Faculty Work Climate Survey

(1)

Faculty Work Climate Survey

University of Illinois at Chicago

June 2006

FINAL REPORT

www.uic.edu/depts/oaa/faculty/climatesurvey.html

Manorama M. Khare, PhD

Center for Research on Women and Gender

Linda Owens, PhD

Survey Research Laboratory

(2)

(3)

TABLES

Page

1. Response Rates, by College... 7

2. Response Rates, by Discipline ... 8

3. Response Rates, by Gender... 8

4. Scales Developed from Survey Items ... 10

5. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents ... 12

6. Factors That Most Contribute to Satisfaction at UIC... 14

7. Factors That Most Detract from Satisfaction at UIC... 14

8. Mean Scale Scores for Level of Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC, by Discipline and Rank... 16

9. Mean Scale Scores for Consideration to Leave UIC, by Gender and Discipline ... 17

10. Factors Contributing to Consideration to Leave UIC ... 18

11. The Hiring Process Scale ... 20

12. Mean Scores for the Hiring Process Scale, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank ... 20

13. Mean Number of Undergraduate Courses Taught, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank ... 21

14. Mean Number of Graduate Courses Taught, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank... 21

15. Mean Number of Papers Accepted for Publication, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank ... 22

16. Mean Number of Books Accepted for Publication, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank ... 22

17. Self-Rated Research Productivity as Compared to Other Researchers in the Field, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank ... 23

18. Department View of Research Productivity as Compared to the Departmental Average, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank ... 23

19. The Lack of Resources Scale ... 23

20. The Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues Scale... 24

21. The Negative Departmental Climate Scale... 26

22. Mean Scores for the Negative Departmental Climate Scale, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank ... 26

(6)

26. Mean Scores for the Positive Climate for Minorities Scale, by Gender and Discipline,

Controlling for Rank ... 28

27. The Tenure Process Scale ... 30

28. Mean Scores for the Tenure Process Scale, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank .. 30

29. Utilization and Value of UIC Programs... 32

30. The Balance Between Personal and Professional Life Scale ... 33

31. Mean Scores for Balance Between Personal and Professional Life Scale, by Gender and Whether Faculty Cared for Children, Controlling for Rank ... 34

32. Departmental Support for Family Obligations ... 36

33. Who Performs More Than 50% of Child/Dependent Care, by Gender and Discipline ... 36

34. Predictors of Satisfaction with Current Position at UIC ... 39

35. Predictors of Satisfaction with Current Position at UIC, by Gender ... 40

36. Predictors of Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC... 40

37. Predictors of Satisfaction with Career Progression with UIC, by Gender ... 41

38. Predictors of Consideration to Leave UIC... 41

39. Predictors of Consideration to Leave UIC, by Gender ... 41

40. Predictors of How Seriously Faculty Have Considered Leaving UIC... 43

41. Predictors of Overall Satisfaction... 44

42. Predictors of Negative Departmental Climate (as Perceived by Respondents)... 45

43. Predictors of Departmental Lack of Resources (as Perceived by Respondents) ... 46

(7)

FIGURES

Page

1. Degree of Satisfaction with Position at UIC... 13

2. Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC ... 15

3. Distribution of Overall Satisfaction... 16

4. Consideration to Leave UIC... 17

5. Number of Years in Current Faculty Position ... 19

6. Assumed Causal Ordering of Variables in Path Model ... 43

(8)

(9)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Final Report Authors

This report was prepared by Manorama M. Khare from the Center for Research on Women and Gender and Linda Owens from the Survey Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Chicago. They were assisted at various stages of the report by several faculty and staff as listed below.

Internal Review Board Protocol Application

Principal Investigator — Bette L. Bottoms, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychology

Co-Principal Investigator — Peter C. Nelson, PhD, Professor and Head, Department of Computer Science Survey Development

Bette L. Bottoms, PhD Professor, Department of Psychology

Judith K. Gardiner, PhD Professor, Department of English; Professor and Director, Department of Gender & Women’s Studies

Manorama M. Khare, PhD, Senior Research Specialist, Center for Research on Women & Gender Claudia S. Morrissey, MD, MPH Director, WISEST Initiative; Deputy Director, Center for Research on

Women & Gender

Mrinalini C. Rao, PhD Professor, Department of Physiology & Biophysics; Vice-Provost for Faculty Affairs

Judith A. Richman, PhD Professor of Epidemiology, Department of Psychiatry

Stephanie Riger, PhD Professor, Department of Psychology; Professor, Department of Gender & Women’s Studies

Brenda Russell, PhD Professor, Department of Physiology & Biophysics; Executive Associate Vice Chancellor for Research

Lisa Kelly-Wilson, MA Senior Coordinator of Survey Research Information Services, Survey Research Laboratory

We gratefully acknowledge the eight faculty members from the School of Public Health who participated in the pilot testing and provided feedback for the development of the survey.

Data Entry & Analysis

Sarah H. Bickerton, BSc, MA (Dist.) Graduate Assistant, WISEST Initiative; PhD Candidate, Department of Sociology

Andrew J. Cooper, MPH Project Manager, Research Data Management Group, Center for Advancement of Distance Education

Timothy P. Johnson, PhD Professor, Public Administration; Director, Survey Research Laboratory

Manorama M. Khare, PhD Senior Research Specialist, Center for Research on Women & Gender Linda Owens, PhD Assistant Director for Sampling & Statistics, Survey Research

(10)

Final Report Reviewers

Stacie E. Geller, PhD Associate Professor, College of Medicine; Director, Center for Research on Women & Gender; Director, Center for Excellence in Women’s Health

Timothy P. Johnson, PhD Professor, Public Administration; Director, Survey Research Laboratory

Manorama M. Khare, PhD Senior Research Specialist, Center for Research on Women & Gender Linda Owens, PhD Assistant Director for Sampling & Statistics, Survey Research

Laboratory

Claudia S. Morrissey, MD, MPH Director, WISEST Initiative; Deputy Director, Center for Research on Women & Gender

Mrinalini C. Rao, PhD Professor, Department of Physiology & Biophysics; Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

Linda Skitka, PhD Professor, Department of Psychology Administrative Support

Patricia Newton Center for Research on Women & Gender

Kimberly Barba Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs (now Administrative Assistant, External Education Administration)

(11)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The UIC Faculty Work Climate Survey was designed to capture the perceptions ofall College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS) and College of Engineering (COE) faculty members regarding their workplace: what they like, what they dislike, what is important to their daily life, and what enhances or impedes productivity. Recognizing the existing strengths and limitations of the workplace

environment (climate) will help the campus develop a cohesive plan to benefit all faculty members.

