Results from the 2006 Study of Faculty Worklife at
UW-Madison
Table of Contents
Section 1 Survey Implementation Notes …….……………………...…
Page #
1
Section 2 Overall Distributions …………………….…………………..
2
Section 3 Detailed Results by Topic ………………..…………………..
A. Response Rates ………………………………………...…..
B. Hiring Process ……………………………………………...
C. Tenure Process …………………………………………......
D. Professional Activities
a. Time allocation …………………………………….
b. Resources ………………………………………….
c. Leadership …………………………………...…….
d. Professional interactions …………………………..
E. Satisfaction with UW-Madison …………………………….
F. Institutional and Departmental Climate Change …………...
G. UW-Madison Programs and Resources ………………….
H. Sexual Harassment …………………………………………
I. Balancing Personal & Professional Life
a. Spouse/partner ………………………………….....
b. Children ……..……………………………………..
c. Balance ………..…………………………………...
d. Health ………………………………………...……
J. Diversity Issues at UW-Madison ……………………...……
K. Personal Demographics …………………………..………..
15
16
22
29
103
106
109
112
120
125
Section 4 Appendices …………...……………………………………….
Appendix 1: Survey Instrument ………………………………
Appendix 2: List of Departments …………………………….
128
129
142
35
37
42
47
61
71
81
99
Section 1: Survey Implementation Notes
The Study of Faculty Worklife at UW-Madison was undertaken as part of WISELI’s broader effort to support the
advancement of women in academic science, medicine, and engineering. Envisioned as a means of quantitatively
measuring the workplace experiences of faculty in the biological and physical sciences, the survey was administered to all
tenure-track faculty 1 at the University of Wisconsin – Madison during the spring 2003 semester. The inclusion of social
sciences and humanities faculty in the survey group was requested and made possible by the Office of the Provost.
A total of 2,254 surveys were mailed to faculty in February 2003. Among this group, thirty-three were determined to be
non-sample cases (e.g., faculty away for the duration of the survey). Thus, the initial survey population included 2,221
UW-Madison faculty. Approximately 60% of all faculty returned a survey. Faculty in Biological and Physical science
departments (hereafter, “science”) responded above the 60% level as well.
In 2006, WISELI again surveyed all tenure-track faculty on the UW-Madison campus. This second survey was intended
to provide longitudinal data that might reveal whether and how faculty’s workplace experiences had changed between
2003 and 2006, the period during which WISELI initiated various initiatives and programs at UW-Madison. The survey
instrument included many of the same questions as the 2003 survey, though some new items were added and others
removed.
The follow-up survey was mailed to 2,218 faculty in February 2006. Among this group, nine were determined to be nonsample cases leaving a total survey population of 2,209. Approximately 55% of this survey population returned a
completed survey. The science faculty responded at about the same rates as the faculty overall, with a 54% response rate.
1
Clinical faculty in the School of Veterinary Medicine were also included in the survey group.
1
Section 2: Overall Distributions
2
Study of Faculty Worklife at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison
2006
This questionnaire was developed to better understand issues related
to quality of work life for faculty at the University of WisconsinMadison. This is part of a larger project, funded by the National
Science Foundation, to develop new initiatives for faculty on campus.
PLEASE RETURN THIS COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED TO:
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SURVEY CENTER
1800 University Avenue, RM 102
Madison, WI 53726
3
Hiring Process
We are interested in identifying what makes UW-Madison attractive to job applicants, and the aspects of the hiring
process that may be experienced positively or negatively. Please think back to when you first were hired into a faculty
position at UW-Madison to answer the following questions.
1. Were you hired into a faculty position at UW-Madison since January 1, 2003?
15.3% a. Yes
Go to question 2
80.7% b. No
Go to question 5
2. Please rate your level of agreement with these statements about the hiring process. If you were hired into more than
one department or unit, please answer for the department or unit that you consider to be your primary department or
unit.
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4. Circle NA if the
statement does not apply to you.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
I was satisfied with the hiring process overall.
The department did its best to obtain resources for me.
Faculty in the department made an effort to meet me.
My interactions with the search committee were
positive.
I received advice from a colleague/mentor on the hiring
process.
I negotiated successfully for what I needed.
I was naïve about the negotiation process.
I was pleased with my start up package.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
50.5%
49.2%
61.3%
42.6%
38.0%
26.3%
5.3%
10.7%
10.2%
1.6%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
70.7%
22.3%
2.1%
-
4.8%
51.9%
26.5%
10.8%
6.0%
4.9%
31.2%
23.0%
30.5%
44.1%
34.8%
50.8%
17.7%
22.5%
15.0%
5.9%
19.3%
2.7%
1.1%
NA
-
1.1%
0.5%
1.1%
3. What were the three most important factors that positively influenced your decision to accept a position at UWMadison? Check three.
46.3% a.
43.6% b.
31.4% c.
19.1% d.
40.4% e.
5.3% f.
8.0% g.
5.9% h.
Prestige of university
Prestige of department/unit/lab
Geographic location
Opportunities available for spouse/partner
Research opportunities
Community resources and organizations
Quality of public schools
Teaching opportunities
32.4% i.
12.8% j.
33.5% k.
15.4% l.
1.6% m.
1.1% n.
6.9% o.
12.8% p.
Support for research/creative activity
Salary and benefits
Colleagues in department/unit/lab
Climate of department/unit/lab
Climate for women
Climate for faculty of color
Quality of students
Other, please explain:
4. What factors, if any, made you hesitate about accepting a position at UW-Madison? Top 3: (1) geographic location;
(2) low salary; (3) opportunities available for spouse/partner.
The Tenure Process at UW-Madison
5. Please check the appropriate box:
2.3% a. I am clinical or CHS faculty
22.5% b. I am untenured
Go to question 12
Go to question 6
13.3% c. I first received tenure at a university other than the UW-Madison
7.0% d. I first received tenure at UW-Madison after January 2003
55.0% e. I first received tenure at UW-Madison prior to January 2003
6. Do you currently have tenure?
24.1% a. Yes
Go to question 12
Go to question 6
Go to question 12
75.9% b. No
4
7. In what year did you receive tenure, or do you expect to be considered for tenure? Mean (S.D.): 2007 (0.17)
8. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding your experience with the tenure
process in your primary unit or department.
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4. Circle NA if the statement does not
apply to you.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
I am/was satisfied with the tenure process overall.
I understand/understood the criteria for achieving tenure.
The requirements/standards for tenure (e.g., level of scholarship,
teaching requirements, and service requirements) are reasonable.
I receive/d feedback on my progress toward tenure.
I feel/felt supported in my advancement to tenure.
I receive/d reduced responsibilities so that I could build my research
program.
I was told about assistance available to pre-tenure faculty (e.g.,
workshops, mentoring).
My senior advisor/mentor committee is/was very helpful to me in
working toward tenure.
I have received mixed messages about the requirements for tenure
from senior colleagues.
I feel there is/was a strong fit between the way I do/did research,
teaching and service, and the way it is/was evaluated for tenure.
Tenure decisions are based primarily on performance, rather than
on politics, relationships or demographics.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
25.0%
38.5%
42.6%
43.5%
13.4%
13.8%
6.3%
3.2%
12.8%
33.6%
43.2%
15.8%
5.1%
2.4%
44.4%
46.9%
35.2%
32.2%
10.1%
12.2%
2.7%
4.8%
7.7%
30.4%
31.3%
21.8%
12.7%
3.8%
50.2%
35.7%
10.6%
1.5%
2.1%
36.9%
34.8%
15.0%
8.6%
4.7%
18.8%
26.5%
23.8%
27.4%
3.5%
28.8%
32.7%
17.4%
9.0%
12.0%
32.3%
38.6%
13.2%
5.4%
10.5%
NA
0.9%
3.9%
9. Have you ever wanted or ever had cause to extend your tenure clock at UW-Madison?
40.0% a. Yes
60.0% b. No
Go to question 10
Go to question 12
10. Have you ever extended or reset your tenure clock at UW-Madison?
78.3% a. Yes
21.7% b. No
Go to question 11
Why not? Top 2: (1) considering/planning to apply; (2) saw no need Go to question 12
11. If you extended or reset your tenure clock at UW-Madison, how supportive was your department? Circle one.
Extremely Supportive
71.2%
Generally Supportive
22.1%
Generally Unsupportive
5.8%
Extremely Unsupportive
1.0%
Professional Activities
We are interested in a number of dimensions of the work environment for faculty at UW-Madison including work hours and
your feelings about research resources, service responsibilities, and interactions with colleagues.
12. a. On average, how many hours per week do you work?
Mean (S.D.) 55.2 (0.3)_ hours per week
b. How many hours per week during the academic year?
Mean (S.D.) 57.3 (0.3)_ hours per week
c. How many hours per week during summer months?
Mean (S.D.) 45.8 (0.5)_ hours per week
d. Appointment type: 37.5% a. 12-Month
61.3% b. 9-Month
1.2% c. Other
5
13. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the resources available to you?
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
NA
37.3%
40.8%
13.6%
4.8%
4.0%
18.6%
51.0%
31.2%
27.0%
23.2%
12.7%
18.6%
8.8%
8.3%
22.5%
19.5%
12.1%
7.6%
38.2
%
12.5%
29.3%
26.1%
42.0%
25.9%
41.3%
37.7%
37.7%
24.6%
18.7%
20.6%
11.7%
30.9%
9.5%
14.7%
6.2%
6.2%
36.0%
38.0%
13.5%
8.3%
4.3%
j.
I receive enough internal funding to conduct my research.
I receive the amount of technical/computer support I need.
I have enough office support.
I have colleagues on campus who do similar research.
I have colleagues or peers who give me career advice or guidance
when I need it.
I have sufficient teaching support (including T.A.s).
16.8%
30.4%
21.9%
17.8%
k.
I have sufficient clinical support.
4.5%
6.9%
3.4%
2.8%
13.2
%
82.3
%
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4. Circle NA if the statement does not
apply to you.
a.
I have the equipment and supplies I need to adequately conduct my
research.
I receive regular maintenance/upgrades of my equipment.
I have sufficient office space.
I have sufficient laboratory/studio space.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
0.5%
1.2%
0.9%
2.4%
14. Do you currently collaborate, or have you collaborated in the past three years, on research with colleagues…
Currently collaborate?
Check all that apply.
a.
b.
c.
In your primary department?
Outside your department, but on the UW-Madison campus?
Off the UW-Madison campus?
Collaborated in the past 3 years?
Yes
No
Yes
No
54.9%
57.0%
75.3%
45.1%
43.0%
24.6%
60.0%
60.5%
79.2%
40.0%
39.5%
20.8%
15. Please indicate whether you have ever served on, or chaired, any of the following committees in your department in
the past three years.
Check all that apply. Check NA if the statement does not
apply to you.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Space
Salaries
Promotion
Faculty search
Curriculum (graduate and/or undergraduate)
Graduate admissions
Diversity committees
Awards
Chaired in past 3
years?
Yes
No
Served in past 3 years?
Yes
No
16.7%
30.8%
45.2%
56.1%
46.4%
41.3%
14.3%
32.7%
68.1%
57.3%
46.2%
37.4%
44.5%
48.7%
70.2%
58.1%
6.0%
10.6%
17.5%
21.5%
14.7%
13.2%
5.9%
12.4%
NA
66.9%
65.6%
63.0%
60.5%
64.5%
65.0%
66.9%
67.1%
11.8%
7.7%
5.1%
3.0%
5.1%
6.1%
12.3%
5.9%
16. Please indicate whether you currently hold, or have held in the past three years, any of the following positions on the
UW-Madison campus.
Check all that apply.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Assistant or Associate Chair
Department Chair
Assistant or Associate Dean
Dean
Director of center/institute
Section/area head
Principal Investigator on a research grant
Principal Investigator on an educational grant
Other, please explain:_____________________
Currently hold?
Yes
No
6.0%
8.5%
2.5%
0.5%
11.8%
13.8%
64.1%
11.3%
5.7%
87.3%
85.6%
91.4%
92.7%
82.6%
79.2%
32.3%
81.8%
23.9%
Held in the past 3 years?
Yes
No
5.7%
8.8%
3.3%
0.5%
13.0%
14.0%
61.4%
14.2%
5.1%
80.7%
78.2%
83.8%
85.5%
73.8%
70.8%
27.6%
73.4%
24.0%
6
17. Have you held any of the following leadership positions outside UW-Madison in the past three years?
Check all that apply.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
President or high-level leadership position in a professional association or organization?
Executive board member in a professional association or organization?
President or high-level leadership position in a service organization (including community service)?
Executive board member in a service organization (including community service)?
Chair of a major committee in a professional organization or association?
Editor of a journal?
Editorial board member of a journal?
Member of a national commission or panel?
Yes
18.6%
31.4%
11.0%
18.8%
31.7%
14.1%
52.7%
32.8%
No
79.6%
66.8%
86.6%
78.2%
66.3%
83.4%
46.2%
64.9%
18. Do you have an interest in taking on any formal leadership positions at the UW-Madison (e.g., dean, chair, director of
center/institute, section/area head)?
40.7% a. Yes
55.2% b. No
19. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your interactions with colleagues and others
in your primary department/unit? Please answer using the department or unit that you consider to be your primary
department or unit.
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4 for each statement.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
I am treated with respect by colleagues.
I am treated with respect by students.
I am treated with respect by staff.
I am treated with respect by my department chair.
I feel excluded from an informal network in my department.
I encounter unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to
interact with colleagues.
I am reluctant to bring up issues that concern me about the behavior
of my departmental colleagues for fear it might affect my reputation
or advancement.
Colleagues in my department solicit my opinion about work-related
matters (such as teaching, research, and service).
In my department, I feel that my research is considered mainstream.
I feel that my colleagues value my research.
I have to work harder than my departmental colleagues to be
perceived as a legitimate scholar.
I do a great deal of work that is not formally recognized by my
department.
I feel like I “fit” in my department.
I feel isolated in my department.
I feel isolated on the UW campus overall.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
61.3%
71.7%
75.7%
70.7%
9.3%
30.2%
24.4%
21.2%
20.2%
22.5%
6.1%
3.4%
2.4%
6.2%
23.1%
2.4%
0.5%
0.7%
3.0%
45.2%
11.3%
25.9%
25.1%
37.8%
10.0%
18.0%
26.6%
45.4%
41.8%
43.6%
10.2%
4.5%
28.8%
34.4%
32.5%
43.7%
26.4%
15.7%
12.4%
6.2%
10.3%
21.5%
33.6%
34.5%
28.6%
33.7%
24.5%
13.3%
41.1%
7.8%
4.0%
36.7%
19.5%
16.6%
15.7%
26.0%
28.9%
6.6%
46.8%
50.4%
20. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your participation in the decision-making
process in your primary department/unit?
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4 for each statement.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
I feel like a full and equal participant in the problem-solving and
decision-making.
I have a voice in how resources are allocated.
