level of Interest in Teaching and Research, by Gender.

Figure 2. Frequency of Speaking about Research with Faculty in Unit, by Gender.

Figure 3. Frequency of Speaking about Research with Faculty in Unit, by Gender (Aggregated Categories).

Figure 4. Percentage Reporting They Have Colleagues in Home Unit Working in Own/Related Area, by Gender.

Figure 5. IF Have Colleagues in Own/Related Area, Percentage Reporting Willingness of Colleagues to Collaboration, by Gender.

Figure 6. Rating of Aspects of Position/Unit, by Gender.

Figure 7. Mean Levels of Characterization of Home Unit, by Gender.

Figure 8. Reported Clarity for Tenure and Promotion, by Gender.

Figure 9. Reported Importance of Factors for Decisions on Promotion and Salary, by Gender.

Figure 10. Percentage Reporting that Chair Reviews Performance at Least Once Yearly, by Gender.

Figure 11. Percentage Reporting They Are Parents of Any Children, by Gender.

Figure 12. IF Parent, Percentage Reporting They Are Parents of Children, Age 0-5, by Gender.

Figure 13. Percentage Reporting Work Affected by Childcare Options, by Gender.

Figure 14. Reported Extent of Interference-Work and Family Responsibilities.

B. GT and Peer Institution Surveys:  Conclusion• Areas shared• Areas for GT improvement• Areas in which GT is ahead