Methods

Questionnaires were mailed to all tenured and tenure-track faculty in the Colleges of LAS and Engineering.

• The initial mailing to 521 faculty members was sent in April 2004. • A second mailing was sent to 308 nonrespondents four weeks later.

• Faculty respondents returned a separate postcard to indicate they had completed the survey. The survey deadline was June 15, 2004.

• Surveys were categorized by discipline into science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), which included the College of Engineering, LAS Natural Sciences, and

Mathematics; and non-STEM, which included LAS Humanities and LAS Social Sciences. • The overall response rate was 67%. The STEM response rate was 69%; the non-STEM

response rate was 64%.

• Data were analyzed by faculty gender, rank, and STEM/non-STEM status.

• The primary outcomes of interest were satisfaction with current position, satisfaction with career progression, and consideration to leave UIC.

Characteristics of Faculty Respondents

• 74% of respondents were men and 26% were women.

• The female:male ratio was 38:62 in the non-STEM fields and was 14:86 in the STEM fields. • 80% were non-Hispanic Caucasian.

• The ratio of non-Hispanic Caucasian:Underrepresented Minority:Other was 83:4:13 for men and 72:20:8 for women. This was a significant gender-based difference.

• Half of all respondentswere from a STEM discipline. Twenty-seven percent of women respondents were from the STEM fields as compared to 73% from the non-STEM fields. • 85% of the men faculty respondents and 68% of the women faculty respondents were

tenured.

• The ratio of Professor:Associate Professor:Assistant Professor among women faculty was 33:36:31, as compared to 56:29:15 among men faculty.

(12)

• Approximately three quarters of the faculty reported having children. Women faculty were twice as likely as men faculty to be childless.

• Overall, 21% (68) of the respondents reported that their job prevented them from having the number of children they wanted. Women were more likely to indicate that this was the case: 35% did so, compared to 16% of men.

Overall Satisfaction and Considerations to Leave

In general, faculty members were more satisfied than dissatisfied.

• 67.5% of faculty were moderately satisfied or very satisfied with their position at UIC. • 62.7% were moderately satisfied or very satisfied with their career progression.

• Colleagues, students, research, and teaching were factors that contributed to satisfaction. • However, 61% had seriously considered leaving UIC.

• General resources, administration, and salary were factors that detracted from satisfaction.

Differences in Outcome by Respondent Characteristics

Differences in the outcome variables were evident by discipline, rank, and gender. • Faculty in the non-STEM disciplines were more satisfied with the way their career

progressed than faculty in the STEM disciplines.

• The higher the rank of the faculty, the more satisfied they were with the way their career progressed.

• Male faculty considered leaving UIC more seriously than female faculty.

• Although those in the non-STEM fields reported being more satisfied, they were also more likely to have considered leaving UIC.

Factors Influencing Satisfaction and Thoughts of Leaving

• Faculty who perceived their departmental climate as negative were less satisfied and thought more seriously about leaving UIC.

• A lack of resources led to less satisfaction and more serious thoughts of leaving.

• Faculty who lacked like-minded colleagues were less satisfied with their position and career progression.

• Tenured faculty were more satisfied with their position than faculty without tenure. • Faculty who had been a principal investigator on a funded grant, or who perceived

themselves as productive, were more satisfied with their career progress.

• Faculty who most seriously considered leaving UIC were not tenured, were from the non-STEM disciplines, were not married or living with a partner, had not successfully

renegotiated their current position, had few resources, and worked in a more negative departmental climate.

(13)

Gender Differences

One limitation of this analysis is the relatively small number of women respondents, limiting our ability to detect gender differences. The problem is not one of proportional response of women but rather the small numbers of women faculty. Despite these small numbers, some significant gender differences were evident.

• The only factor associated with dissatisfaction with current position for women was working in a negative departmental climate.

• For men, in addition to a negative working climate, working with fewer resources, not having tenure, and caring for dependent children were associated with less satisfaction with their current position.

• When examining negative effects on career progression, both men and women identified a negative departmental climate and having fewer resources as important.

• Women also reported being less satisfied with their career progression if they were not well published and grant funded.

• Men were less satisfied with their career progression if they had fewer like-minded colleagues and worked in a climate perceived as positive for women.

• Of the predictors of considerations to leave, the two factors that cut across gender lines were working in a negative departmental climate and the discipline. For both men and women, working in a department they perceived as negative resulted in them thinking more seriously of leaving. Faculty members in a STEM discipline were less likely to think of leaving.

Next Steps

• The results of this survey have provided the campus with a framework for addressing issues of climate and resources that will affect all faculty at UIC.

• The survey findings have been presented to the faculty of the Colleges of Liberal Arts and Sciences and Engineering and to the WISEST Executive Committee.

• A group consisting of senior campus leadership will be tasked by the Provost with

developing a blueprint for policy and program recommendations based on the survey data. The Provost will be requesting an initial report by December 2006.

• Implementation of the recommendations should occur in conjunction with the Strategic Plan to create a more robust and supportive climate.

• Practical steps include workshops with Department Heads and faculty in a dialogue across campus (workshops/town hall meetings) to address these issues.

•

Future research to examine gender differences should include qualitative methodologies, such as one-on-one interviews or focus groups.

(14)

INTRODUCTION

1. History

The University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) Program is charged with enhancing the educational experience of women students in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines and elevating the number and profile of women STEM faculty. WISE focuses on women academics through its Women in Science and Engineering System Transformation (WISEST) Initiative, a project jointly funded by NSF and UIC. The goal of WISEST is to increase the number, participation, and leadership status of women in academic science and engineering through institutional transformation at UIC.

2. Women in Science and Engineering System Transformation (WISEST)

The WISEST Initiative was created to assess and redress barriers to women’s advancement. Although the initiative is tailored to address the conditions of women STEM faculty, the lessons learned are applicable to the entire campus. Over the last several years, numerous complementary activities were undertaken to guide system transformation: department self-studies, leadership development seminars, policy analysis, and data gathering. A key data gathering effort was the development and fielding of a faculty climate survey in the Colleges of Engineering (Engineering) and Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS).