Meetings allow for all participants to share their views.
Committee assignments are rotated fairly to allow for participation of
all faculty.
My department chair involves me in decision-making.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
39.6%
35.3%
16.7%
8.4%
30.4%
50.4%
34.1%
34.1%
21.3%
9.8%
14.2%
5.6%
34.2%
40.0%
17.2%
8.6%
39.0%
34.3%
17.6%
9.1%
7
21. At UW-Madison, climate is defined as the following:
Behaviors within a workplace or learning environment, ranging from subtle to cumulative to
dramatic, that can influence whether an individual feels personally safe, listened to, valued,
and treated fairly and with respect (Campus Climate Network Group, 2002).
On a scale from 1 (very negative) to 5 (very positive), please rate the climate in your primary department. Circle one.
Very Negative
3.2 %
Negative
4.9 %
Mediocre
16.1 %
Positive
47.1 %
Very Positive
28.7 %
Satisfaction with UW-Madison
We would like to know how you feel about the University of Wisconsin-Madison in general.
22. How satisfied are you, in general, with your job at UW-Madison? Circle one.
Very Satisfied
45.5%
Somewhat Satisfied
41.4%
Somewhat Dissatisfied
9.8%
Very Dissatisfied
3.4%
23. How satisfied are you, in general, with the way your career has progressed at the UW-Madison? Circle one.
Very Satisfied
44.7%
Somewhat Satisfied
39.6%
Somewhat Dissatisfied
12.7%
Very Dissatisfied
3.0%
24. If I had it to do over again, I would accept my current position. Circle one.
Strongly Agree
60.1%
Somewhat Agree
26.5%
Somewhat Disagree
8.8%
Strongly Disagree
4.5%
25. If a candidate for a tenure-track faculty position asked you about your department as a place to work, you would:
Check one.
65.1% a. Strongly recommend your department as a place to work.
31.0% b. Recommend your department with reservations.
3.9% c. Not recommend your department as a place to work.
26. What factors contribute most to your satisfaction at UW-Madison? Top 3: (1) Quality of mentoring/mentoring
relationships; (2) Madison’s geographic location; (3) Interdisciplinarity/opportunities for collaboration.
27. What factors detract most from your satisfaction at UW-Madison? Top 3: (1) Low salary; (2) Insufficient resources/
support; (3) Lack of support from state/legislature.
28. Have you considered leaving UW-Madison in the past three years?
58.6% a. Yes
41.4% b. No
Go to question 29
Go to question 32
29. How seriously have you considered leaving UW-Madison? Circle one.
Not very seriously
12.1%
Somewhat seriously
40.9%
Quite Seriously
23.3%
Very seriously
23.7%
30. What factors contributed to your consideration to leave UW-Madison? Top 3: (1) Low salary; (2) Lack of job
satisfaction/feel unappreciated; (3) Departmental climate.
31. What factors contributed to your consideration to stay at UW-Madison? Top 3: (1) Family/personal reasons;
(2) Departmental colleagues/collaborators; (3) No attractive outside offer.
8
Institutional and Departmental Climate Change
If you were first hired at UW-Madison after January 2003, please go to items 35-36 on the next page.
The UW-Madison is continually working to improve the working, teaching, and learning climate for all University
employees and students. We are interested to know to the extent to which you have seen or experienced change in the
following areas in the past three years.
32. Since January 2003, how has the climate changed, if at all, for the following individuals or areas? See item #21 for a
definition of “climate.”
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 5 for
each statement.
Significantly
More
Positive
1
Somewhat
More
Positive
2
Stayed
The
Same
3
Somewhat
More
Negative
4
Significantly
More
Negative
5
Don’t
Know
For me personally on campus
For me personally in my department
For other faculty in my department
For staff in my department
For women faculty on campus
For women staff on campus
For faculty of color on campus
For staff of color on campus
On the UW-Madison campus, overall
3.7%
4.8%
1.7%
2.4%
3.1%
1.7%
1.7%
1.2%
0.4%
14.8%
19.2%
15.8%
16.1%
21.0%
11.8%
10.4%
7.2%
13.7%
64.1%
53.4%
45.0%
43.2%
38.1%
38.8%
29.7%
29.6%
44.8%
11.2%
13.6%
16.5%
16.6%
4.8%
4.2%
6.5%
4.7%
15.6%
3.8%
7.0%
2.9%
3.6%
1.3%
1.5%
1.7%
1.0%
3.3%
2.5%
2.0%
18.1%
18.1%
31.7%
42.0%
50.1%
56.4%
22.2%
33. If you believe climate has changed in one or more of these areas, to what do you attribute these changes?
Top 3: (1) Lack of funding/resources and/or budget cuts; (2) Recognition/awareness/talk about/acceptance of climate/
Diversity/gender equity; (3) Political problems with state/legislature—attacks on/budget cuts for UW-Madison.
34. Please indicate your skill levels in each of the following areas as they were in Spring 2003, and as they are now.
Circle one for 2003 and one for 2006.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
Creating a welcoming environment for
faculty and staff in my department.
Treating others in my department
collegially.
Recognizing how my actions affect
others.
Establishing search procedures to ensure
the equitable review of candidates.
Establishing search procedures to ensure
the equitable hiring of candidates.
Creating a welcoming environment for
new hires.
Mentoring junior faculty.
Increasing the visibility of women at UWMadison.
Evaluating tenure cases equitably.
Identifying climate issues in my
department.
Addressing climate issues in my
department.
Addressing climate issues at UWMadison.
Spring Semester 2003
No
Some
High
Skill
Skill
Skill
0
1
2
Spring Semester 2006
No
Some
High
Skill
Skill
Skill
0
1
2
2.2%
53.4%
44.4%
2.0%
48.9%
49.1%
0.6%
32.2%
67.3%
0.3%
29.7%
70.0%
1.6%
50.1%
48.4%
0.9%
38.2%
60.9%
14.8%
52.6%
32.6%
10.0%
42.4%
47.6%
15.8%
52.5%
31.8%
11.3%
42.7%
46.1%
3.5%
47.0%
49.5%
1.9%
39.9%
58.2%
12.0%
51.7%
36.4%
6.1%
41.6%
52.2%
23.5%
57.7%
18.8%
19.9%
54.4%
25.8%
15.5%
35.6%
49.0%
11.2%
31.1%
57.7%
13.3%
60.5%
26.2%
8.3%
53.2%
38.6%
20.3%
62.5%
17.2%
15.5%
60.0%
24.5%
40.2%
50.1%
9.7%
35.5%
52.0%
12.5%
9
UW-Madison Programs and Resources
UW-Madison has implemented a number of programs designed to improve the working environments of faculty on the
UW-Madison campus. In the questions below, please help us to evaluate some of these campus-wide initiatives.
35-36. For each program available on the UW-Madison campus, please rate your perception of the value of the program
and indicate whether you have used the program.
36. Have you
35. How valuable is each program? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 4 (whether or not you have used it).
ever used or
participated in
this program?
UW-Madison Programs
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
Extension of the tenure clock
Dual Career Hiring Program
Provost's Strategic Hiring Initiative
Anna Julia Cooper Postdoctoral
Fellowships
Workshops for Search Committees
Family Leave
Ombuds for Faculty
New Faculty Workshops
Equity in Faculty Salaries Policy
Women Faculty Mentoring Program
Committee on Women
Office of Campus Child Care
Cluster Hire Initiative
Sexual Harassment Information
Sessions
Vilas Life Cycle Professorships
Plan 2008 Diversity Initiative
Women in Science and Engineering
Leadership Institute (WISELI)
Never Heard of
Program
0
Very
Valuable
1
Quite
Valuable
2
Somewhat
Valuable
3
Not at all
Valuable
4
Yes
No
3.8%
22.1%
37.9%
53.7%
38.5%
21.5%
24.3%
20.0%
16.7%
15.9%
15.3%
17.2%
2.3%
4.1%
6.7%
20.9%
20.7%
15.8%
79.1%
79.3%
84.2%
81.5%
9.1%
4.5%
3.6%
1.4%
5.8%
94.2%
53.9%
13.4%
45.6%
16.6%
27.8%
25.6%
57.5%
43.1%
6.4%
10.0%
49.7%
15.5%
28.4%
25.3%
27.7%
10.6%
24.0%
27.3%
11.4%
24.2%
16.6%
28.5%
19.9%
25.0%
15.3%
18.3%
23.6%
18.5%
11.2%
18.4%
24.0%
19.9%
18.1%
13.9%
12.2%
29.6%
6.2%
1.5%
4.0%
2.5%
7.1%
3.6%
2.7%
2.4%
13.0%
18.7%
9.4%
12.1%
41.9%
25.0%
26.4%
4.9%
8.3%
39.7%
81.3%
90.6%
88.0%
58.1%
75.1%
73.6%
95.1%
91.7%
60.3%
22.0%
17.6%
24.4%
28.0%
8.0%
26.8%
73.2%
37.7%
50.8%
21.2%
11.4%
21.6%
13.6%
17.3%
18.1%
2.1%
6.2%
4.9%
13.7%
95.1%
86.4%
31.5%
23.8%
25.5%
16.3%
2.8%
20.9%
79.1%
Sexual Harassment
The UW-Madison defines sexual harassment as including unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and
verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when such conduct influences employment or academic decisions,
interferes with an employee’s work, or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work or learning environment. Please
use this definition as you answer the next two questions.
37. Using this definition, within the last three years, how often, if at all, have you experienced sexual harassment on the
UW-Madison campus? Check one.
94.4% Never
4.3% 1 to 2 times
0.9% 3 to 5 times
0.4% More than 5 times
38. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about sexual harassment at UW-Madison.
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4 for each statement.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Sexual harassment is taken seriously on campus.
Sexual harassment is a big problem on campus.
I know the steps to take if a person comes to me with a
problem with sexual harassment.
The process for resolving complaints about sexual
harassment at UW-Madison is effective.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
Don’t
Know
50.7%
2.6%
32.0%
14.7%
4.9%
36.4%
1.2%
14.3%
11.2%
32.2%
31.3%
43.6%
12.3%
4.6%
8.2%
8.5%
21.7%
8.1%
3.3%
58.3%
10
Balancing Personal and Professional Life
We would like to know more about your family living arrangements and the extent to which faculty at UW-Madison are
able to balance their professional and personal lives.
39. What is your current marital or cohabitation status?
83.8% a. I am married or partnered and I live with my spouse/partner.
Go to question 40
4.9% b. I am married or partnered, but we reside in different locations.
11.4% c. I am single (am not married and am not partnered).
Go to question 40
Go to question 41
40. What is your spouse or partner’s current employment status?
53.8% a. Full-time
21.5% b. Part-time
17.2% c. Not employed
7.5% d. Retired
41. Do you have any children?
76.2 % a. Yes
22.4 % b. No
Go to question 42
Go to question 43
42. Living arrangements and ages of children:
For each age range of your child/children, please check the box
that most closely describes their living arrangements.
a.
b.
c.
Preschool aged children (ages 0 – 5)
School aged children (ages 6 – 18)
Older children (age 19 and older)
Living With
Me Full
Time
Living With
Me Part
Time
Not Living With
Me
No Children in
Age Range
17.8%
44.7%
4.2%
0.8%
3.6%
8.6%
0.4%
1.4%
38.1%
40.2%
26.7%
21.8%
43. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements about balancing your personal and
professional lives.
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4. Circle NA if the statement does not
apply to you.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
I am usually satisfied with the way in which I balance my
professional and personal life.
I have seriously considered leaving UW-Madison in order to
achieve better balance between work and personal life.
I often have to forgo professional activities (e.g., sabbaticals,
conferences) because of personal responsibilities.
Personal responsibilities and commitments have slowed
down my career progression.
Working long hours is an important sign of commitment in my
department.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
NA
22.8%
38.2%
26.5%
12.4%
-
13.6%
19.8%
19.2%
46.3%
1.2%
12.9%
27.1%
27.6%
30.1%
2.3%
14.6%
28.8%
24.5%
31.4%
0.8%
20.1%
39.3%
27.8%
10.1%
2.7%
11
44. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding your department/unit’s
support of family obligations. If you have an appointment in more than one department or unit, please answer the
following questions using the department or unit that you consider to be your primary department or unit.
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4. Circle NA if the
statement does not apply to you.
a.
Most faculty in my department are supportive of
colleagues who want to balance their family and
career lives.
It is difficult for faculty in my department to adjust
their work schedules to care for children or other
family members.
Department meetings frequently occur early in the
morning or late in the day.
The department communicates the options
available for faculty who have a new baby.
The department is supportive of family leave.
Faculty who have children are considered to be
less committed to their careers.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
Don’t
Know
NA
30.2%
45.7%
14.9%
3.2%
5.8%
0.3%
5.5%
24.2%
38.5%
19.4%
11.8%
0.7%
21.4%
16.9%
17.4%
43.2%
0.3%
1.0%
21.4%
18.8%
9.7%
8.7%
38.0%
3.4%
30.5%
26.7%
7.0%
1.8%
32.2%
1.8%
3.2%
10.5%
22.4%
55.6%
8.1%
0.3%
45. A person’s health has been shown to be related to their work environment. Please answer the following questions
about your health.
How would you rate your overall health at the present time? Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 5.
Excellent
41.5%
Very good
33.9%
Good
17.2%
Fair
6.0%
Poor
1.4%
46. How often do you feel:
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 5 for each item.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Happy?
Fatigued?
Stressed?
Nervous?
Depressed?
Short-tempered?
Well-rested?
Physically fit?
Very often
1
Quite often
2
Sometimes
3
Once in a while
4
Rarely
5
32.2%
17.9%
22.2%
6.6%
3.6%
2.1%
5.0%
18.6%
40.8%
32.3%
27.2%
12.3%
7.4%
8.0%
24.1%
33.1%
21.2%
32.8%
32.6%
25.0%
19.7%
26.6%
34.9%
29.1%
4.4%
11.7%
14.3%
32.1%
30.6%
36.3%
21.2%
11.3%
1.4%
5.3%
3.7%
23.9%
38.7%
27.0%
14.8%
7.9%
47. Do you have a significant health issue or disability?
10.5% a. Yes
Go to question 48
Go to question 49
89.5% b. No
48. In dealing with this health issue or disability, how accommodating is:
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4 for each statement.
a.
b.
Your primary department?
UW-Madison?
Very
1
Quite
2
Somewhat
3
Not at all
4
42.9%
36.8%
20.5%
24.5%
25.9%
22.6%
10.7%
16.0%
49. Using your own definition of ‘burnout’, check the item that describes you most of the time:
19.4% a. I enjoy my work. I have no symptoms of burnout.
52.2%
b. Occasionally I am under stress, and I don’t always have as much energy as I once did, but I don’t feel burned out.
18.6% c. I am definitely burning out and have one or more symptoms of burnout, such as physical and emotional
exhaustion.
5.5% d. The symptoms of burnout that I am experiencing won’t go away. I think about frustrations at work a lot.
