Sex comparisons among science faculty at Hunter College

1. Sex comparisons among science faculty at Hunter College Department perceptions, social networks, and procedural knowledge Hunter College Gender Equity Project & Provost’s Office 2007 Science Faculty Survey

2. Background • Hunter does well in gender equity with respect to major outcomes • Female and male faculty in the sciences fare similarly in • salary • tenure and promotion • awarding of distinguished professorships and named chairs

3. Background • But outcome fairness is not the primary predictor of how people perceive fairness overall in their institutions • Two other types of fairness play more important roles • interactional fairness1 – how respectfully people are treated on a day-to-day basis • procedural fairness2 – clear and well-justified policies 1. Bies, R.J. & Shapiro, D.L. (1988). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1(2), 199-218 2. Lind, E.A & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. NY: Plenum

4. Purpose of Science Faculty Survey • Examine subtle measures of interactional and procedural fairness • college life • department life • professional networks • resource allocation and responsibility

5. Demographics • 52% of science faculty completed the consent form (101/195) • 46% of science faculty provided information about their sex (89/195) • 49% of science faculty who responded were women (38/77) and 35% were men (41/118)

6. Demographics (Cont.) Biology Chemistry Computer Sci. Geography Math & Stat. Physics & Astro Anthropology Economics Political Sci. Psychology Sociology

7. Results • College Life • Department Life • Professional Networks • Resource Allocation and Responsibility

8. College Life: Importance of teaching

9. College Life: Importance of research

10. College Life: Importance of committee work

11. College Life Male and female science faculty • equally find a great deal of personal meaning in their work • Women=4.72 (.44); Men=4.62 (.50) • are equally identified with Hunter College • Women=3.52 (.94); Men=3.86 (.85) 1 = Strongly Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 5 = Strongly Agree

12. College Life Male and female science faculty have similar judgments about their • ability to spend enough time on the aspects of work that they find most important • Women=2.63 (.98); Men=2.68 (1.02) • satisfaction with the Offices of Facilities Management & Planning • Women=2.89 (.85); Men=3.18 (.80) 1 = Strongly Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 5 = Strongly Agree

13. College Life: Satisfaction with tenure and promotion t(1,66) = 2.29, p = 0.03 Example: I receive/d enough feedback on my progress toward tenure/promotion.

14. College Life: Job Satisfaction t(1,75) = 1.84, p = 0.07 Example: Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with my current job.

15. College Life Summary Compared to men, women are less • satisfied with tenure and promotion processes • satisfied with their jobs

16. Department Life Male and female science faculty • are similarly neutral about their department chairs • Women= 2.89 (.85); Men =3.18 (.80) • equally report feeling respected in department meetings • Women = 3.74 (.70); Men = 3.93 (.44) • report having similar influence over what happens in their departments • Women = 3.28 (.73); Men = 3.22 (.85) 1 = Strongly Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 5 = Strongly Agree

17. Department Life: Inclusion & Belonging t(1,69) = 2.89, p < 0.01 Example: I feel like I “fit” in my department.

18. Department Life: Collegiality t(1,76) = 3.10, p < 0.01 Example: Communication is good among the people in my department.

19. Department Life: Support t(1,69) = 1.78, p = 0.08 Example: There are people in your department who have used influence to support your advancement.

20. Department Life: Evaluation of Department Staff t (1,67) = 3.14, p < 0.01 Example: When I make a request it is completed in full.