3. Faculty Climate Survey

In the fall of 2003, under the aegis of the WISEST Executive Committee, a climate survey team was formed to realize this component of the WISEST Initiative. As discussion of the intent and scope of the survey ensued, the importance of understanding the perceptions of all faculty—women, men, minorities, non-minorities, STEM faculty, and non-STEM faculty—became increasingly evident. The broader UIC academic community would need to be engaged to heighten the likelihood that program and policy changes would result from the survey findings and to ensure that reform efforts could benefit all faculty. This reframing of the climate survey was in keeping with three fundamental premises of WISEST:

• Increasing the number and improving the status of underrepresented groups (women and minorities) will require that system norms and practices be assessed and altered;

• Implementing policies and programs that contribute to greater employment satisfaction and productivity for women will result in the same for men; and

• Policies and programs that enhance work satisfaction for STEM disciplines can be applied with success to non-STEM disciplines as well.

Thus, what began as a WISEST survey to assess the perspectives of women faculty in STEM was broadened to capture all Engineering and LAS faculty members’ perceptions of their workplace: what they like, what they dislike, what is important to their daily life, what enhances or impedes

productivity. Recognizing the existing strengths and limitations of the workplace environment (climate) helps the campus develop a cohesive plan to benefit all faculty members, rather than a piecemeal approach benefiting only a few.

(15)

4. Previous Studies

A review of available research has documented greater perceptions of negative departmental climates among female and minority faculty in college and university settings. A convenience sample of faculty from 69 North American institutions of higher education reported that female faculty overall viewed their work environments as “chillier” than did their male colleagues (Riger, Stokes, Raja, & Sullivan, 1997). Similar conclusions were reached from a survey of academic climate and activities of faculty at the University of Michigan (Stewart, Stubbs, & Malley, 2002). Researchers there developed a general index of departmental climate and found that female faculty in science and engineering departments reported the most negative climates. Perceptions of a negative departmental climate, in turn, were strongly correlated with low levels of job satisfaction among faculty. Additional analyses of the University of Michigan survey data also revealed greater perceptions of negative departmental climate among faculty of color, compared to white faculty, in science and engineering departments (Stewart, Malley, & Stubbs, 2004). A survey of faculty conducted at the University of Minnesota in 2004 found that faculty of color perceived that university’s climate for persons of color to be less favorable than did white faculty (Glomb, Lluis, & McCall, 2005). Similar findings were reported with regards to differences in perceptions of female and male faculty regarding the climate for women at that university: female faculty perceived the climate for women to be less favorable than did their male peers. These findings confirm the importance of investigating faculty perceptions of work and departmental climate at UIC.

5. Climate Survey Project Goals

The UIC Faculty Work Climate Survey had six specific goals:

1. Create a survey instrument that could accurately assess faculty perceptions of the working climate in the Colleges of Engineering and Liberal Arts and Sciences.

2. Achieve a response rate equal to or higher than typical response rates for similar surveys. 3. Analyze the results by discipline (STEM versus non-STEM) and gender, controlling for

factors that might be associated with those factors, such as rank. 4. Make the findings widely available to faculty.

5. Make the findings available to UIC upper administration, who have committed to using the results to inform policy and program development aimed at improving faculty satisfaction, productivity, and equity.

(16)

CLIMATE SURVEY DEVELOPMENT

1. Survey Design

The questionnaire for the UIC Faculty Work Climate survey (Appendix A) was crafted after reviewing climate survey instruments developed at several other universities (Stewart, Stubbs, & Malley, 2002; The University of Wisconsin-Madison Campus Climate, n.d.) and was tailored to address issues specific to UIC. The final instrument was a ten-page questionnaire that addressed overall satisfaction with UIC, the hiring process, professional activities, interactions with colleagues, work climate within the department, the tenure process, UIC programs and resources, balance of professional and personal life, and diversity issues.

The survey was developed by a team of researcherswith expertise in either survey development or work climate issues.

2. Pilot Testing

The questionnaire was pilot tested via phone interviews with a sample of eight faculty from the School of Public Health (four men and four women). Two of these were members of

underrepresented minority groups. The purpose of the pilot test was to identify questions that were ambiguous, that were perceived as difficult to answer, that did not have appropriate response categories, or that faculty would refuse to answer. Respondents also were asked to identify areas related to work climate that were not included in the questionnaire.

Each faculty member was sent the questionnaire the morning of the interview with a one-page instruction sheet (Appendix B). The interview time ranged from 15–39 minutes, depending on the extent of comments from testers. Based on these interviews, minor changes were made to response categories, skip patterns,1_{and wording of some of the questions. Final formatting of the questionnaire} was done by the Survey Research Laboratory at UIC.

3. IRB

Approval

The finalized questionnaire was submitted to and approved by the UIC Institutional Review Board (IRB approval #2004-0120).

4. Survey Implementation

A list of all full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and the College of Engineering wasobtained from therespective colleges just prior to mailing. A survey packet was sent to all faculty on these lists using campus mail.

Each mailed packet included the following: • The climate questionnaire;

• A cover letter addressed to the faculty from the Provost of UIC stressing the importance of the survey;

1_{A skip pattern refers to the fact that the specific questions a respondent answers may vary with responses to previous}

questions. For example, Question 32 in this survey asked if the respondent has tenure. If the answer was yes, the respondent answered two additional questions that were only relevant for tenured faculty. If the respondent answered no, those two questions were skipped.

(17)

• A self-addressed return postcard (Appendix C) with the name of the faculty and their school affiliation; and

• A self-addressed envelope in which to return the questionnaire.

Questionnaires were sent out in two waves. The initial wave was sent in the first week of April 2004 to all qualified faculty (521) in the two schools: LAS and COE. A second wave was sent to 308 faculty who did not respond to the first mailing. The return postcard was used as a way to track returns. Faculty were asked to return the postcard separately from the questionnaire to maintain anonymity of the responses. Those who did not return the postcard received the second mailing of the questionnaire. There was a small possibility that a number of faculty who had already responded to the survey also received a second mailing, but to our knowledge none filled it out a second time.

5. Data Management

Data from all the questionnaires were entered using the SPSS data entry software. Double data entry was done for 32.5% (n=114) of the questionnaires. Nine data points were found to be in error, which corresponds to an error rate of 0.05%.2_{The open-ended responses were entered into a}

Microsoft Word file. The coding categories used are presented in Appendix D. On completion of data entry and checking, all the questionnaires and postcards were shredded in keeping with the IRB protocol.