1.2% e. I feel completely burned out and wonder if I can go on. I am at the point where I may need some changes or may
need to seek some sort of help.
12
50. What could be changed about the culture of UW-Madison that would lower the stress on the faculty?
Top 3: (1) More/better staff/tech support for faculty; (2) Reduce administrative/service burden for faculty; (3) Return focus
of job to teaching and research, less emphasis on getting grant money, value various contributions of faculty.
Diversity Issues at UW-Madison
51. With respect to the recruitment of, climate for, and leadership of women faculty, how much would you agree or
disagree with the following statements about your primary department/unit?
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4 for each statement.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
There are too few women faculty in my department.
My department has identified ways to recruit women
faculty.
My department has actively recruited women faculty.
The climate for women in my department is good.
My department has identified ways to enhance the climate
for women.
My department has taken steps to enhance the climate for
women.
Women in my department must work harder than men to
convince colleagues of their competence.
My department has too few women faculty in leadership
positions.
My department has identified ways to move women into
leadership positions.
My department has made an effort to promote women into
leadership positions.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
Don’t
Know
22.0%
26.4%
22.3%
27.3%
1.9%
20.2%
35.3%
21.4%
9.1%
14.0%
41.5%
40.6%
31.8%
38.6%
12.1%
11.6%
6.4%
3.4%
8.2%
5.8%
13.4%
30.5%
21.2%
8.3%
26.7%
14.9%
30.4%
20.1%
8.2%
26.5%
5.6%
16.7%
24.4%
45.5%
7.8%
14.3%
21.5%
27.3%
34.0%
2.9%
17.4%
28.3%
18.3%
9.1%
26.9%
26.4%
31.4%
15.5%
7.5%
19.1%
52. With respect to the recruitment of, climate for, and leadership of faculty of color, how much would you agree or
disagree with the following statements about your primary department/unit?
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4 for each statement.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
There are too few faculty of color in my department.
My department has identified ways to recruit faculty of
color.
My department has actively recruited faculty of color.
The climate for faculty of color in my department is good.
My department has identified ways to enhance the climate
for faculty of color.
My department has taken steps to enhance the climate for
faculty of color.
Faculty of color in my department must work harder than
majority faculty to convince colleagues of their
competence.
My department has too few faculty of color in leadership
positions.
My department has identified ways to move faculty of color
into leadership positions.
My department has made an effort to promote faculty of
color into leadership positions.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
Don’t
Know
53.3%
27.2%
9.6%
6.2%
3.7%
10.4%
25.2%
25.5%
19.7%
19.3%
24.2%
20.1%
24.5%
28.3%
17.9%
13.1%
18.5%
6.6%
14.9%
32.0%
7.2%
16.4%
20.3%
13.6%
42.5%
7.0%
16.5%
20.2%
13.1%
43.2%
4.5%
8.0%
17.1%
35.0%
35.4%
34.0%
24.6%
13.6%
11.4%
16.4%
7.9%
13.1%
20.2%
14.2%
44.6%
9.4%
15.4%
17.3%
14.0%
43.9%
13
53. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about commitment to diversity at UW-Madison?
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4 for each statement.
a.
b.
c.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
30.1%
29.0%
28.3%
43.9%
48.6%
49.6%
18.3%
17.0%
16.5%
7.7%
5.5%
5.6%
Commitment to diversity is demonstrated in my department.
Commitment to diversity is demonstrated in my school/college.
Commitment to diversity is demonstrated at the UW-Madison.
Personal Demographics
As always, responses to the following questions will be kept confidential. Information from this survey will be presented in
aggregate form above the departmental level (such as college/school or division) so that individual respondents cannot
be identified.
54. What is your sex?
66.7% a.
Male
32.0% b.
Female
55. What is your race/ethnicity? Check all that apply.
1.5% a.
Southeast Asian
4.5% b.
Other Asian/Pacific Islander
1.8% c.
Black/African American, not of Hispanic origin
3.2% d.
Hispanic
1.2% e.
Native American (American Indian or Alaskan Native)
85.0% f.
1.8% g.
White, not of Hispanic origin
Other, please explain:
56. What is your sexual orientation?
93.3% a.
Heterosexual
2.0% b.
Gay/Lesbian
1.5% c.
Bisexual
57. Are you a U.S. citizen?
88.2% a.
Yes
10.5% b.
No
58. Which department/unit did you have in mind when completing this survey?
59. As a general measure of socioeconomic background, what is/was your parents’ highest levels of education?
Check NA if not applicable.
a.
b.
Mother
Father
Less than high
school
Some high
school
High school
diploma
Some
college
College
degree
Advanced
degree
7.9%
7.8%
4.5%
4.7%
23.7%
14.5%
16.6%
12.1%
27.0%
23.3%
18.5%
35.5%
THANK YOU for your time!
Look for results to be posted at http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu in late 2006.
14
NA
0.4%
0.4%
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
15
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
A. Response Rates
This section reports and comments on the response rates to the survey.
16
Response Rates Summary
Differential Response by Demographic Characteristics
The approximately 60% response rate to both the 2003 and 2006 Worklife surveys suggests that a
large segment of faculty at UW-Madison are represented in survey responses. However, response
rates varied across different groups of faculty. Despite these variations, the pool of respondents is
reasonably representative of the UW-Madison faculty.
Women were more likely than men to respond to both the 2003 and 2006 surveys. In 2003, 68.3%
of female faculty in the survey population returned a valid response, whereas only 57.4% of male
faculty did so. Both men and women faculty responded to the 2006 survey at lower rates than in
2003, though the relative proportion of male and female responses remained constant.
In the 2003 survey, women faculty of color responded at the same or higher rates as majority
faculty women, and men faculty of color tended to respond at lower rates, particularly Asian
males. In 2006, all faculty of color (men and women, all nonwhite racial/ethnic groups) tended to
respond at lower rates than their majority counterparts, and in contrast to their high participation
in the 2003 survey.
Minimal variation in response rates was observed across different divisions – biological sciences,
physical sciences, social studies and arts & humanities – in each wave of the survey. In 2003
divisional response rates ranged from 57.3% for the biological sciences to 62.3% for the social
sciences. Similarly, responses to the 2006 survey ranged from 51.5% for the physical sciences to
57.3% for the social studies faculty.
Comparing across UW-Madison schools and colleges, more notable variation in response rates
can be seen. Faculty in the School of Nursing were most likely to respond to the initial survey,
while those in the School of Veterinary Medicine were most likely to respond to the follow-up
survey. Business School faculty were least likely to respond to both surveys. These discrepancies
may be partially explained by different gender compositions across schools and colleges.
Neither the tenure status nor rank of faculty appears to be related to propensity to respond to the
surveys. In both 2003 and 2006, approximately equal proportions of assistant, associate, and full
professors returned a valid response. Likewise, both tenured and untenured faculty were about
equally likely to respond to the surveys.
17
Table RR1. Response to Study of Faculty Worklife at the University of Wisconsin-Madison - Wave 2 (2006)
Surveys Mailed
Ineligible Respondents
Completed Surveys Returned*
Response Rate
Men
1,569
Tenure-Track Faculty
Women
Total
609
2,178
Clinical Faculty (VETMED only)
Men
Women
Total
18
22
40
Men
1,587
Full Sample
Women
631
Total
2,218
7
2
9
0
0
0
7
2
9
818
381
1,201
13
16
29
831
397
1,230
52.4%
62.8%
55.4%
72.2%
72.7%
72.5%
52.6%
63.1%
55.7%
* Two respondents removed their Case IDs and did not report gender, so they could not be assigned in this table.
18
Table RR3. Response to Study of Faculty Worklife at the University of WisconsinMadison , Selected Characteristics, Women - Wave 2 (2006)
Demographic
Variable
Division (Departmental)*
Biological Sciences
Physical Sciences
Social Studies
Humanities
Respondents
N
Percent
Non-Respondents
N
Percent
129
41
137
89
65.8%
68.1%
62.3%
57.4%
67
17
83
66
34.2%
31.9%
37.7%
42.6%
50
61.7%
31
38.3%
School/College*
BUS, LAW, MISC,
NURS, SOHE
CALS
EDUC
ENGR, PHARM,
VETMED
L&S
MED
41
32
47
74.5%
50.0%
77.0%
14
32
14
25.5%
50.0%
23.0%
171
55
60.9%
63.2%
110
32
39.1%
36.8%
Science Department*
Science
Non-Science
158
238
68.4%
59.8%
73
160
31.6%
40.2%
149
73
173
66.8%
62.9%
59.7%
74
43
117
33.2%
37.1%
40.3%
Tenured
No
Yes
154
243
67.5%
60.6%
74
158
32.5%
39.4%
Race/Ethnicity
Nonwhite
White/Missing
57
340
51.8%
65.5%
53
179
48.2%
34.5%
Citizenship
U.S. Citizen
Not U.S. Citizen
356
41
63.1%
63.1%
208
24
36.9%
36.9%
Cluster Hire
Yes
No
22
375
57.9%
63.1%
16
219
42.1%
36.9%
Multiple Appointment
Yes
No
83
311
62.4%
62.7%
50
185
37.6%
37.3%
Department Chair
Yes
No
18
379
84.2%
62.9%
8
224
15.8%
37.1%
Rank
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
* See Appendix 2 for definitions.
20
Table RR4. Response to Study of Faculty Worklife at the University of WisconsinMadison , Selected Characteristics, Men - Wave 2 (2006)
Demographic
Variable
Division (Departmental)*
Biological Sciences
Physical Sciences
Social Studies
Humanities
Respondents
N
Percent
Non-Respondents
N
Percent
309
201
198
106
52.1%
49.6%
54.4%
48.6%
284
204
166
112
47.9%
50.4%
45.6%
51.4%
51
48.4%
63
51.6%
134
44
133
57.5%
55.7%
52.8%
99
35
119
42.5%
44.3%
47.2%
300
153
49.7%
51.3%
304
145
50.3%
48.7%
497
317
51.1%
52.2%
475
290
48.9%
47.8%
152
110
549
47.6%
45.8%
53.8%
167
130
472
52.4%
54.2%
46.2%
Tenured
No
Yes
159
672
48.8%
53.6%
167
582
51.2%
46.4%
Race/Ethnicity
Nonwhite
White/Missing
98
733
42.2%
54.4%
134
615
57.8%
45.6%
Citizenship
U.S. Citizen
Not U.S. Citizen
740
90
53.7%
45.0%
639
110
46.3%
55.0%
Cluster Hire
Yes
No
34
797
44.7%
52.2%
42
730
55.3%
47.8%
Multiple Appointment
Yes
No
141
667
59.5%
49.7%
96
676
40.5%
50.3%
Department Chair
Yes
No
69
762
75.0%
51.2%
23
727
25.0%
48.8%
School/College*
BUS, LAW, MISC,
SOHE
CALS
EDUC
ENGR, PHARM,
VETMED
L&S
MED
Science Department*
Science
Non-Science
Rank
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
* See Appendix 2 for definitions.
21
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
B. Hiring Process
Questions in this section aimed to identify factors that make UW-Madison attractive
to job applicants, and aspects of the hiring process that may be experienced positively
or negatively.
22
Table H1. Perceptions of UW-Madison During Hiring Process, Faculty Hired
Since Jan. 1, 2003 - Wave 2 (2006)
N
Dept. Did
Best to
Obtain
Resources
Faculty
Made an
Effort to
Meet
Interactions
With Search
Committee
Were Positive
Total
185
88.1%
89.1%
97.8%
Women
Men
82
103
85.4%
90.3%
86.3%
91.3%
97.5%
98.0%
Untenured
Tenured
140
45
92.1%
75.6%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
60
33
60
30
Science
Non-Science
*
93.6%
74.4%
*
98.5%
95.3%
90.0%
93.9%
86.7%
80.0%
94.9%
90.9%
89.7%
74.2%
*
98.2%
100.0%
98.2%
93.5%
87
96
92.0%
84.4%
93.0%
85.3%
98.8%
96.8%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
22
163
86.4%
88.3%
95.5%
88.2%
100.0%
97.5%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
43
142
95.3%
85.9%
90.5%
88.7%
97.6%
97.8%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
19
166
94.7%
87.3%
94.7%
88.4%
95.0%
98.1%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
61
119
82.0%
90.8%
85.2%
90.7%
96.7%
99.1%
*
*
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
Longitudinal tests: not available for these items.
23
Table H2. Hiring Process "Savvy", Faculty Hired Since Jan. 1, 2003 - Wave 2
N
Received
Advice on
Hiring
Process
Successfully
Negotiated
for Needs
Naïve
About
Negotiation
Process
Total
186
82.4%
76.1%
Women
Men
82
104
77.9%
85.9%
68.3%
82.4%
Untenured
Tenured
141
45
91.0%
54.8%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
60
33
60
31
82.1%
90.3%
89.7%
62.1%
Science
Non-Science
87
97
84.1%
81.5%
81.8%
71.3%
62.1%
54.6%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
22
164
86.4%
81.8%
73.7%
76.4%
81.8%
54.9%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
43
143
85.4%
81.5%
69.8%
78.0%
62.8%
56.6%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
20
166
84.2%
82.2%
85.0%
75.0%
30.0%
61.4%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
61
120
78.0%
84.1%
65.0%
80.8%
*
*
58.1%
*
59.8%
56.7%
75.7%
77.3%
60.3%
51.1%
82.0%
81.8%
75.9%
60.0%
56.7%
63.6%
55.0%
61.3%
*
*
*
*
62.3%
56.7%
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
Longitudinal tests: not available for these items.
24
Table H3. Satisfaction With Hiring Process, Faculty Hired
Since Jan. 1, 2003 - Wave 2 (2006)
N
Satisfied
With Hiring
Process
Overall
Pleased
With
Start-Up
Package
Total
188
93.1%
82.2%
Women
Men
84
104
91.7%
94.2%
79.0%
84.6%
Untenured
Tenured
143
45
93.7%
91.1%
85.8%
70.5%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
62
33
60
31
93.5%
87.9%
95.0%
93.5%
81.7%
81.8%
86.4%
74.2%
Science
Non-Science
89
97
91.0%
94.8%
82.8%
81.2%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
22
166
100.0% *
92.2%
86.4%
81.6%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
43
145
100.0% *
91.0%
74.4%
84.5%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
20
168
95.0%
92.9%
85.0%
81.8%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
62
120
91.9%
94.2%
81.7%
81.7%
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
Longitudinal tests: not available for these items.