21. Department Life Summary Men report more and women report less • sense of inclusion and belonging • collegiality • support from colleagues • satisfaction with department staff

22. Professional Networks:Talk to chairs • 72% of men and 84% of women report talking “almost never” about teaching • 75% of men and 82% of women report talking “almost never” about research • 92% of men and 95% of women report talking “almost never” about tenure and promotion

23. Professional Networks:Talk to faculty outside Hunter College • 39% of men and 35% of women report talking “at least once a week” about research • 65% of men and 73% of women report talking “almost never” about teaching • 89% of men and 95% of women report talking “almost never” about tenure and promotion

24. Professional Networks:Talk to undergraduate students • 45% of men and 49% of women report talking “at least once a week” about teaching • 56% of men and 41% of women report talking “at least once a week” about research

25. Professional Networks:How often do you talk about teaching with Hunter faculty? χ2 = 11.43, p < 0.01

26. Professional Networks:How often do you talk about research with Hunter faculty? χ2 = 5.21, p = 0.07

27. Professional Networks • Collaborate on grants or research with chairs • 66% of men and 80% of women report having never been asked by their chair to collaborate • 91% of men and 90% of women report never asking their chair to collaborate • Collaborate on grants and research with colleagues • 61% of men and 56% of women report having been asked to collaborate with colleagues more than once • 39% of men and 53% of women report having asked colleagues to collaborate more than once

28. Professional Networks:How much recognition do you get for teaching?

29. Professional Networks:How much recognition do you get for research?

30. Professional Networks:How much recognition do you get for committee work?

31. Professional Networks Summary Compared to men, women • talk about teaching and research with colleagues less often • equally ask and are asked to collaborate on grants and research with chairs and colleagues • report less recognition for teaching, research and committee work

32. Resource Allocation and Responsibility

33. Resource Allocation and Responsibility

34. Rules and Procedures Summary • Men and women are equally satisfied with the office and lab space they receive and are equally dissatisfied with the amount of TAs and course load they receive • Rules and procedures for distributing resources and responsibilities in departments are more transparent to men than to women

35. Overall Summary:Areas of equal satisfaction Male and female science faculty equally • find teaching, research and committee work to be important • find a great deal of personal meaning in their work • identify with Hunter College • feel respected in department meetings • influence what happens in their departments • ask and are asked to collaborate on grants and research with chairs and colleagues

36. Overall Summary:Areas of unequal satisfaction Compared to men, women • are less satisfied with tenure and promotion • are less satisfied with their jobs in general • report less inclusion, collegiality, and support in their departments • have less discussion with Hunter faculty about teaching, research, and committee work • report less recognition for teaching, research, and committee work

37. Recommendations Administrators, chairs, and senior faculty should: • solicit and listen equally to everyone’s views and opinions • create settings that encourage colleagues and department chairs to interact with each other • justify, clarify, and codify department rules and procedures for the distribution of resources and responsibilities • nominate faculty for awards and prizes and publicize faculty achievements

38. Soliciting views and opinions At all meetings, make sure that all ideas are solicited and are equally carefully considered: • circulate agendas before department meetings and ask faculty for additions • consider having facilitators, on a rotating basis, to ensure that all voices are heard • if someone tries to express an idea in a meeting and is interrupted or ignored, make sure that that person’s opinion is given time

39. Create opportunities for professional networks • Hold brown bags and luncheons in which faculty can discuss their research, teaching, and service • Assign space so that faculty with similar interests can easily interact • Have a chair or a senior colleague reach out to faculty who seem alienated or marginalized

40. Why it matters • People need the components of interactional fairness • a sense of inclusion • influence • a voice which is heard • People perceive organizations to be more fair when the components of interactional fairness are in place

41. Clarify rules and procedures • Spell out policies and procedures in clear, unambiguous terms • Chairs, senior faculty, and administrators should be approachable, available, and willing to answer questions about policies and procedures • Create and distribute specific written guidelines to all faculty regarding tenure and promotion and rules and procedures for distributing resources and responsibilities

42. Why it matters • People need the components of procedural fairness • knowledge about how resources and responsibilities are distributed and the justifications • knowledge about how the tenure and promotion process works and the justifications

43. Awards and achievements • Nominate faculty for awards and prizes • Publicize faculty awards, prizes, grants, and other achievements • to other faculty within department • to dean, provost, and president

44. Why it matters • Recognition by colleagues improves individuals' attachment to institution

45. End