6. Response Rate

The overall response rate3_{for the survey was 67%. The response rate was 54.7% (285/521) for} the first wave of the questionnaire mailing and 21.4% (66/308) for the second wave.

Table 1 presents the response rates for the survey by college as well as the percent of total responses contributed by each college.

Table 1. Response Rates, by College

COLLEGE TOTAL Number of

responses Response rate

Percent of total responses

TOTAL 521 351 67.0% 100.0%

College of Engineering 107 71 66.4% 20.0% LAS - Natural Sciences 144 103 71.5% 29.0% LAS - Humanities 153 108 70.6% 30.4% LAS - Social Sciences 114 73 64.0% 20.6%

We received 351 completed questionnaires. However, when we stratified by department, we had a total of 355. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that although faculty were asked to list their primary department, six respondents listed more than one department and two did not list any department.

Table 2 presents the response rates for the survey by STEM disciplines. The data on college affiliation were collected using four categories, as presented in Table 1. Since the subgroup of interest

(18)

Engineering, LAS Natural Sciences, and Mathematics, and non-STEM, which included LAS

Humanities and LAS Social Sciences. Henceforth, all data will be presented using these two categories of discipline. There was no significant difference in the percent of survey responses received from each of the disciplines.

Table 3 presents the response rates by gender. The percent of responses within each gender group is comparable; however, overall, males represented 72% of the total responses and females represented 25% of the total responses. These percentages are proportional to the percent of male and female faculty in the overall sample.

Table 2. Response Rates, by Discipline

Discipline Total sample size Number of responses Response rate

TOTAL 521 351 67.4% 100.0%

STEM 251 173 68.9% 49.3%

Non-STEM 267 172 64.4% 49.0%

Discipline missing n/a 6 n/a 1.7%

Table 3. Response Rates, by Gender

Gender Total sample size Number of responses Response rate

TOTAL 521 351 67.4% 100.0%

Men 381 253 66.4% 72.1%

Women 140 89 63.6% 25.4%

Gender missing n/a 9 n/a 2.6%

7. Data Analysis

Analyses of these data proceeded in several stages.

(a) Analysis of Variance

After preliminary univariate and bivariate analyses, the data were further examined using the Analysis of Variance procedure (ANOVA). ANOVA is designed to establish whether a significant nonrandom difference exists among several sample means. Statistically, it is the ratio of the variance occurring between the sample groups to the variance occurring within the sample groups. It is assessed using the F-test. A large F value—that is, when the variance between is larger than the variance within—usually indicates a nonrandom significant difference (a difference created by the introduction of the independent variable).

The independent variables included in all the analyses were gender, discipline (STEM vs. non-STEM), and rank. We also included all three possible interactions between the independent variables. ANOVAs were first run with all these variables and interaction terms; if the interactions were not significant, then the most parsimonious model is presented. Race was not used as an independent variable in the bivariate analyses because of small numbers in some race categories.

(b) Exploratory Factor Analysis

Several sections of the questionnaire contained multiple items pertaining to a particular aspect of respondents’ work experience. For example, Question 12 included six items related to satisfaction with the hiring process. Question 21 included seven items related to resource availability. Rather than

(19)

include each of these individual items in the analyses, we created a set of scales incorporating the individual measures. Exploratory factor analysis techniques were used to develop the scales.

Prior to scale construction, some items had to be reverse coded so that all scale items measured responses in the same direction. For example, Question 28 contains 17 items related to interactions with people in one’s primary department. For all items, a score of 1 means the respondent strongly agrees with the statement, while a score of 6 means strong disagreement. However, some are worded such that strongly agreeing indicates negative feelings about the department, while in other items, strongly agreeing indicates positive feelings. For example, item a states “I am treated with respect by colleagues,” and item b states “I feel isolated at UIC overall.” A score of 1 on item a indicates the respondent feels respected, while a score of 1 on item b means the respondent feels isolated.

Negatively worded questions (e.g., “I feel isolated,” “I feel excluded”) were reverse coded so that a score of 1 means strong disagreement with the statement. After recoding, the closer the score is to 1, the more favorably respondents evaluate interactions with people in their department. In Table 4 on the following page, items that were reverse coded prior to the scale construction are indicated by the letter r after the item name.

In constructing the scales for the analyses, we first ran a factor analysis to determine the underlying factor structure. Scales consisted of items that were associated with the same factor. Reliability analysis determined which of the items identified in the factor analysis detracted from the overall reliability of the scale. These items were eliminated from the scales. Table 4 provides a brief description of each scale included in the analysis, the items included in each scale, whether the items were reverse coded, and the reliability of each scale. Additional details about each scale are included in the individual sections.

(c) Multiple Regression Analysis

The bivariate and ANOVA analysis laid the groundwork for a multivariate analysis that deepens the understanding of faculty members’ overall experience. Multiple regression analysis techniques were used to identify the factors associated with job satisfaction, career progression, and the decision to remain at UIC. Three separate single-path regression models were run using the above-mentioned measures as the dependent variables. The results are assessed using the R2 _value, which represents the proportion of variance explained by the independent variables in the model. The Beta coefficients assessed by the t-test explain the relationship of each independent variable with the dependent variable. The overall F-test is used to assess the significance of the model.

(d) Path Analysis

While individual regressions can show the influence of independent variables on each outcome variable separately, a path analysis provides an overall assessment of the pathways through which the independent and intervening variables influence the outcome measures, controlling for all other factors. Path analysis assumes a causal order and explains variation in the dependent and intervening variables (see Figure 7) using the variables assumed to precede them. The path analysis consists of a series of least squares regressions, which are interpreted statistically in much the same way as the multiple regressions.

(20)

Table 4. Scales Developed from Survey Items

SURVEY ITEMS Scale Title Description

Alpha for Scale 1(r), 2(r) Satisfaction with Current Position and

Career Progression

See page 13, 15

Scale combines 2 satisfaction measures. Higher values indicate greater satisfaction.

.84

12a–12f The Hiring Process

See page 20

Satisfaction with resources, interactions, salary negotiations, etc. Value of 1 indicates highest satisfaction.

.86

21a–21d Lack of Resources

See page 23

Lack of computing equipment and office and lab space. High value indicates inadequate resources.

.78

21e, 21f Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues

See page 24

Lack of colleagues who do similar research or provide career advice. High value indicates lack of colleagues.