25
Table H4. Positive Factors for Accepting Faculty Position at UW-Madison, Faculty Hired Since Jan. 1, 2003 (Page
1) - Wave 2 (2006)
Total
Rank %**
Gender
Women
Men
Rank %**
Rank %**
Rank
Untenured
Rank %**
Tenured
Rank %**
Prestige of university
1
46.3%
1
52.4%
3
41.3%
2
40.6% *
1
64.4%
Prestige of
department/unit/lab
2
43.6%
4
34.5% *
1
51.0%
1
44.8%
3
40.0%
Geographic location
6
31.4%
3
35.7%
6
27.9%
5
32.2%
5
28.9%
Opportunities available for
spouse/partner
7
19.1%
7
17.9%
7
20.2%
7
18.2%
8
22.2%
Research opportunities
3
40.4%
2
38.1%
2
42.3%
3
37.8%
2
48.9%
Community resources and
organizations
14
5.3%
13
4.8%
13
5.8%
13
4.9%
10
6.7%
Quality of public schools
11
8.0%
12
6.0%
12
9.6%
13
4.9%
9
17.8%
Teaching opportunities
13
5.9%
10
8.3%
14
3.8%
12
6.3%
14
4.4%
Support for research
5
32.4%
4
34.5%
5
30.8%
6
31.5%
4
35.6%
Salary and benefits
9
12.8%
11
7.1%
8
17.3%
9
14.7%
10
6.7%
Colleagues in
department/unit/lab
4
33.5%
6
33.3%
4
33.7%
4
35.7%
6
26.7%
Climate of
department/unit/lab
8
15.4%
8
13.1%
8
17.3%
7
18.2% *
10
6.7%
Climate for women
15
1.6%
14
2.4%
16
1.0%
15
1.4%
16
2.2%
Climate for faculty of color
16
1.1%
16
1.2%
16
1.0%
16
0.7%
16
2.2%
Quality of students
12
6.9%
14
2.4%
11
10.6%
11
6.9%
10
6.7%
Other
9
12.8%
8
13.1%
10
12.5%
10
8.4%
6
26.7%
*
*
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Percentages add up to over 100% because respondents were asked to choose 3 factors.
Longitudinal tests: not available for these items.
26
Table H4. Positive Factors for Accepting a Faculty Position at UW-Madison, Faculty Hired Since Jan. 1, 2003 (Page 2) - Wave 2 (2006)
Biological Sci.
Rank %**
Departmental Division
Physical Sci.
Social Sci.
Rank %**
Rank %**
Humanities
Rank %**
Science Dept.
Science
Non-Science
Rank %**
Rank %**
Prestige of university
2
48.4%
2
42.4%
2
50.0%
2
38.7%
2
44.9%
1
47.4%
Prestige of
department/unit/lab
6
27.4% *
1
63.6% *
1
53.3%
4
35.5%
3
40.4%
2
46.4%
Geographic location
4
35.5%
9
9.1%
*
5
33.3%
1
41.9%
6
25.8%
3
36.1%
Opportunities available for
spouse/partner
7
19.4%
14
6.1% *
7
16.7%
2
38.7% *
8
14.6%
7
23.7%
Research opportunities
1
58.1% *
2
42.4%
4
35.0%
7
16.1% *
1
51.7% *
5
30.9%
Community resources and
organizations
14
3.2%
14
6.1%
12
5.0%
11
9.7%
14
4.5%
12
6.2%
Quality of public schools
13
6.5%
9
9.1%
11
8.3%
11
9.7%
12
7.9%
11
8.2%
Teaching opportunities
11
8.1%
14
6.1%
-
-
10
12.9%
13
6.7%
13
5.2%
Support for research
3
43.5% *
5
30.3%
6
28.3%
5
22.6%
4
38.2%
6
27.8%
Salary and benefits
11
8.1%
7
15.2%
7
16.7%
13
6.5%
9
11.2%
10
12.4%
Colleagues in
department/unit/lab
5
30.6%
2
42.4%
3
40.0%
7
16.1% *
5
34.8%
4
32.0%
Climate of
department/unit/lab
8
14.5%
6
21.2%
9
13.3%
7
16.1%
7
18.0%
9
13.4%
Climate for women
14
3.2%
-
-
-
-
16
3.2%
15
2.2%
16
1.0%
Climate for faculty of color
16
1.6%
-
-
-
-
16
3.2%
16
1.1%
16
1.0%
Quality of students
10
9.7%
7
15.2%
13
1.7%
16
3.2%
9
11.2% *
14
3.1%
Other
9
11.3%
14
6.1%
9
13.3%
5
22.6%
11
9.0%
8
16.5%
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Percentages add up to over 100% because respondents were asked to choose 3 factors.
Longitudinal tests: not available for these items.
27
H5. Negative Factors for Accepting Faculty Position at UW-Madison, Faculty Hired Since
Jan. 1, 2003 - Wave 2 (2006)
University Factors
Factor
Budgetary Issues
Prestige/Reputation (low/lack of)
Quality of students/post-docs
Salary stagnation/compression
Fostering competition among faculty
Focus on research over teaching
reliability of legislature funding
Bureaucracy
N
5
4
2
2
1
1
1
2
Department Factors
Factor
Climate of
Facilities
Lack of Mentors
Resources
Reputation
Teaching load
Tenure process (apprehensions about)
Size of (too small/too big)
Problems with other faculty
N
2
1
1
1
3
2
4
2
2
Geographic Location
Factor
Geographic Location
In Midwest
In Madison
Far from family and friends
Isolated location
N
24
2
2
3
1
Family/Home Life
Factor
Opportunities available for spouse/partner
Lack of domestic partner benefits
Social prospects in Madison
Relocating from previous location
N
13
2
3
2
Madison
Factor
Size of
Cost of living/property taxes
N
4
3
School/College Factors
Factor
Internal Political Climate
Lack of junior (pre-tenure) leave program
Size of
Low degree of professionalism
N
1
3
1
1
Hiring Process
Factor
Benefits
Length of process
Lost tenure
Low salary
Start up packages (inadequate)
Changed disciplines
Addition of extension responsibilities
Ignored qualifications
Treatment during search process
Refusal to restart tenure clock
Less Research support
N
2
3
3
23
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weather
Factor
Weather
Cold
N
3
4
Had other offers
1
Climate
Factor
Lack of diversity
For LGBT faculty
Racial climate
N
4
1
1
Unsure about being a professor
Factor
Unsure about being a professor
Already working/trained at UW
N
1
2
Other/Misc
Factor
Deciding whether to do PhD first
First position applied for
Fear of negative conceptions
Starting over
Inconsistent info
Poor communication
Lack of Senior Peers in discipline
Lack of putting things in writing
N
0
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
None or N/A
17
Highlighted fields indicate top 3 resposes.
28
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
C. Tenure Process
This section asked questions about some basic facts regarding faculty members' tenure
experiences at the UW-Madison. We assessed satisfaction with the process overall and asked
some specific questions about an important policy - tenure clock extension - implemented at
the UW-Madison in 1994 to alleviate some of the concerns about trying to combine a family
life with a faculty position.
29
Table T1. Experienced the Tenure Process at UW-Madison** - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Did/Will
Experience
Tenure
Process
Has
Tenure
1199
84.5%
76.4%
Women
Men
386
811
85.5%
84.1%
63.6%
82.3%
Untenured
Tenured
302
897
91.4%
82.2%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
424
239
332
186
82.3%
90.8%
85.5%
80.6%
Science
Non-Science
639
542
85.8%
83.4%
77.6%
74.7%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
103
1096
84.5%
84.5%
68.6%
77.1%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
127
1070
83.5%
84.6%
53.7%
78.9%
*
Homosexual
Not Homosexual
24
1138
91.7%
84.6%
45.8%
76.9%
*
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
54
1145
72.2%
85.1%
45.5%
77.9%
*
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
218
955
85.3%
84.7%
82.2%
74.8%
*
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
552
647
86.1%
83.2%
72.4%
79.8%
*
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
173
1026
89.0%
83.7%
40.4%
82.4%
*
Stay Home Partner
No Stay Home Partner
247
916
85.4%
84.3%
75.2%
76.8%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
456
717
86.4%
84.1%
74.5%
77.5%
*
*
*
*
*
N/A
75.5%
80.0%
73.4%
78.0%
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Faculty hired at associate or full professor level have been excluded from this
analysis. Although some of these faculty members went through a truncated process
as part of their hire, this analysis is limited to those hired at the assistant level and who
had an extended probationary period.
Longitudinal tests: not available for these items.
30
Table T2. Satisfaction with Tenure Process at UW-Madison** - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Satisfied
Overall
Understood
Criteria
Standards
Are
Reasonable
337
77.5%
82.8%
78.7%
Women
Men
161
176
71.6%
82.9%
*
82.0%
83.5%
72.4%
84.3%
Untenured
Tenured
259
78
73.0%
89.7%
*
81.1%
88.5%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
115
59
113
48
74.5%
75.0%
75.8%
95.2%
78.3%
79.7%
85.0%
91.7%
Science
Non-Science
165
170
73.9%
81.9%
78.2%
87.1%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
35
258
85.7%
76.4%
87.4%
82.2%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
59
278
79.5%
77.1%
94.9%
80.2%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
31
306
88.5%
76.4%
87.1%
82.4%
90.3%
77.4%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
48
284
81.6%
77.7%
79.2%
83.8%
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
199
138
74.6%
81.9%
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
117
220
Stay Home Partner
No Stay Home Partner
Received
Feedback
Felt
Supported
Told
About
Assistance
Received
Reduced
Resp'ities
87.7%
77.5%
89.9%
85.6%
71.6%
82.9%
62.0%
71.1%
87.3%
89.0%
73.0%
89.7%
82.7%
78.6%
81.7%
86.4%
64.3%
67.2%
67.9%
50.0%
86.5%
89.8%
86.0%
91.1%
74.5%
75.0%
75.8%
95.2%
84.8%
87.4%
80.9%
83.3%
65.2%
63.0%
87.0%
88.1%
82.1%
78.2%
91.9%
85.5%
84.2%
82.0%
61.5%
64.5%
85.7%
77.2%
90.4%
85.4%
86.0%
81.5%
70.7%
62.7%
90.3%
85.8%
84.4%
82.1%
83.3%
62.2%
76.6%
79.0%
86.7%
86.6%
78.7%
83.3%
82.4%
83.3%
78.8%
78.5%
86.8%
85.4%
74.3%
79.2%
82.9%
82.7%
78.6%
78.7%
85
239
76.6%
77.7%
83.5%
83.3%
78.6%
79.2%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
136
196
73.6%
81.0%
80.1%
84.7%
68.7%
85.4%
Took Extension
Did Not Take Extension
105
31
70.8%
66.7%
78.1%
77.4%
70.6%
73.3%
*
*
*
*
86.2%
82.3%
64.1%
85.7%
86.7%
78.1%
86.2%
58.1%
69.6%
77.3%
83.1%
85.7%
86.4%
82.9%
80.3%
76.1%
78.2%
75.7%
91.3%
83.8%
89.1%
85.7%
88.9%
77.4%
79.5%
Helpful
Advisor/
Mentoring
Committee
*
*
*
*
*
Mixed
Messages
About
Tenure Reqs
Strong Fit
Job and
Tenure
Decisions
Based
on
Performance
47.0%
70.0%
*
52.2%
42.1%
62.9%
76.5%
*
75.9%
82.5%
*
50.4%
35.1%
65.4%
82.9%
*
76.7%
86.8%
*
79.3%
49.5%
40.4%
46.9%
47.8%
65.3%
70.0%
68.8%
83.7%
73.9%
81.9%
45.9%
47.6%
67.6%
72.3%
78.6%
80.1%
84.2%
88.1%
85.7%
76.4%
50.0%
46.6%
77.1%
69.0%
75.0%
79.8%
91.8%
86.7%
79.5%
77.1%
29.8%
50.6%
77.6%
68.4%
85.2%
78.0%
93.8%
87.0%
88.5%
76.4%
37.5%
48.0%
82.8%
68.6%
89.7%
78.1%
60.0%
64.4%
88.9%
87.5%
81.6%
77.7%
54.5%
45.3%
72.2%
69.8%
80.5%
79.4%
82.8%
81.5%
64.6%
63.4%
86.8%
88.9%
74.6%
81.9%
46.4%
47.7%
69.5%
70.7%
78.3%
80.7%
87.2%
85.7%
83.0%
81.9%
68.1%
62.0%
86.3%
88.4%
74.3%
79.2%
48.2%
46.3%
70.6%
69.6%
81.0%
78.4%
82.7%
87.7%
84.0%
81.7%
73.2%
60.5%
*
84.5%
88.9%
76.6%
77.7%
40.0%
48.7%
69.3%
70.7%
78.8%
79.4%
84.1%
87.3%
74.0%
87.6%
56.2%
69.1%
*
85.8%
89.1%
73.6%
81.0%
53.0%
42.4%
57.6%
78.8%
81.1%
82.1%
72.6%
75.9%
63.2%
48.3%
*
83.3%
82.8%
70.8%
66.7%
54.2%
65.5%
56.8%
59.3%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
79.0%
81.3%
79.6%
77.8%
75.8%
82.5%
76.0%
71.4%
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** For untenured faculty and faculty who received tenure at UW-Madison after January 2003.
Longitudinal tests: not available for these items.
31
*
Table T2a. Relationship Between Tenure Clock Extension Use and Satisfaction with Tenure Process at the UW-Madison* - Wave 2 (2006)
Model 1
Estimate St. Error
Pr>|z|
Intercept
1.58
(0.22)
0.000
Female
-0.65
(0.29)
0.022
Used Tenure Clock Extension
Model 2
Estimate St. Error
0.69
0.19
(0.41)
(0.47)
Pr>|z|
0.677
0.090
Model 3
Estimate St. Error
Log Likelihood
Model 4
Estimate St. Error
Pr>|z|
0.96
(0.47)
0.041
0.92
(0.59)
0.121
-0.53
(0.43)
0.219
-0.45
(0.82)
0.587
0.29
(0.48)
0.538
0.36
(0.73)
0.625
-0.11
(0.96)
0.909
Female * Used Extension
Sample Size
Pr>|z|
293
123
123
123
-153.64
-75.14
-74.36
-74.35
* For untenured faculty and faculty who received tenure at UW-Madison after January 2003.
** Logistic regression model predicting agreement (strongly or somewhat) with the statement "I am/was satisfied with the tenure/promotional process overall."
32
Table T3. Use of and Satisfaction with Tenure Clock Extensions at UW-Madison** - Wave 2
(2006)
N
All Faculty
Had Cause/
Wanted To
Extend
Clock
345
40.0%
Women
Men
164
181
51.8%
29.3%
Untenured
Tenured
267
78
42.3%
32.1%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
115
63
115
49
51.3%
22.2%
38.3%
40.8%
Science
Non-Science
169
173
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
Extended
Clock
Department
Supportive
of
Extension***
77.7%
93.3%
82.6%
69.8%
92.6%
94.4%
77.0%
80.8%
90.5%
94.0%
83.1%
71.4%
77.3%
66.7%
93.3%
90.0%
94.1%
92.9%
39.1%
41.0%
80.3%
75.0%
91.8%
94.4%
40
305
32.5%
41.0%
69.2%
78.6%
93.8%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
64
281
29.7%
42.3%
73.7%
78.3%
92.2%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
35
310
40.0%
40.0%
71.4%
78.4%
92.6%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
49
290
40.8%
40.0%
60.0%
80.3%
93.3%
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
201
144
54.7%
19.4%
*
80.2%
67.9%
95.4%
82.4%
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
119
226
65.5%
26.5%
*
80.8%
73.8%
96.7%
88.4%
Stay Home Partner
No Stay Home Partner
85
247
48.2%
35.6%
*
73.2%
78.7%
93.3%
92.4%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
140
200
50.7%
33.0%
*
74.6%
80.6%
93.3%
94.2%
*
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** For untenured faculty and faculty who received tenure at UW-Madison after January 2003.