.68

28a, 28b(r), 28c, 28e(r), 28f, 28g(r), 28h, 28i, 28k(r), 28(l), 28m(r), 28n, 28o, 28p, 28q

Negative Departmental Climate

See page 26

Includes feelings of integration, respect, recognition, and participation. High values indicate negative feelings about or experiences in the department.

.89

29a(r), 29b(r), 29c, 29d, 29e, 29f, 29g, 29h, 59a, 59b(r), 59c, 59d(r), 59e(r), 59f, 59g(r)

Positive Climate for Women

See page 27

Equal treatment of men and women, harassment and discrimination not

tolerated, etc. High value indicates positive climate for women.

.90

30a(r), 30b(r), 30c, 30d, 30e, 30f, 30g, 30h, 60a, 60b(r), 60c, 60d(r), 60e(r), 60f, 60g(r)

Positive Climate for Minorities

See page 28

Equal treatment of minority and non-minority faculty, harassment and

discrimination not tolerated, etc. High value indicates positive climate for minorities.

.91

37a–37f The Tenure Process

See page 30

.81

47a, 47c Balance Between Personal and Professional Life

See page 33

Lower values indicate difficulty integrating personal/professional life.

.74

8. Structure of the Report

The remaining sections of the report are presented in two parts: Section I (pp. 11–37) presents results of the univariate, bivariate, and ANOVA analyses for each subsection in the survey. Results of the exploratory factor analyses conducted to create scales for the questions with multiple items also are presented where appropriate. All bivariate analyses are presented stratified by gender (male vs. female) and discipline (STEM vs. non-STEM). The analyses also controlled for rank (assistant, associate, or full professor). Exceptions are where the stratification resulted in such small cell sizes that there was a possibility of faculty anonymity being compromised.

Section II (pp. 38–48) presents results of the regression analyses for three outcome variables: satisfaction with UIC, satisfaction with career progression at UIC, and consideration to leave UIC. We conclude the analysis section with a path model in which we attempt to place all significant predictors and correlates of how seriously respondents have considered leaving UIC into one context.

(21)

RESULTS: SECTION I

1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Demographic information—including gender, citizenship, race, marital status, years from terminal degree, current rank at the university, and current tenure status—is presented in Table 5. The percentages are the valid percentages; they do not include the nonresponse cases.

The survey was sent to a total of 521 faculty, 26% of whom were women. The proportion of women respondents was reflective of the total sample. Overall, 26% of the respondents were women and 74% were men.

Most of the faculty (98%) were U.S. citizens. The respondent sample consisted primarily of Caucasian non-Hispanic males. The ratio of non-Hispanic Caucasian:Underrepresented Minority: Other was 83:4:13 for men and 72:20:8 for women.

Respondents were equally divided between STEM and non-STEM faculty. The female-to-male ratio in the STEM fields was 14:86 as compared to 38:62 for the non-STEM fields.

A majority of respondents (99%) reported a PhD as their terminal degree, and all were full-time faculty. The mean number of years since receiving their terminal degree was 20.3 ± 11.35, and the median was 19. At the time of the survey, 79% were tenured, with 31% being associate professors and 48% being full professors. Nineteen percent of the faculty were tenure-track assistant professors.

(22)

Table 5. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents CHARACTERISTIC Frequency (%) Total N=351 Male N=253 Female N=89 Gender Male 253 (74%) Female 89 (26%) No response 9 Citizenship US citizen 332 (98%) 247 (98%) 85 (96%) Not US citizen 8 (2%) 4 (2%) 4 (2%) Total 340 251 89 No response 11 Race Caucasian, non-Hispanic 263 (80%) 199 (83%) 64 (72%) Underrepresented minority(a) 28 (9%) 10 (4%) 18 (20%)

Other 38 (11%) 31 (13%) 7 (8%) Total 329 240 89 No response 22 Discipline STEM 169 (50%) 145 (58%) 24 (27%) Non-STEM 169 (50%) 105 (42%) 64 (73%) Total 338 250 88 No response 13 Current Rank/Title Assistant professor 64 (19%) 37 (15%) 27 (31%) Associate professor 105 (31%) 73 (29%) 32 (36%) Professor 167 (50%) 138 (56%) 29 (33%) Total 336 248 88 No response 15

Current Tenure Status

Tenured 275 (80%) 214 (85%) 61 (68%) Not tenured 65 (20%) 37 (15%) 28 (32%) Total 340 251 89 No response 11 Full-Time Status Full-time 338 (100%) 250 88 Part-time — — — No response 13 Marital Status

Married living with spouse/Unmarried living with partner 268 (80%) 204 (82%) 48 (56%) Married/Partnered living in different locations 18 (5%) 9 (4%) 9 (11%) Single, widowed, other 49 (15%) 29 (12%) 20 (23%)

Total 335 249 86

No response 16

Spousal Employment Status

Employed full-time 174 (60%) 118 (53%) 56 (84%) Employed part-time 52 (18%) 46 (21%) 6 (9%) Not employed 43 (15%) 43 (19%) — Retired 20 (7%) 15 (7%) 5 (2%) Total 289 222 67 No response 62 Number of Children None 76 (24%) 45 (19%) 31 (39%) 1–3 230 (73%) 182 (77%) 48 (61%) > 4 11 (4%) 11 (5%) — Total 317 238 79 No response 34 (a)

(23)

2. Satisfaction with UIC

This section of the survey instrument contained three global satisfaction questions: (1) satisfaction with current position at UIC, (2) satisfaction with career progression at UIC, and (3) consideration to leave UIC. To get more information on factors that may contribute to faculty members’ satisfaction with UIC, we also asked three open-ended questions related to each of the global satisfaction questions. Appendix D provides the details on the coding scheme used to code the open-ended responses for Question 3 (factors contributing to satisfaction), Question 4 (factors

detracting from satisfaction), and Question 6 (factors contributing to considerations to leave).

(a) Satisfaction with Position at UIC

The first survey question read, “How satisfied are you, in general, with your position at UIC? Please circle the number that best corresponds to your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.” Response categories ranged from 1–6, with 1 being “very satisfied” and 6 being “very dissatisfied.” The variable was reverse coded so that higher values were associated with greater satisfaction.

As shown in Figure 1, 15.5% were very satisfied and 42% were moderately satisfied with their position at UIC. However, 15.2% of the faculty were moderately dissatisfied and 7.5% were very dissatisfied with their position at UIC.

Figure 1. Degree of Satisfaction with Position at UIC

7.5% 15.2% 7.8% 12.0% 42.0% 15.5% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Degree of satisfaction Per cent

In the ANOVA procedure, the dependent variable was satisfaction with position at UIC, and the three independent variables were gender, discipline, and rank, none of which had a significant effect on mean level of satisfaction. None of the interactions between the three independent variables were

Very Moderately Slightly Slightly Moderately Very dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied

(24)

Table 6 summarizes the responses to Question 3, the open-ended question on satisfaction. The percentage of faculty who responded under each of the categories is

presented in the table. Only 295 of the 351 respondents provided answers to this question.

As can be seen in the table, 51% of respondents said that colleagues were the top factor contributing to satisfaction at UIC. This was followed by students (30%), research (26%), teaching (20%), and location (15%). All other categories were mentioned by less than 10% of respondents.

Some written responses for factors contributing most to

satisfaction included the following:

• “Student population is diverse, excellent faculty/colleagues, great department head.” • “Freedom to pursue my research and teaching interests.”

• “Colleagues, department head, reasonable teaching load.”

Faculty also were asked to list the factors that most detracted from their satisfaction at UIC in an open-ended format (Question 4). Two

hundred and ninety five faculty responded to this question. Table 7 presents the percentage of faculty that responded under each of the coding categories (see Appendix D for the coding scheme).

Of those who responded to this question, 47% listed resources in

general as the primary factor detracting from satisfaction at UIC. The other responses were administration (35%), salary (35%), colleagues (23%), and students (18%). Although salary had little impact on making people feel satisfied at UIC (4%), it did have an impact on making them feel dissatisfied (35%).

Below are some representative

written responses for factors detracting from satisfaction:

• “Lack of dedication to building of research excellence, lack of proper facilities for research, lack of institutional stability, inability to compete during recruitment.”

• “The lack of resources, the slow and inefficient bureaucracy. The difficulties of hiring new faculty members; the lack of time for my own research and writing; the staff issues.”

Table 6. Factors That Most Contribute to Satisfaction at UIC

Response Category Count (N=295)

% of Respondents* Colleagues 151 51% Students 88 30% Research 78 26% Teaching 59 20% Location 43 15% Administration 22 8% Resources in general 20 7%

UIC reputation & potential 16 5% Staff & staff support 16 5% Recognition & respect for work 13 4% UIC urban identity & mission 12 4%

Salary 11 4%

Service duties/responsibilities 7 2%

Miscellaneous 30 10%

*Because multiple responses were accepted, the % does not sum to 100.

Table 7. Factors That Most Detract from Satisfaction at UIC

% of Respondents* Resources in general 148 47% Administration 109 35% Salary 108 35% Colleagues 71 23% Students 57 18% Research 35 11%

Staff & staff support 27 9%

Teaching 22 7%

Recognition & respect for work 21 7% UIC reputation & potential 14 5% Service duties/responsibilities 12 4%

Location 7 2%

UIC urban identity & mission 2 1%

Miscellaneous 35 11%

*Because multiple responses were accepted, the % does not sum to 100.

(25)

• “Failure of administration to provide adequate resources to do my job.” • “Low salary, politics, poor teaching facilities.”

(b) Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC

This question asked “How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with the way your career has progressed at UIC? Please circle the number that best corresponds to your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.” The response categories ranged from 1–6, with 1 being “very satisfied” and 6 being “very dissatisfied.” The variable was reverse coded to make intuitive sense so that higher values represented greater satisfaction.

Satisfaction with career progression at UIC showed a similar trend to satisfaction with position at UIC. As shown in Figure 2, 18.5% of respondents were very satisfied and 44.2% were moderately satisfied with the way their careers have progressed at UIC. On the other hand, 5.4% of the faculty were very dissatisfied and 11.7% were moderately dissatisfied with their career progression.

Figure 2. Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC

5.4% 11.7% 5.7% 13.4% 44.2% 18.5% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Degree of satisfaction P e rcen t

The ANOVA used satisfaction with career progression at UIC as the dependent variable and gender, discipline, and rank as the independent variables. The analysis also included the three possible interactions between the independent variables, none of which was significant.

While mean levels of satisfaction did not vary significantly by gender, they did vary by

discipline and rank. Table 8 presents the mean scale scores by rank and discipline for satisfaction with career progression at UIC. The overall mean score for satisfaction was 4.40 ± 1.41, a value that

indicates that most faculty were moderately satisfied to slightly satisfied with the way their careers

Very Moderately Slightly Slightly Moderately Very dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied

(26)

Very

dissatisfied dissatisfiedModerately dissatisfiedSlightly satisfiedSlightly Moderately satisfied Very satisfied 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%

Figure 3. Distribution of Overall Satisfaction

Table 8. Mean Scale Scores for Level of Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC, by Discipline and Rank

STEM Discipline Non-STEM Discipline Total by Rank* Rank Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n

Assistant Professor (n=63) 4.19 1.42 32 4.10 1.70 31 4.14 1.55 63 Associate Professor (n=101) 4.10 1.55 40 4.44 1.41 61 4.31 1.47 101 Professor (n=165) 4.34 1.39 92 4.85 1.14 73 4.57 1.31 165 TOTAL by Discipline (n=329) 4.25 1.43 164 4.56 1.38 165 4.40 1.41 329 *p<.05. Overall F-value: 2.51; p=0.04.

(c) Overall

Satisfaction

Measure

Because of the high correlation between the two satisfaction measures (r=.729, p<.001), we created a variable measuring the respondents’ overall satisfaction. It is the mean of the two individual satisfaction scores presented above and also ranges from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 6 (very satisfied). As a mean, it may also have a mid-point value (e.g., 1.5 between Moderately dissatisfied and Slightly dissatisfied). In the ANOVA model, the combined satisfaction score is the dependent variable, and gender, discipline, and rank are the independent variables. The analysis also included the three possible interaction terms, which were not significant. The mean levels of overall satisfaction did not differ significantly by gender, discipline, or rank. The overall level of satisfaction is 4.27 ± 1.37. Figure 3 shows the distribution of overall satisfaction.