*** Percent "extremely" or "generally supportive" vs. percent "extremely" or "generally unsupportive";
includes only faculty who reported taking an extension.
Dash (-) indicates data suppressed because of insufficient sample size (n<20).
Longitudinal tests: not available for these items.
33
Table T4. Choosing to NOT Extend Tenure Clock, Though Eligible** Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Chose to NOT
Extend Tenure
Clock, but
Wanted To
345
8.7%
Women
Men
164
181
8.5%
8.8%
Untenured
Tenured
267
78
9.7%
5.1%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
115
63
115
49
8.7%
6.3%
8.7%
12.2%
Science
Non-Science
169
173
7.7%
9.8%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
40
305
10.0%
8.5%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
64
281
7.8%
8.9%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
35
310
11.4%
8.4%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
49
290
16.3%
7.6%
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
201
144
10.4%
6.3%
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
119
226
12.6%
6.6%
Stay Home Partner
No Stay Home Partner
85
247
12.9%
7.3%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
140
200
12.9%
6.0%
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** For untenured faculty and faculty who received tenure at UW-Madison
after January 2003.
Longitudinal tests: not available for these items.
34
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
D. Professional Activities
This section included questions about various dimensions of the work environment for
faculty at UW-Madison including feelings about work allocation, resources for research,
service responsibilities, and interaction with colleagues.
a. Time allocation
35
Table TT1. Average Hours Per Week Worked by Faculty - Wave 2 (2006)
Average
Hours Worked
Mean
(S.D.)
Hours Worked
Durring AY
Mean
(S.D.)
N
1195
55.2
(0.3)
57.3
(0.3)
Women
Men
381
813
53.6
55.9
(0.5)
(0.4)
55.8
58.0
(0.5)
(0.3)
Untenured
Tenured
304
891
54.2
55.5
(0.7)
(0.3)
56.5
57.5
(0.6)
(0.3)
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
436
239
325
178
55.9
58.2
53.2
52.9
(0.5)
(0.7)
(0.5)
(0.9)
57.3
60.0
56.2
55.5
(0.5)
(0.7)
(0.5)
(0.9)
Science
Non-Science
650
528
56.8
53.2
(0.4)
(0.5)
58.3
56.1
(0.4)
(0.4)
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
102
1093
53.7
55.3
(1.2)
(0.3)
56.3
57.4
Non-Citizen
Citizen
124
1070
56.7
55.0
(0.9)
(0.3)
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
550
645
54.3
55.9
(0.4)
(0.4)
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
172
1023
53.1
55.6
(0.7)
(0.3)
Stay Home Partner
No Stay Home Partner
248
912
55.6
55.3
(0.6)
(0.4)
All Faculty
Hours Worked
Durring Summer**
Mean
(S.D.)
45.8
(0.5)
43.0
47.2
(0.9)
(0.7)
46.8
45.4
(1.1)
(0.6)
49.1
52.6
44.5
38.5
(1.7)
(0.9)
(0.8)
(1.2)
52.4
42.2
(0.8)
(0.6)
(1.0)
(0.3)
45.2
45.8
(1.9)
(0.6)
58.5
57.1
(0.9)
(0.3)
47.5
45.5
(1.4)
(0.6)
*
56.0
58.4
(0.4)
(0.4)
*
45.9
45.6
(0.7)
(0.8)
*
54.3
57.8
(0.8)
(0.3)
*
46.2
45.7
(1.2)
(0.6)
57.1
57.5
(0.6)
(0.3)
46.1
45.7
(0.8)
(0.7)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Includes only faculty with 9-month appointments
Longitudinal tests: Not available for the items presented here.
36
*
*
*
*
*
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
D. Professional Activities
This section included questions about various dimensions of the work environment for
faculty at UW-Madison including feelings about work allocation, resources for research,
service responsibilities, and interaction with colleagues.
b. Resources
37
Table R1. Satisfaction with Equipment and Space - Wave 2 (2006)
Equipment
Have
Equip.
Needed
Regularly
Equip.
Maintained
Space
Sufficient
Sufficient
Office
Lab
Space
Space**
1213
81.0%
54.4%
78.4%
68.0%
Women
Men
390
821
77.0% *
82.8%
53.6%
54.7%
77.2%
79.0%
64.7%
69.5%
Untenured
Tenured
307
906
84.9% *
79.6%
60.6%
52.5%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
432
239
332
190
81.7%
82.0%
82.0%
76.5%
Science
Non-Science
646
547
81.8%
80.1%
51.0%
58.3%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
102
1111
84.0%
80.7%
55.8%
54.2%
76.5%
78.6%
47.5%
69.8%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
129
1082
83.2%
80.7%
55.3%
54.3%
76.7%
78.7%
71.2%
67.8%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
56
1158
80.4%
81.0%
64.8%
53.8%
78.2%
78.4%
76.5%
67.6%
Multiple Appt.
Single Appt.
224
961
83.0%
80.7%
62.1%
52.9%
*
79.9%
78.8%
67.4%
68.2%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
461
728
73.2% *
85.7%
45.1%
59.9%
*
76.1%
79.8%
62.6%
70.6%
N
All Faculty
51.6%
50.7%
64.4%
48.4%
*
*
*
84.0%
76.5%
*
83.3%
80.3%
81.3%
63.2%
*
82.4%
75.0%
65.4%
68.9%
N/A
*
*
N/A
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Total respondents for this item is smaller than for other items shown here (n=744).
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.10; darker grey indicates overtime change significant at p <0.05. Arrows indicate the direction of change between 2003 and 2006.
38
Table R2. Satisfaction with Internal Funding and Support - Wave 2 (2006)
Support
N
All Faculty
Enough
Internal
Funding
Sufficient
Tech/Comp.
Support
1198
40.9%
Women
Men
388
810
45.9%
38.6%
*
Untenured
Tenured
304
895
57.9%
35.0%
*
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
432
236
330
186
37.9%
34.5%
47.8%
43.8%
Science
Non-Science
641
539
36.5%
46.1%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
102
1097
39.2%
41.0%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
128
1073
52.1%
39.5%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
56
1143
59.3%
40.0%
Multiple Appt.
Single Appt.
222
951
40.3%
41.2%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
455
721
35.2%
44.2%
*
*
*
69.3%
62.7%
67.7%
75.9%
70.0%
71.6%
75.4%
63.3%
*
72.7%
71.2%
*
77.8%
71.1%
*
*
77.9%
69.9%
*
67.3%
73.6%
*
*
65.0%
63.1%
66.1%
62.0%
*
*
Sufficient
Clinical
Support **
54.3%
60.6%
66.1%
74.0%
70.5%
68.5%
67.4%
81.9%
65.1%
Sufficient
Teaching
Support
? 64.4%
71.4%
66.2%
74.0%
Sufficient
Office
Support
64.2%
64.7%
56.4%
53.3%
59.6%
52.6%
65.0%
53.0%
59.5%
60.3%
44.1%
*
63.2%
65.6%
63.0%
69.1%
N/A
*
*
54.3%
55.8%
N/A
52.2%
54.5%
55.6%
65.8%
70.2%
63.7%
61.4%
53.6%
64.3%
65.0%
69.6%
64.1%
65.4%
53.7%
64.3%
63.6%
64.8%
54.4%
55.1%
60.5%
66.7%
*
*
49.0%
57.5%
*
54.8%
66.9%
57.3%
69.2%
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Total respondents for this item is small (n=214).
Dash (-) indicates data suppressed because of insufficient cases.
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.10; darker grey indicates over-time change
significant at p <0.05. Arrows indicate the direction of change between 2003 and 2006.
39
Table R3. Availability of Colleagues - Wave 2 (2006)
Colleagues
On Campus,
Give Career
Similar
Advice When
Research
Needed
N
1182
81.6%
Women
Men
382
798
77.5%
83.6%
Untenured
Tenured
301
881
78.4%
82.7%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
419
234
326
185
Science
Non-Science
627
536
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
All Faculty
77.2%
75.1%
78.2%
86.7%
73.8%
*
81.6%
80.3%
84.0%
78.4%
81.5%
81.5%
78.7%
75.3%
104
1078
72.1%
82.6%
77.5%
77.2%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
124
1056
84.7%
81.3%
80.2%
76.8%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
55
1127
92.7%
81.1%
88.9%
76.7%
Multiple Appt.
Single Appt.
218
940
83.7%
81.1%
78.0%
77.2%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
450
724
66.2%
91.0%
66.3%
83.9%
*
*
*
80.7%
75.4%
79.2%
67.9%
*
*
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at
p <0.10; darker grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.05. Arrows
indicate the direction of change between 2003 and 2006.
40
Table R4. Collaboration Within and Outside UW-Madison - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Currently Collaborate
On
Off
UW-Madison
UW-Madison
Campus
Campus
In
Primary
Dept.
57.0%
75.3%
52.8%
58.9%
70.2%
77.6%
1174
54.9%
Women
Men
375
797
45.1%
59.5%
Untenured
Tenured
301
873
54.8%
55.0%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
424
237
320
176
68.2%
69.2%
42.5%
28.4%
*
*
*
*
78.8%
63.1%
42.3%
24.6%
*
*
*
*
Science
Non-Science
636
521
68.4%
39.2%
*
72.2%
39.0%
*
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
103
1071
51.5%
55.3%
58.0%
56.9%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
124
1048
51.6%
55.3%
51.3%
57.6%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
52
1122
61.5%
54.6%
58.5%
56.9%
Multiple Appt.
Single Appt.
216
933
58.8%
54.3%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
448
705
44.9%
61.8%
*
55.3%
57.5%
*
68.1%
54.7%
54.5%
59.1%
*
Collaborated Within Past 3 Years**
In
On
Off
Primary
UW-Madison UW-Madison
Dept.
Campus
Campus
60.0%
*
73.0%
76.1%
83.1%
83.3%
73.1%
49.4%
*
*
83.2%
65.8%
*
*
60.5%
79.2%
47.9%
65.8%
*
55.3%
63.0%
*
76.1%
80.6%
51.8%
62.6%
*
62.8%
53.0%
*
77.6%
79.7%
72.2%
74.2%
49.5%
36.0%
*
*
*
*
80.8%
67.8%
46.6%
33.3%
*
*
*
*
83.4%
86.1%
83.2%
56.2%
*
*
*
73.4%
45.2%
*
75.9%
43.5%
*
84.6%
73.6%
*
76.8%
75.2%
50.0%
61.0%
69.3%
59.7%
73.0%
75.6%
54.7%
60.7%
48.6%
61.9%
92.5%
74.5%
*
59.2%
60.1%
58.3%
60.6%
83.7%
73.3%
*
62.8%
59.9%
69.2%
58.8%
72.7%
77.8%
*
49.9%
67.1%
*
60.1%
61.3%
80.2%
79.1%
*
*
70.4%
80.3%
*
92.0%
78.6%
*
88.0%
77.4%
*
78.0%
81.2%
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Longitudinal tests not available for these items.
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.10; darker grey indicates over-time change significant at
p <0.05. Arrows indicate the direction of change between 2003 and 2006.
41
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
D. Professional Activities
This section included questions about various dimensions of the work environment for
faculty at UW-Madison including feelings about work allocation, resources for research,
service responsibilities, and interaction with colleagues.
c. Leadership
42
Table L1. Service on Departmental Committees**
Curriculum
Served Chaired
LOW REWARD
Graduate
Admissions
Served Chaired
Diversity
Served Chaired
33.1%
53.3%
21.6%
47.0%
18.7%
0.1953
68.6%
68.1%
35.6%
32.3%
57.2%
52.1%
28.4% *
19.6%
50.0%
46.1%
19.4%
18.5%
33.6% * 14.7% *
15.2%
6.3%
63.3%
68.6%
39.6%
32.5%
53.2%
53.3%
22.5%
21.6%
58.3%
46.1%
20.0%
18.6%
30.2%
18.7%
13.2% *
12.2% *
21.8%
32.7% *
13.0% * 6.2%
15.8%
6.5%
25.0% * 9.9%
27.5% * 12.1%
RESOURCES/REWARDS
Space
Salaries
Awards
Served Chaired
Served Chaired
Served Chaired
PERSONNEL
Promotion
Faculty search
Served Chaired
Served Chaired
682
28.1%
11.4%
52.7%
20.6%
42.1%
72.3%
31.9%
68.2%
Women
Men
164
523
23.7%
29.4%
8.9%
12.1%
54.5%
52.1%
18.9%
21.1%
50.3% * 27.1% *
39.5%
17.2%
75.6%
71.3%
33.3%
31.4%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
51
633
24.4%
28.4%
12.5%
11.3%
55.3%
52.5%
22.7%
20.4%
27.5% * 20.1%
43.3%
15.9%
74.5%
72.2%
33.3%
31.8%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
225
157
189
118
30.9%
30.8%
26.9%
18.2% *
10.7%
13.0%
11.0%
11.5%
43.4% * 15.3% *
51.4%
17.3%
58.6%
25.2%
62.2% * 27.8%
32.1% * 15.8%
38.1%
16.7%
44.2%
21.8%
62.8% * 26.4%
65.7% * 21.1% *
69.7%
30.1%
75.8%
36.9%
82.2% * 45.7% *
64.4%
27.5% *
60.5% * 33.1%
76.2% * 37.6%
73.0%
36.3%
48.4%
18.9%
46.8%
14.5% *
61.3% * 27.7% *
58.6%
26.9%
41.1%
29.3%
57.7%
63.8%
Science
Non-Science
376
308
30.6%
24.5%
11.8%
10.8%
46.5% * 16.3% *
60.1%
25.8%
34.0% * 16.1% *
51.8%
23.6%
67.0% * 24.3% *
78.6%
40.6%
62.5% * 30.0%
75.2%
36.8%
46.8% * 17.0% *
61.1%
27.2%
35.2% * 12.3% *
60.7%
26.3%
14.0% * 6.0% *
26.0%
11.0%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
255
425
17.1% * 13.2%
34.8%
17.8%
44.1% * 16.5%
57.6%
22.8%
38.5%
43.8%
20.3%
18.5%
67.8%
74.8%
26.6% *
35.4%
64.7%
70.1%
30.3%
34.8%
53.0%
53.8%
20.3%
22.7%
52.3% * 19.5%
44.2%
18.1%
24.3% * 11.7% *
16.8%
6.4%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
44
642
31.4%
27.9%
60.0%
52.2%
38.1%
42.4%
25.0%
19.1%
72.7%
72.3%
26.3%
32.3%
75.0%
67.8%
26.3%
33.5%
53.9%
53.2%
24.3%
21.5%
56.4%
46.4%
18.4%
19.6%
N
All Full Professors
9.1%
11.5%
21.6%
20.5%
19.4%
*
*
*
*
18.9%
18.7%
8.3%
16.3%
7.7%
5.7%
8.5%
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Only full professors are included.