(d) Consideration to Leave UIC

As another way of assessing satisfaction, we looked at how seriously faculty considered leaving UIC. The question was phrased as “How seriously have you considered leaving UIC?” The response categories ranged from 1–4, with 1 being never considered leaving and 4 being very seriously

considered leaving. The higher the value, the more seriously the faculty member considered leaving. A total of 345 faculty responded to the question. Over a third (120, 35%) very seriously

considered leaving UIC, and 90 (26%) were moderately serious about leaving UIC. Ninety-three (27%)

(27)

were slightly serious about leaving UIC, and a relatively small number—42 (12%)—had never considered leaving UIC. These results are graphically represented in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Consideration to Leave UIC

35% 26% 27% 12% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

How seriously respondent has considered leaving UIC

P

e

rcent

The dependent variable in the ANOVA was consideration to leave UIC, and the three

independent variables were gender, discipline, and rank. The analysis also included the three possible interactions between the independent variables, none of which was significant. While mean levels of consideration to leave UIC did not vary significantly by rank, they did vary by discipline and gender.

The mean scale scores show that male faculty considered leaving UIC more seriously than female faculty. Faculty in the non-STEM fields considered leaving more seriously than their STEM counterparts. Those in STEM fields tend to be less mobile due to infrastructure issues such as labs, equipment, etc., and previous research has shown that women often bear the overwhelming burden of family and child-rearing responsibilities, making it more difficult to consider a move as compared to men (Preston, 2004; Sullivan, Hollenshead, & Smith, 2004; Williams, 2000). Table 9 presents the mean scale scores for consideration to leave UIC by gender and discipline.

Table 9. Mean Scale Scores for Consideration to Leave UIC, by Gender and Discipline

STEM Discipline Non-STEM Discipline Total by Gender* Gender Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n

Male faculty (n=244) 2.74 1.03 141 3.00 0.97 103 2.85 1.01 244 Female faculty (n=85) 2.35 1.13 24 2.82 1.04 61 2.69 1.08 85

TOTAL by Discipline** (n=329) 2.69 1.05 165 2.94 0.99 164 2.81 1.03 329

Very Moderately Slightly Have not seriously seriously seriously considered it

(28)

An open-ended question was used to capture other factors contributing to the consideration to leave UIC. As can be seen in Table 10, 43% of respondents said that salary was the top factor contributing to their consideration to leave UIC. This was followed by resources in general (31%), colleagues (21%), administration (17%), and research (14%). All other categories were mentioned by less than 12% of respondents. In previous

questions, salary appeared not to play a significant role in satisfaction with UIC, but for those who considered leaving UIC, salary was the most important contributor.

Respondents were asked to comment on factors that contributed to

the consideration to leave UIC. The following comments are representative: • “Salary, resources, physical campus environment.”

• “Lack of resources; climate in my department which has become lukewarm/cool at best towards those who are not part of the ‘old guard.’”

• “Lack of money to: attract good graduate students, hire new faculty, and giveraises to existing faculty. Also the attitude of higher administration. Also personal reasons.” • “Atrocious services, poor accounting, diabolically bad physical plant, too many

administrations—vice chancellors, etc.—all-in-all extremely inefficient and wasteful.”

Summary

In general, faculty were more satisfied than dissatisfied (two-thirds versus one-third) with their current positions at UIC. Male and female faculty from STEM and non-STEM disciplines and

assistant, associate, and full professors did not differ significantly in their satisfaction levels. When asked about satisfaction with career progression at UIC, there were differences by discipline and rank but not gender. The results show that faculty in the non-STEM disciplines were more satisfied with the way their careers have progressed than those in the STEM disciplines. Additionally, the higher the rank of the faculty, the more satisfied they were with their career progression. That is, full professors were more satisfied with the way their careers have progressed than associate professors, who were more satisfied with their career progression than assistant professors.

When asked about consideration to leave UIC, 61% of respondents had considered leaving UIC, and the predominant reason was salary. While consideration to leave UIC did not vary significantly by rank, it did vary by discipline and gender. The results show that male faculty considered leaving UIC more seriously than female faculty. While those in the non-STEM fields reported being more satisfied, they were more likely to consider leaving UIC. In contrast, faculty from the STEM fields report being less satisfied but were less likely to consider leaving. This difference could be due to the nature of the scholarship, in that faculty in the STEM fields have many more infrastructure issues to consider before moving, making the decision a harder one. Alternatively, it may be that the more

Table 10. Factors Contributing to Consideration to Leave UIC

% of Respondents* Salary 121 43% Resources in general 87 31% Colleagues 60 21% Administration 47 17% Research 39 14% Students 35 12%

Recognition & respect for work 30 11%

Teaching 23 8%

Location 22 8%

UIC reputation & potential 21 7% Staff & staff support 14 5% Service duties/responsibilities 6 2% UIC urban identity & mission 2 1%

(29)

satisfied faculty are, the more confident they are of their abilities, making them want to consider moving to other places.

3. The Hiring Process at UIC

This section contained questions about respondents’ first faculty position at UIC, their full-time status, current title, and number of years they have held this title. An additional series of questions identified factors that make UIC attractive to faculty and probed for aspects of the hiring process that were experienced either positively or negatively. A final question in this section referred to any renegotiation that the faculty member may have done with regards to his or her position.

(a) Faculty

Rank

Of the faculty that responded to the survey, 67% (234) were hired as assistant professors, 16% (55) as associate professors, and 15% (52) as full professors. Two percent (6) were hired as instructors. All had a full-time status with the university. At the time of the survey, 19% (67) were assistant professors, 31% (109) were associate professors, and 48% (168) were full professors. Faculty

respondents have held their positions for periods ranging from 6 months to 41 years. Figure 5 shows the distribution for the number of years faculty have held their current positions.

(b) Satisfaction with the Hiring Process

0–5 5–10 10–15 15–20 20–25 25–30 30–35 35–40 40–45

Years held current position*

0 10 20 30 40 50

60 Current title/rank at UIC

Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor

* Non-overlapping 5-year categories were used (i.e., "5– 10" consists of the range from 5 up to but not including 10) Figure 5. Number of Years in Current Faculty Position

Resp

onde

(30)

and a mean inter-item correlation of 0.51 (Table 11). In general, faculty were more satisfied with the hiring process than with their negotiated salary and resources.