43
Table L2. Leadership Positions on UW-Madison Campus***
N
All Full Professors
Asst. or Assoc.
Chair
Hold
Held**
Department
Chair
Hold
Held**
Asst. or Assoc.
Dean
Hold
Held**
Dean$
Hold
Held**
Center/Institute
Director
Hold
Held**
Section/Area
Head
Hold
Held**
P.I.
Research Grant
Hold
Held**
P.I.
Educ. Grant
Hold
Held**
Hold
Other
Held**
692
9.0%
13.7%
14.2%
20.3%
4.5%
6.6%
--
--
17.6%
23.7%
16.8%
24.4%
68.5%
77.6%
15.1%
22.2%
23.7%
31.6%
Women
Men
165
527
9.8%
8.8%
16.9%
12.7%
12.5%
14.8%
19.5%
20.6%
4.3%
4.5%
8.3%
6.1%
---
---
14.2%
18.7%
19.7%
24.9%
19.8%
15.8%
27.0%
23.6%
60.0% * 72.8%
71.2%
79.0%
14.0%
15.4%
21.1%
22.5%
28.2%
22.3%
40.0%
29.2%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
51
641
6.4%
9.2%
9.3%
14.1%
20.8%
13.7%
30.4%
19.6%
2.1%
4.7%
7.0%
6.6%
---
---
6.3% * 15.9%
18.5%
24.2%
10.6%
17.2%
16.3%
25.0%
60.8%
69.1%
8.3%
15.6%
16.3%
22.6%
7.7%
25.0%
12.5%
32.7%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
232
164
189
115
11.5%
11.0%
6.2%
6.1%
16.0%
16.9%
10.0%
11.0%
13.8%
11.2%
15.8%
16.7%
16.0%
15.9%
26.3% *
24.8%
4.1%
1.9%
8.6%
1.8%
5.5%
4.1%
* 12.2% *
2.9%
-----
-----
12.8% * 16.8% *
26.9% * 30.9% *
20.1%
29.4% *
9.8% * 16.5%
13.8%
18.3% *
10.7% * 15.8% *
18.6%
27.3%
27.9% * 42.1% *
83.2%
80.9%
57.2%
38.7%
18.0%
17.7%
13.0%
9.2%
26.5%
21.6%
21.1%
16.4%
34.6% * 40.4%
24.4%
29.0%
7.1% * 16.2% *
26.5%
39.4%
Science
Non-Science
387
307
11.5% * 16.6% *
6.0%
10.2%
12.9%
15.8%
16.1% *
25.3%
3.0%
6.3%
*
4.7%
9.0%
---
---
18.4%
16.6%
22.6%
24.9%
12.5% * 17.3% *
21.9%
32.6%
83.0% * 89.4% *
50.2%
62.3%
17.9% * 24.0%
11.7%
20.0%
30.4% * 35.7%
15.6%
26.8%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
256
423
6.8%
10.2%
10.4%
15.5%
10.7% * 14.6% *
16.3%
23.9%
2.4%
5.6%
*
5.1%
7.5%
---
---
15.5%
19.1%
22.6%
24.4%
21.4% * 27.1%
14.4%
23.1%
63.3% * 73.3% *
73.1%
81.3%
12.8%
16.5%
21.8%
22.6%
27.8%
20.7%
36.4%
28.6%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
45
647
4.8%
9.3%
7.1%
14.2%
7.0%
14.7%
4.8%
4.5%
7.3%
6.6%
---
---
11.6%
18.0%
14.6%
24.3%
11.9%
17.1%
71.1%
68.3%
11.9%
15.3%
16.7%
22.6%
35.7%
22.6%
35.7%
31.2%
9.8%
21.1%
*
17.1%
24.9%
72.0%
78.0%
*
*
*
*
90.0%
87.8%
67.4%
52.8%
77.8%
77.5%
*
*
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** "Held" includes those answering "Currently Hold" AND "Ever Held".
*** Only full professors are included.
$
Data not reported due to small sample size.
44
Table L3. Leadership Positions outside UW-Madison Campus**
N
All Full Professors
President,
Prof. Assn.
Executive
Board,
Prof. Assn.
President,
Service Org.
Executive
Board,
Service Org.
Major
Committee
Chair, Prof.
Association
Journal
Editor
Editorial
Board
Member
National
Panel
Member
714
25.4%
39.9%
14.0%
23.7%
40.4%
19.9%
65.3%
40.2%
Women
Men
171
543
29.0%
24.2%
43.5%
38.7%
13.1%
14.3%
25.8%
23.1%
42.9%
39.6%
19.1%
20.1%
67.8%
64.5%
39.3%
40.5%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
53
661
17.3%
26.0%
30.0%
40.6%
15.7%
13.9%
25.5%
23.6%
48.1%
39.8%
15.7%
20.2%
73.6%
64.6%
37.7%
40.4%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
235
162
196
122
28.0%
19.8%
25.5%
27.5%
41.1%
30.0%
42.2%
46.7%
14.4%
10.8%
15.7%
15.0%
24.6%
15.3%
33.0%
18.5%
45.0%
40.1%
40.2%
31.9%
18.3%
25.8%
19.6%
15.6%
Science
Non-Science
389
325
24.6%
26.3%
35.6%
45.0%
12.6%
15.8%
20.3%
27.9%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
262
439
23.4%
26.6%
39.7%
39.5%
14.7%
13.8%
23.6%
23.8%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
45
670
20.9%
25.6%
36.4%
40.1%
7.0%
14.5%
7.0%
24.9%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
74.5%
52.5%
68.9%
58.7%
*
*
49.8%
45.3%
34.0%
25.0%
*
*
43.3%
36.9%
21.1%
18.2%
65.0%
65.5%
48.4%
30.3%
40.2%
40.5%
21.3%
18.7%
66.8%
64.9%
39.8%
40.6%
27.9%
41.2%
28.9%
19.2%
70.5%
64.9%
37.2%
40.4%
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Only full professors are included.
45
Table L4. Interest in Formal Leadership Positions
All Faculty
N
Interest
All Faculty
Full Professors Only
N
Interest
1180
42.5%
688
40.0%
Women
Men
385
793
44.4%
41.6%
166
522
45.2%
38.3%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
104
1076
44.2%
42.3%
52
636
44.2%
39.6%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
416
232
324
189
41.4%
42.2%
42.0%
46.6%
221
158
191
118
37.6%
40.5%
38.2%
46.6%
Science
Non-Science
625
536
41.8%
43.5%
371
317
39.1%
41.0%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
452
705
43.8%
41.7%
253
423
40.3%
39.2%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
129
1049
42.6%
42.5%
45
643
46.7%
39.5%
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
46
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
D. Professional Activities
This section included questions about various dimensions of the work environment for
faculty at UW-Madison including feelings about work allocation, resources for research,
service responsibilities, and interaction with colleagues.
d. Professional interactions
47
Workplace Interactions Summary
The Faculty Worklife survey, administered first in 2003 and again in 2006, incorporated a number
of questions that asked faculty to evaluate the quality of their workplace interactions and climate.
Questions about workplace interactions focused on five thematic dimensions: respect in the
workplace, informal department interactions, colleagues’ valuation of research, isolation and
“fit,” and departmental decision-making. Questions about climate focused on ones’ own
experience and perceptions of others’ experiences at the departmental and institutional level.
Overall, UW-Madison faculty characterized their workplace interactions as positive and high in
quality on each of the five dimensions. Additionally, UW-Madison faculty described the
departmental and institutional climate for themselves and others as positive. This aggregate
picture is highly similar to that observed in the 2003 survey, suggesting that the quality of
faculty’s workplace interactions and climate experiences remained stable between 2003 and 2006.
However, as observed in 2003, several groups of faculty reported systematically different
perceptions of the quality of their workplace interactions and climate. A number of groups,
including: women faculty, faculty of color, gay/lesbian faculty, and faculty who describe their
research as “non-mainstream,” tended to report less positive perceptions of their workplace
interactions and climate. Conversely, department chairs frequently reported more positive
perceptions. These differences were often, but not always, statistically significant. There are some
indications that the discrepancies between groups’ climate experiences and workplace
interactions narrowed between 2003 and 2006.
Department Climate
Overall, UW-Madison faculty reported positive perceptions of the climate they and others
experience within their primary department. Approximately three-quarters of faculty rated their
overall department climate as positive or very positive. A similar proportion agreed strongly or
somewhat that their department’s climate for women and faculty of color is good (84.0% and
71.0%, respectively). While this overall picture is rather rosy, differences in faculty’s responses
suggest that climate experiences vary considerably. In particular, some faculty groups tended to
report more or less positive perceptions of their primary department’s climate:
•
•
•
Women faculty rated their department’s climate less positively than male faculty (63.9%
vs. 81.6% report a positive department climate, see Figure 1). They also agreed less
frequently that the climate for women and faculty of color in their department is good as
compared to men (75.9% vs. 88.1% agree and 54.1% vs. 78.5% agree, respectively).
Each of these gender differences is statistically significant at p<0.05.
Humanities faculty, faculty of color, faculty who identified themselves as gay/lesbian,
and faculty who described their research as non-mainstream all reported less-positive
perceptions of their department’s climate. These differences were sometimes, though not
always, statistically significant (see Figure 1).
Faculty in the humanities reported significantly (p<0.05) more negative perceptions of
their departments’ climates than all other faculty. Humanities faculty also reported a
significantly less positive perception of their departments’ climate for faculty of color.
Faculty in the biological and physical sciences (hereafter, “science”) reported more
positive perceptions of their departments’ climate for faculty of color as compared to all
other faculty. Reports of a positive department climate for women were consistent across
divisions.
48
•
Department chairs rated their department’s climate more positively than all other faculty
(89.6% vs. 74.8% report a positive climate); this difference is significant at p<0.05.
Chairs were also more likely to report positive perceptions of their department’s climate
for women and faculty of color (Figure 2).
The gap between how male and female faculty perceive their department’s climate for
women decreased between 2003 and 2006. Similarly, the gap in majority faculty and
faculty of colors’ perceptions of their department’s climate for faculty of color decreased
during this period. The difference between department chairs’ and non-chairs’
perceptions of departmental climate for women remained large and mostly static between
the survey periods. This difference narrowed with respect to department climate for
faculty of color. None of these over-time changes are statistically significant at the
p<0.05 level, though some changes with respect to perceptions of the climate for faculty
of color approach significance at the p<0.10 level.
•
Figure 1.
Comparison of Faculty Ratings of Department Climate (2006)
% rating department climate as positive or very positive
100
Mainstream
84.7%
Men
81.6%
80
Faculty
of color
Women
63.9%*
Majority
faculty
76.6%
Not
Homosexual
76.2%
NonMainstream
67.0%*
Homosexual
60.9%
62.4%*
60
40
20
0
* indicates difference between groups significant at p <0.05
49
Figure 2.
Department Chairs' vs. Non-chairs' Assesments of Department Climate (2006)
100
Dept. chair
Dept. chair 94.1%*
89.6%*
% rating department climate as positive or very positive
Not chair
83.1%
Not chair
74.8%
80
Dept. chair
79.0%
Not chair
70.3%
60
40
20
0
Overall
For women
For faculty of color
* indicates difference between groups significant at p<0.05
Detailed Results
Respect in the Workplace
As in 2003, faculty overwhelmingly reported feeling respected by colleagues, students, staff, and
department chairs in the workplace in the 2006 survey (more than 90% of faculty agreed that they
were treated with respect by each group). However, a number of differences between faculty
groups persisted:
•
•
•
Women were still less likely to agree in 2006 that they are treated with respect by
colleagues, students, and department chairs than male faculty. These differences were
significant at p<0.05.
Faculty of color and gay/lesbian faculty were still less likely to agree that colleagues and
students treat them with respect, though this difference was generally not significant at
standard levels of confidence.
As compared to faculty who identified their research as mainstream, faculty conducting
research outside of the mainstream were still significantly less likely to agree that they
were treated with respect by colleagues (84.7% vs. 95.8%), students (94.0% vs. 97.4%),
and department chairs (85.8% vs. 94.0%).
Informal Departmental Interactions
In both 2003 and 2006, faculty reported similar patterns of informal department interactions.
Overall, approximately one-third of all faculty reported feeling excluded from informal networks
or having encountered unwritten rules within their department in 2006. About two-thirds reported
that a great deal of their work was not formally recognized by their department. These
50
proportions remained virtually unchanged between the surveys. Nevertheless, there are some
indications that the quality of informal interactions has improved for some faculty, especially
those in the sciences:
•
•
Science faculty who describe their research as non-mainstream were less likely to report
feeling excluded from informal department networks (49.3% vs. 43.0% agree) and
having encountered unwritten department rules (41.4% vs. 35.3%) in 2006 than in 2003.
Faculty of color were less likely to report feeling excluded from informal department
networks (48.2% vs. 29.8%), encountering unwritten rules (47.2% vs. 40.4%), and
performing unrecognized work (66.4% vs. 61.8%) in 2006 than in 2003. As opposed to
2003, the 2006 survey revealed no statistically significant differences between faculty of
color and majority faculty for these items. Changes were particularly marked for faculty
of color in the sciences.
For other faculty, significant differences in experience of informal departmental interactions
persist:
•
•
•
Women faculty were more likely to report feeling excluded from informal department
networks and to agree that they had encountered unwritten rules in their departments, as
compared to men faculty. These significant differences persisted over the survey period.
Department chairs remained the least likely of all faculty groups to report exclusion and
to encounter unwritten rules. The gap between department chairs’ and non-chairs’ sense
of inclusion in informal department networks narrowed between 2003 and 2006 (9.2% vs.
33.5% in 2003 and 20.9% vs. 32.6% in 2006 report feeling excluded). This may be
related to the increase in the number of women department chairs over the survey period.
Science faculty again reported higher quality informal interactions within their
departments. These faculty were significantly less likely to report feeling excluded from
informal networks and having encountered unwritten rules as compared to faculty outside
of the sciences.
Colleagues’ Valuation of Research
Overall, faculty reported similar perceptions of their colleagues’ valuation of their research in
2003 and 2006. Most faculty agree that colleagues both solicit their opinions and value their
research (85.4% and 78.2%, respectively). While the aggregate picture remained stable, some
faculty groups reported improvements in this area:
•
•
Faculty of color and homosexual faculty were more likely to agree that departmental
colleagues solicit their opinions on work-related matters and that they also value their
research in 2006 compared to 2003. Nonetheless, significant differences between these
groups and their counterparts (majority faculty and non-homosexual faculty,
respectively) persisted.
Women faculty in the sciences were more likely to agree that departmental colleagues
solicit their opinions in 2006 than in 2003. While women faculty outside of the sciences
remained more likely to agree to this item than their science counterparts, the gap
between women science faculty and women faculty in other fields narrowed.
Despite these changes, some significant discrepancies in faculty’s perceptions of their colleagues’
valuation of their research persisted:
51
•
•
Women faculty remained less likely to report that colleagues seek out their opinions on
work-related matters and value their research as compared to men faculty. As in 2003,
women faculty were more likely than men faculty to report that their own research falls
outside of their departments’ mainstream. These gender differences were again found to
be statistically significant (at p<0.05).
Humanities faculty were again less likely than all other faculty to report that colleagues
solicit their opinion and value their research. Humanities faculty were also most likely to
report that their research falls outside of the mainstream in their department.
Isolation and “fit”
Overall, UW-Madison faculty indicated a slight improvement in how well they perceive
themselves to “fit” in their work environment. Faculty were more likely to agree that they “fit” in
their departments (77.8% vs. 74.7%) and less likely to report feeling isolated within their
departments (27.3% vs. 29.0%) or on campus (20.7% vs. 23.7%) in 2006 than in 2003. This
tendency is more pronounced among two faculty groups: faculty in the sciences and faculty of
color. Though both groups’ responses continued to lag behind those of their counterparts, the
gains in perceptions of “fit” and isolation between 2003 and 2006 were larger than for nonscience faculty and majority faculty, respectively (Figures 3 and 4). These positive trends are
encouraging, as these items were found to be highly correlated with other measures of climate in
the 2003 survey. This suggests that faculty of color and faculty in the sciences may have observed
an improvement in their workplace climates between 2003 and 2006. Despite these
developments, some faculty continued to report systematically different perceptions of their “fit”
and isolation:
•
•
Women faculty and faculty who identified with a non-mainstream research tradition
remained significantly less likely to agree that they “fit” in their department and
significantly more likely to report feeling isolated within their department and on campus
overall.
Department chairs were again significantly more likely to report that they “fit” with their
department, as compared to non-chairs. The gap between chairs’ and non-chairs’
perceptions of workplace “fit” narrowed between 2003 and 2006 (96.1% vs. 73.3%
agreed that they “fit” in 2003, 86.1% vs. 77.1% agreed in 2006).
52
Figure 3.
Trends in science and non-science faculty's perceptions of departmental "fit"
% agreeing strongly or somewhat that they "fit" in their department
82
81.0% *
80
Science
Non-Science
78
76
75.0%
74.2%
74
73.4%
72
70
68
2003
2006
* indicates difference between groups significant at p<0.05
Figure 4.
Trends in faculty of color's and majority faculty's feelings of isolation in the workplace
% agreeing strongly or somewhat that they feel isolated
50
Faculty of color
43.1%*
Majority facutly
40
37.6%*
34.3%
30
27.7%
26.7%
26.6%
22.4%
20.1%
20
10
0
2003
Isolated in department
2006
2003
Isolated on the UW
campus overall
2006
* indicates difference between groups significant at p<0.05
Departmental Decision-Making
Faculty responses regarding the departmental decision-making process remained largely stable
between 2003 and 2006. Women faculty, faculty of color, untenured faculty, and faculty whose
53
research falls outside of the mainstream continued to report less positive perceptions of the
inclusiveness of department decision-making processes than their counterparts. Many, but not all,
of these differences are statistically significant at p<0.05. Also, as in 2003, department chairs
were significantly more likely to report that their departmental decision-making processes are
inclusive than non-chairs. The gap between chairs’ and non-chairs’ perceptions on these items
remained unchanged between 2003 and 2006.
54
Table PI1. Treated With Respect in the Workplace - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Colleagues
Students
Department
Chair**
Staff
121
91.6%
96.1%
Women
Men
393
826
86.5% *
93.9%
92.7%
97.7%
Untenured
Tenured
310
911
93.5%
90.9%
94.5%
96.6%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
435
240
331
195
93.1%
93.8%
91.8%
84.6% *
97.5%
94.2%
95.8%
95.4%
Science
Non-Science
650
551
93.5% *
89.1%
96.1%
95.8%
97.4%
96.4%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
116
1105
87.9%
91.9%
91.4%
96.6%
97.4%
96.8%
87.5%
91.2%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
130
1089
91.5%
91.6%
94.7%
96.2%
97.0%
96.2%
91.1%
92.1%
Homosexual
Not Homosexual
25
1159
76.0%
91.8%
92.0%
96.2%
88.0%
97.1%
76.0%
91.5%
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
177
1044
94.9% *
91.0%
95.5%
96.2%
94.9%
97.2%
94.8%
90.6%
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
559
662
90.9%
92.1%
96.1%
96.1%
96.6%
97.1%
90.8%
91.7%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
56
1165
94.6%
91.4%
96.4%
96.1%
98.2%
96.8%
94.4%
91.1%
Multiple Appts.
Single Appt.
223
970
93.7%
91.0%
93.7%
96.5%
98.2%
96.8%
93.8%
90.7%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
464
734
84.7% *
95.8%
94.0%
97.4%
Dept. Chair
Not Chair
87
1134
95.4%
91.3%
97.7%
95.9%
*
*
91.3%
95.9%
97.3%
86.4%
93.7%
95.1%
97.5%
93.5%
90.4%
98.6%
95.4%
97.0%
94.8%
*
96.9%
95.7%
97.6%
98.9%
96.7%
*
92.6%
93.3%
91.9%
84.2%
93.1%
89.0%
84.3%
95.7%
*
*
*
*
*
N/A
N/A
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Respondents who are Department Chairs are not included in analysis.
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at p<0.10; darker grey indicates over-time
change significant at p<0.05. Arrows indicate the direction of change between 2003 and 2006.
55
Table PI2. Informal Departmental Interactions - Wave 2 (2006)
Have to
Work
Harder**
Excluded
Unwritten
Rules
1210
31.7%
37.1%
62.3%
28.0%
Women
Men
390
818
47.9% *
24.0%
46.6% *
32.6%
65.4%
60.7%
42.3%
21.1%
*
43.3%
26.4%
Untenured
Tenured
309
901
35.9%
30.3%
39.5%
36.3%
46.4%
67.6%
38.8%
24.3%
*
32.7%
31.6%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
431
239
328
192
31.3%
25.9% *
34.5%
34.4%
31.9%
31.1%
43.9%
44.7%
*
*
*
*
61.1%
58.3%
62.8%
66.7%
23.8%
22.6%
32.7%
35.9%
*
*
*
*
28.4%
35.3%
31.2%
37.0%
Science
Non-Science
646
544
28.9% *
34.7%
31.0% *
44.4%
59.7%
64.5%
22.4%
34.6%
*
30.9%
33.1%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
115
1095
32.2%
31.7%
40.9%
36.7%
64.6%
62.0%
34.4%
27.3%
45.1%
30.5%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
131
1077
29.8%
31.8%
43.0%
36.4%
55.0%
63.1%
34.9%
27.1%
34.1%
31.6%
Homosexual
Not Homosexual
24
1149
31.4%
33.3%
70.8% *
36.4%
60.0%
62.2%
52.0%
27.3%
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
178
1032
32.0%
31.7%
36.2%
37.3%
46.0%
65.0%
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
557
653
33.0%
30.6%
36.3%
37.8%
59.8%
64.4%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
56
1154
28.6%
31.9%
30.4%
37.4%
41.1%
63.3%
Multiple Appts.
Single Appt.
218
964
33.9%
30.9%
41.8%
35.8%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
458
731
46.1% *
22.8%
Dept. Chair
Not Chair
86
1124
20.9% *
32.6%
N
All Faculty
Work Not
Recognized
Reluctant to
Raise Issue
of Problem
Behaviors**
*
*
*
*
*
36.0%
31.6%
30.7%
27.5%
31.0%
32.0%
30.5%
25.8%
33.9%
30.1%
*
19.6%
28.3%
26.8%
32.1%
71.7%
59.6%
*
28.1%
28.0%
35.6%
31.1%
49.7% *
29.4%
72.2%
56.0%
*
37.4%
22.0%
*
50.2%
20.6%
31.0%
37.6%
70.1%
61.7%
16.3%
28.8%
*
24.7%
32.4%
*
31.9%
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Longitudinal tests not available for these items.
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at p<0.10; darker grey indicates over-time change
significant at p<0.05. Arrows indicate the direction of change between 2003 and 2006.
56
Table PI3. Colleagues' Valuation of Research - Wave 2 (2006)
N
Solicit
Opinions
"Mainstream"
Value
1210
85.4%
61.2%
Women
Men
390
818
78.5% *
88.6%
52.7%
65.2%
Untenured
Tenured
306
904
80.1% *
87.2%
58.8%
62.0%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
430
237
331
192
86.0%
87.8%
85.8%
79.7% *
66.1%
59.1%
61.8%
52.1%
Science
Non-Science
642
548
86.4%
83.9%
63.7%
58.3%
78.7%
77.2%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
115
1095
76.5% *
86.3%
56.5%
61.7%
73.9%
78.6%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
125
1083
84.0%
85.5%
61.1%
61.3%
81.5%
77.8%
Homosexual
Not Homosexual
25
1148
80.0%
85.5%
52.0%
61.3%
80.0%
78.0%
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
177
1033
87.0%
85.1%
61.5%
59.5%
84.8%
77.0%
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
558
652
85.7%
85.1%
60.6%
61.8%
78.4%
77.9%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
56
1154
87.5%
85.3%
60.0%
61.3%
94.5%
77.3%
Multiple Appts.
Single Appt.
220
962
84.5%
85.6%
63.0%
60.8%
81.9%
77.2%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
460
732
75.0% *
91.7%
N/A
N/A
54.0%
93.3%
Dept. Chair
Not Chair
87
1123
93.1% *
84.8%
All Faculty
71.8%
60.4%
78.1%
*
*
*
*
71.2%
81.5%
*
83.4%
76.4%
*
78.3%
78.7%
80.7%
72.1%
*
*
*
*
84.5%
77.7%
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at p<0.10; darker grey
indicates over-time change significant at p<0.05. Arrows indicate the direction of change
between 2003 and 2006.
57
Table PI4. Isolation and "Fit" - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
1208
"Fit" in
Department
Isolated in
Department
77.7%
27.2%
Isolated at
UW-Madison
20.7%
26.5%
17.8%
Women
Men
389
817
70.2% *
81.3%
37.1%
22.5%
Untenured
Tenured
306
902
81.7% *
76.4%
27.4%
27.2%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
128
239
330
192
80.1%
82.0% *
73.0% *
73.4%
Science
Non-Science
642
547
81.0% *
73.3%
24.8%
30.3%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
115
1093
67.8% *
78.8%
34.5%
26.5%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
130
1076
80.8%
77.3%
22.3%
27.8%
18.5%
20.8%
Homosexual
Not Homosexual
25
1146
72.0%
77.7%
32.0%
27.1%
32.0%
20.1%
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
176
1032
83.0%
76.8%
26.1%
27.4%
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
556
652
77.0%
78.4%
30.0%
24.9%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
56
1152
76.8%
77.8%
28.6%
27.2%
14.3%
21.0%
Multiple Appts.
Single Appt.
218
963
79.8%
77.1%
24.1%
28.0%
18.2%
21.1%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
459
730
58.4% *
89.5%
46.7%
15.3%
Dept. Chair
Not Chair
86
1122
86.0% *
77.1%
*
23.6%
19.7%
24.4%
26.6%
29.4%
31.3%
19.8%
27.8%
*
*
16.8%
21.4%
22.7%
25.0%
*
18.7%
23.0%
27.6%
19.9%
21.5%
20.5%
*
*
21.9%
19.6%
29.5%
15.5%
*
16.1%
21.0%
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at p<0.10; darker grey
indicates over-time change significant at p<0.05. Arrows indicate the direction of change
between 2003 and 2006.
58
Table PI5. Departmental Decision-Making - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Full & Equal
Participant
Voice in
Resource
Allocation
All Can
Share Views
at Meetings
1210
74.9%
64.5%
Women
Men
389
819
64.5%
79.9%
*
52.7%
70.1%
*
75.4%
88.9%
Untenured
Tenured
306
904
62.4%
79.1%
*
47.9%
70.1%
*
83.4%
84.9%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
430
237
330
193
73.5%
81.0%
74.8%
71.5%
60.7%
69.6%
67.2%
61.7%
*
83.0%
90.3%
82.5%
82.9%
Science
Non-Science
643
547
76.2%
73.7%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
116
1094
65.5%
75.9%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
130
1078
71.5%
75.4%
54.3%
65.8%
Homosexual
Not Homosexual
25
1148
76.0%
75.3%
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
177
1033
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
*
84.6%
85.4%
83.0%
56.0%
65.4%
75.9%
85.5%
74.2%
*
67.5%
77.3%
73.3%
*
76.7%
73.4%
*
70.1%
77.9%
79.3%
70.2%
Chair
Involves**
65.1% *
77.4%
66.9% *
75.7%
*
*
66.5% *
80.9% *
75.4%
76.1%
73.1%
75.5%
71.7%
75.4%
68.1%
74.8%
61.5% *
74.4%
87.7%
84.1%
76.4%
73.9%
73.8%
73.4%
64.0%
64.7%
83.3%
84.9%
75.0%
74.2%
72.0%
73.5%
75.1%
74.8%
60.5%
65.2%
87.6%
84.0%
75.7%
73.9%
73.4%
73.3%
559
651
75.7%
74.2%
64.6%
64.3%
85.3%
83.9%
73.1%
75.2%
74.8%
72.0%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
56
1154
76.8%
74.8%
66.1%
64.4%
87.5%
84.4%
78.6%
74.0%
81.5%
72.9%
Multiple Appts.
Single Appt.
220
962
78.6%
74.3%
65.5%
64.1%
81.3%
84.9%
74.9%
74.2%
74.4%
73.2%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
461
732
62.3%
82.9%
*
51.8%
72.4%
*
79.0%
88.0%
*
66.0%
79.0%
*
Dept. Chair
Not Chair
87
1123
96.6%
73.2%
*
96.6%
62.0%
*
98.8%
83.5%
*
88.2%
73.1%
*
*
64.4%
64.5%
Committee
Assignments
Rotated
*
*
61.1% *
81.3%
N/A
N/A
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Respondents who are Department Chairs are not included in analysis.
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at p<0.10. Arrows indicate the direction of change
between 2003 and 2006.