Table 11. The Hiring Process Scale

Items Mean SD

Item Total Correlation

12a. I was satisfied with the hiring process overall. 2.12 1.19 .62 12b. The department did its best to obtain resources for me. 2.79 1.69 .74 12c. Faculty in the department made an effort to meet me. 2.04 1.29 .47 12d. My interactions with the search committee were positive. 1.82 .98 .59 12e. I negotiated successfully for what I needed. 2.81 1.53 .79 12f. I was satisfied with my start-up package at the time. 2.65 1.62 .75 Reliability Coefficient Alpha = .86.

An analysis of variance was run to look for differences by gender and discipline on the hiring process scale. There were no significant differences by either gender or discipline on the scale scores. This implies that male and female faculty from both disciplines experienced the hiring process similarly. The overall mean score of 2.33 ± 1.06 indicates that the faculty were moderately satisfied to slightly satisfied with the hiring process. The mean scale scores are presented in Table 12.

Table 12. Mean Scores for the Hiring Process Scale, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank

STEM Discipline Non-STEM Discipline Total by Gender Gender Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n

Male (n=241) 2.36 1.07 140 2.27 1.07 101 2.33 1.07 241 Female (n=84) 2.14 1.02 23 2.44 1.03 61 2.36 1.03 84

TOTAL by Discipline (n=325) 2.33 1.07 163 2.34 1.05 162 2.33 1.06 325

No significant differences.

(c) Renegotiation

The final question in this section was about successful renegotiation of salary, summer support, lab resources, or reduction of teaching load. Of the faculty who responded to the question, 101 (31%) said they had successfully renegotiated, as compared to 69% who said they had not. Of the 101 faculty who said they successfully renegotiated, 74 were men (30.6% of all men) and 27 were women (31.4% of all women). Further analysis showed that all faculty, irrespective of gender or discipline, had the same success in renegotiating their salary, summer support, lab resources, or reduction in teaching load. It is important to note, however, that the question asked whether faculty had successfully renegotiated. It is not clear whether the 69% who responded negatively were faculty who had not renegotiated, faculty who had not successfully renegotiated, or a combination of the two.

Summary

A majority of the respondents were first hired as assistant professors. At the time of the survey, 20% were assistant professors, 31% were associate professors, and 48% were full professors. The analysis of the Hiring Process Scale showed that all faculty experienced the hiring process similarly irrespective of gender or discipline. Respondents were moderately satisfied with the hiring process but somewhat less satisfied with their starting package. Renegotiation of salary was experienced similarly by male and female faculty. It is important to consider that these analyses only considered faculty who attempted to renegotiate. The way the question was worded, it is hard to determine

(31)

whether the faculty who responded negatively were faculty who had not renegotiated, faculty who had not successfully renegotiated, or a combination of the two. Future research might explore whether there are differences in the degree to which men and women faculty attempt to renegotiate.

4. Professional

Activities

This section explores various dimensions of work environment and UIC faculty, including teaching load, productivity, work allocation, and resources for teaching, research, and service responsibilities. Although the survey includes interactions with colleagues and work climate in this section, for the purposes of the report we have addressed them in the subsequent section on work climate.

(a) Objective

Measures of Productivity

i. Teaching load.

On average, faculty taught 2.11 ± 1.04 undergraduate courses and 1.15 ± 0.83 graduate courses per year. The data were analyzed using the ANOVA procedure, and there were no significant

differences by gender. There was a significant difference by discipline, however. As seen in Tables 13 and 14, faculty in the non-STEM fields taught more courses—both graduate and undergraduate— than faculty in the STEM fields. The difference was statistically significant for the undergraduate courses but only marginally significant for the graduate courses. It is possible that there are more courses to teach in the non-STEM fields and fewer faculty to meet this demand, causing this difference in the number of courses taught.

Table 13. Mean Number of Undergraduate Courses Taught, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank

Male (n=239) 1.79 0.80 140 2.50 1.12 102 2.09 1.01 239 Female (n=84) 1.60 0.69 23 2.40 1.18 60 2.17 1.12 84

TOTAL by Discipline* (n=323) 1.76 0.79 163 2.46 1.14 162 2.11 1.04 323

*p=0.00.

Overall F value: 13.18; p=0.00.

Table 14. Mean Number of Graduate Courses Taught, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank

Male (n=238) 1.09 0.67 137 1.23 0.96 101 1.15 0.80 238 Female (n=83) 0.97 0.56 23 1.23 0.99 60 1.16 0.90 83

*p=0.08.

(32)

and gender, controlling for rank. There were no significant differences by gender; however, there were significant differences by discipline. Faculty from the STEM fields were more likely to report being PIs on grants than faculty in the non-STEM fields.

On average, 88.5% of all manuscripts submitted by respondents were accepted for publication. There were no significant differences in the percent of publications accepted by either gender or discipline. In the past two years, faculty on average had 6.04 ± 5.33 papers accepted. There were no significant differences by gender but significant differences by discipline. Faculty from the STEM fields had significantly more papers accepted than faculty in the non-STEM fields. However, those in non-STEM fields were more likely to have books accepted for publication (0.79 for non-STEM vs. 0.38 for STEM).

The difference in the number of funded grants and papers and books accepted for publication may be a reflection of the disciplines; the STEM disciplines focus more on publishing articles, whereas the non-STEM disciplines focus more on publishing books. Faculty in the STEM fields are also

dependent on grant money to support their research, making it more imperative that they publish their findings and hence the focus on publishing articles. The mean number of papers and books accepted are presented in Tables 15 and 16.

Table 15. Mean Number of Papers Accepted for Publication, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank

Male (n=239) 8.37 6.43 138 4.08 3.10 101 6.56 5.69 239 Female (n=82) 6.65 4.83 23 3.71 2.96 59 4.54 3.79 82

*p=0.00.

Table 16. Mean Number of Books Accepted for Publication, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank

Male (n=239) 0.39 1.03 136 0.91 1.28 103 0.62 1.18 239 Female (n=83) 0.32 0.65 22 0.59 0.74 61 0.52 0.72 83

*p=0.00.

(b) Subjective Measures of Productivity

Faculty were asked to respond to two self-rated productivity measures: (1) to rate their overall research productivity as compared to researchers in their field and rank nationwide and (2) to rate their department’s view of their research productivity as compared to the departmental average. Both questions were measured on a ten-point scale, with 1 being “much less productive” and 10 being “much more productive.”

i. Self-rated overall research productivity.

The overall mean self-rated research productivity as compared to researchers in the field nationwide was 7.25 ± 1.81. An ANOVA procedure was conducted to test for differences by gender

Faculty Work Climate Survey