59
Table PI6. Overall Department Climate - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Positive
Department
Climate**
1110
75.9%
Women
Men
366
743
63.9%
81.7%
Untenured
Tenured
295
815
79.3%
74.6%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
391
222
301
177
77.0%
78.4%
77.7%
66.1%
Science
Non-Science
592
499
77.9%
73.1%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
101
1009
67.3%
76.7%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
123
986
71.5%
76.4%
Homosexual
Not Homosexual
23
1057
60.9%
76.3%
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
167
943
73.7%
76.2%
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
510
600
73.7%
77.7%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
53
1057
83.0%
75.5%
Multiple Appts.
Single Appt.
196
887
80.6%
74.9%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
416
674
62.5%
84.7%
*
Dept. Chair
Not Chair
77
1033
89.6%
74.8%
*
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Proportion of faculty reporting "very positive" or "positive"
climate versus "very negative," "negative," or "mediocre"
climate.
Longitudinal tests: Not available for this item.
60
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
E. Satisfaction with UW-Madison
Questions in this section ascertained the extent to which faculty at UW-Madison were satisfied
with their jobs and their career progression.
61
Satisfaction with UW-Madison Summary
Satisfaction with UW-Madison
Job satisfaction among UW-Madison faculty decreased very slightly between 2003 and 2006,
although the change was not statistically significant. Both women and men faculty exhibit fairly
high satisfaction with their jobs at UW-Madison, while women are less satisfied with their career
progression compared to men faculty. Faculty in science departments are more satisfied than
non-science faculty, and interestingly faculty of color in science departments are among the most
satisfied with their jobs, second only to department chairs.
Some groups responded quite differently on the satisfaction items in 2003 compared to 2006,
however. Of note, faculty in the social studies division decreased their satisfaction ratings
significantly between 2003 and 2006. Others increased satisfaction from 2003 to 2006, especially
those faculty doing “non-mainstream” research and Biological Science faculty (although these are
not statistically significant increases.) Overall, however, most faculty at UW-Madison are
satisfied with their jobs and careers.
62
Table S1. Satisfaction with UW-Madison - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Satisfied
With
Career
Progression
Satisfied
With
Job
1223
86.8%
84.3%
Women
Men
394
827
85.5%
87.4%
79.9%
86.3%
Untenured
Tenured
312
911
88.1%
86.4%
84.6%
84.2%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
436
241
333
194
90.8%
86.7%
83.8%
83.4%
*
Science
Non-Science
652
551
89.1%
84.2%
*
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
115
1108
85.2%
87.0%
82.6%
84.5%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
131
1090
88.5%
86.6%
84.6%
84.3%
Gay/Lesbian
Bi/Heterosexual
25
1162
76.0%
87.4%
76.0%
84.8%
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
561
662
85.0%
88.4%
82.6%
85.8%
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
178
1045
88.2%
86.6%
87.6%
83.7%
Stay Home Partner
No Stay Home Partner
249
938
86.7%
86.7%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
56
1167
83.9%
87.0%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
465
733
Department Chair
Not Department Chair
87
1136
86.0%
84.6%
85.5%
78.4%
*
*
85.4%
83.1%
84.7%
84.1%
87.5%
84.1%
81.0%
90.3%
*
75.5%
89.7%
*
93.1%
86.4%
*
92.0%
83.7%
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at p<0.10;
darker grey indicates over-time change significant at p<0.05. Arrows indicate the
direction of change between 2003 and 2006.
63
S2. Factors Contributing Most to Satisfaction at UW-Madison (Full Codebook) - Wave 2 (2006)
University Factors
Factor
Collaboration opportunities/Interdisciplinarity
Quality of faculty/staff
Presitge/Reputation/Quality of University
Intellectual environment/Scholarly climate
Facilities/Resources/Library
Accommodations for families/mothers
Asthetics of city/campus
Madison
N
129
56
47
37
37
15
14
Department Factors
Factor
Colleagues
Department (general)
Research atmosphere/opportunities
Collegiality/Camaraderie/Respect
Support for research area/expertise
Graduate students/Graduate program
Teaching opportunities
Climate/Work environment
Chair/Department leadership
Mentors
Undergraduate programs
Reputation of the department
Lack of politics/competition/pretension
Support for/fairness of tenure process
N
122
103
90
57
54
52
45
29
16
14
6
4
3
3
Factor
Place to raise a family
Community/Quality of life
Cultural richness
Schools
N
125
42
17
3
Nature of Job
Factor
Quality of/relationship with mentoring
N
332
Academic freedom/Flexibility to pursue own interests
215
Research funding
Balance of research and teaching
Clinical work/Patient interaction
4
2
2
Other/Miscellaneous
Factor
Other/Miscellaneous
Nothing/none
N
39
14
Geographic Location
Factor
Madison
Location (general)
Wisconsin
Midwest
Close to family
N
173
63
29
18
3
64
S3. Factors Detracting Most from Satisfaction at UW-Madison (Full Codebook) - Wave 2 (2006)
Financial and Resource Issues
Factor
Low salary
Insufficient resources/support
Budget issues
Facilities/Equipment
Lack of graduate student support
Lack of support personnel
Low raises
Pressure to generate revenue
No travel funding
Hiring freezes/no votes for hires
Start-up package
Aspects of UW-Madison
Factor
Administration
Bureaucracy
Benefits
Poor merit raise system
Faculty governance
Parking
Top-down mandatory initiatives
Need an outside offer to get a raise
Lack of domestic partner benefits
Uncertain future of University
Lack of prestige/quality
Increasing regulations/rules
Rigidity
Overhead
Size of University
Libraries
Political Factors
Factor
Lack of support from state/legislature
Negative public opinion of University
Too politically correct
Negative press
Response to negative press
Diversity Issues
Factor
Climate for women
Lack of diversity/Diversity issues
Climate for people of color
Geography
Factor
Location (general)
Far from family and friends
Other/Miscelaneous
Factor
Other/Miscelaneous
None or N/A
Unclear
Weather
Filling out surveys
N
180
174
62
59
59
47
29
21
9
7
2
N
66
55
12
12
12
11
10
8
8
7
7
7
4
3
3
3
N
89
6
4
3
2
N
24
23
12
N
7
3
N
53
18
14
9
2
Department Factors
Factor
N
Colleagues
Political climate
Climate
Unfair distribution of money/responsibilities
Too few faculty (understaffed)
Poor department leadership
Lack of emphasis on teaching/students
Resistance to change/Inertia/Rigidity
Quality of students
Poor faculty retention and recruiting
Persistance of "old boys" networks
Problems recruiting and retaining graduate stud
Department (general)
Low morale
Lack of respect for clinical work
"Lame duck" senior faculty
Mission/direction
Low standards
Heigherarchy
Lack of/poor mentors
Faculty misconduct
Support for career development
Lack of seminars
55
29
29
24
23
22
22
15
15
13
12
11
10
9
8
8
7
6
5
3
3
2
2
Job-related Issues
Factor
High demands/work load
Lack of job satisfaction/Feel unappreciated
Administrative work (too much of)
Tenure and promotion
Service load
Teaching load
Difficulty getting grants
Emphasis on research output
Joint/split appointment
Job not a good fit
Difficulty with IRB
Too many meetings
Emphasis on competitiveness
68
62
35
31
27
21
10
6
5
3
3
2
2
Interactions
Factor
Isolation
Lack of collegiality
Not part of informal network
Egotism/Elitism
Fragmentation/Cliques
Communication
Competition for resources
Personal/Family Issues
Factor
Work-life balance
Opportunities for spouse/partner
Family (general)
Stress/Burnout
N
N
48
41
19
11
8
2
2
N
8
7
3
3
65
Table S4. Considered Leaving UW-Madison in Past 3 Years - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Considered
Leaving in
Past 3 Years
Seriously
Considered
Leaving
1199
58.6%
47.1%
Women
Men
390
815
64.0%
56.0%
Untenured
Tenured
306
893
55.9%
59.6%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
431
234
326
190
56.1%
51.3%
63.2%
64.7%
Science
Non-Science
641
540
54.3%
63.5%
*
43.0%
51.3%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
102
1097
69.6%
57.6%
*
53.5%
46.3%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
126
1071
59.5%
58.5%
51.9%
46.5%
Gay/Lesbian
Bi/Heterosexual
24
1140
66.7%
58.1%
23.5%
47.1%
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
551
648
63.2%
54.8%
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
174
1025
63.2%
57.9%
45.0%
47.4%
Stay Home Partner
No Stay Home Partner
245
918
60.8%
58.1%
46.7%
47.4%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
54
1145
63.0%
58.4%
55.6%
46.6%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
453
721
65.3%
54.1%
Department Chair
Not Department Chair
85
1114
58.8%
58.6%
*
46.6%
47.5%
49.7%
46.2%
*
*
*
*
45.4%
38.2%
52.4%
50.4%
*
*
*
47.6%
46.6%
50.1%
44.5%
40.8%
47.5%
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
Longitudinal tests: not available for these items.
66
S5. Factors Contributing to Consideration to Leave UW-Madison (Full Codebook) - Wave 2 (2006)
Financial and Resource Issues
Factor
Low salary
Insufficient resources/support
Facilities/Equipment
Buget issues
Low raises
Lack of support personnel
Lack of graduate student support
Start-up package
Pressure to generate revenue
Aspects of UW-Madison
Factor
Administration
Uncertain future of University
Lack of emphasis on teaching/students
Lack of prestige/quality
Benefits
Top-down mandatory initiatives
Bureacracy
Lack of domestic partner benefits
N
237
82
26
25
18
17
16
4
2
N
32
7
6
6
5
4
4
3
Political Factors
Factor
Lack of support from state/legislature
Negative press
Exogenous/Market Factors
Factor
Offered position elsewhere
Wanted a change/new opportunities
Desire to leave academia
Retirement
N
33
4
N
59
45
5
5
Diversity Issues
Factor
Lack of diversity/Diversity issues
Climate for women
Climate for people of color
N
14
7
5
Geography
Factor
Location (general)
Far from family and friends
In Madison
Not 'home'
N
26
16
8
3
Other/Miscelaneous
Factor
Other/Miscelaneous
Weather
Unclear
None or N/A
N
22
11
4
4
Department Factors
Factor
Climate
Colleagues
Leadership of department/division
Unfair distribution of money/responsibilities
Quality of department
No/wrong mission/direction
Support for career development
Lack of prestige
Quality of students
Not enough leave support
Too few faculty (understaffed)
Lab/department discontinued
Political climate
Lack of/poor mentors
Department (general)
Lack of parental leave
Lack of graduate program
Faculty misconduct
Job-related Issues
Factor
Tenure and promotion
High demands/workload
Research opportunities/ability to do own research
Teaching load/assignments
Service load
Difficulty getting grants
Adjustment in job
Job not a good fit
Joint/split appointment
Difficulty with IRB
Interactions
Factor
Lack of job satisfaction/Feel unappreciated
Isolation
Not part of informal network
Personal/Family Issues
Factor
Opportunities for spouse/partner
Health
Family (general)
Personal (general)
Spouse/partner dissatisfied
Spouse/partner lives elsewhere
Work-life balance
Burnout
Age
N
60
46
23
14
9
9
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
N
54
45
21
13
10
6
4
3
2
2
N
66
23
13
N
32
11
9
7
5
4
4
3
3
67
S6. Factors Contributing to Consideration to Stay at UW-Madison (Full Codebook) - Wave 2 (2006)
Financial and Resource Issues
Factor
Facilities/Equipment/Resources/Support
Satisfactory counter-offer/retention package
Salary increase
Benefits
Financial reasons (general)
Exogenous/Market Factors
Factor
No attractive outside offer
Not marketable
Real estate
N
26
18
12
11
2
N
56
7
5
University Factors
Factor
Quality of university
College/university leadership
Prestige
Centers/programs on campus
Faculty governance
N
30
10
5
2
2
Job-related issues
Factor
Good research program/opportunities
Enjoy job
Investment in research program
Teaching opportunities
Autonomy
Promotion
Intellectual goals/purpose
Working towards tenure
Service opportunities
N
51
27
21
15
14
8
5
3
3
Madison/Location
Factor
City of Madison/State of Wisconsin
Quality of life
"Roots" in area
Location
Community
Public schools
N
52
51
25
17
13
3
Personal/Family Issues
Department Factors
Factor
Colleagues/Collaborators
Students
Research environment/intellectual climate
Department (general)
Quality of department
Faculty/staff
Department chair
Mentoring
N
128
52
35
29
14
12
9
3
Interactions
Factor
Cameraderie/Collegiality
Happy here
Familiarity
Feel appreciated
Encoragement from colleagues to stay
N
32
14
8
6
4
Factor
Family (general)
Spouse's/partner's job
Friends
Kids in school
Age
Personal (general)
Exhaustion
N
152
39
21
16
16
13
2
Other/Miscellaneous
Factor
Other
Inertia
Plans on/still considering leaving
Don’t want to move
Loyalty to department/UW-Madison
Hope for a better future
Paitence
Improvement of past problems
Wrong timing
N
34
21
21
19
15
12
5
4
3
68
Table S7. Would Accept Position Again - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Would
Accept
Current
Position Again
1214
86.7%
Women
Men
389
823
80.7%
89.4%
Untenured
Tenured
310
904
87.7%
86.3%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
430
238
333
193
86.7%
86.6%
87.4%
85.5%
Science
Non-Science
644
550
86.5%
86.9%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
102
1112
83.3%
87.0%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
131
1081
84.7%
86.9%
Gay/Lesbian
Bi/Heterosexual
25
1153
80.0%
86.8%
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
557
657
84.2%
88.7%
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
178
1036
86.0%
86.8%
Stay Home Partner
No Stay Home Partner
248
930
88.3%
86.8%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
56
1158
91.1%
86.4%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
457
732
79.2%
91.3%
*
Department Chair
Not Department Chair
86
1128
93.0%
86.2%
*
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
Longitudinal tests: not available for this item.
69
Table S8. Willingness to Recommend Department to Prospective TenureTrack Faculty - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Strongly
Recommend
Department**
Not
Recommend
Department***
1203
65.1%
3.9%
Women
Men
388
813
57.7%
68.6%
Untenured
Tenured
310
893
64.5%
65.3%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
428
237
327
192
61.7%
72.6%
66.7%
60.4%
Science
Non-Science
641
543
66.3%
63.5%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
104
1099
55.8%
66.0%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
130
1071
64.6%
65.3%
Gay/Lesbian
Bi/Heterosexual
25
1144
44.0%
66.0%
*
8.0%
3.8%
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
555
648
61.6%
68.1%
*
4.1%
3.7%
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
177
1026
58.8%
66.2%
2.3%
4.2%
Stay Home Partner
No Stay Home Partner
246
921
66.7%
64.9%
2.8%
4.0%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
56
1147
71.4%
64.8%
0.0%
4.1%
*
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
457
725
48.6%
75.6%
*
6.6%
2.2%
*
Department Chair
Not Department Chair
86
1117
77.9%
64.1%
*
1.2%
4.1%
*
*
5.9%
3.0%
*
3.2%
4.1%
*
3.5%
2.5%
3.4%
7.3%
*
3.4%
4.4%
*
2.9%
4.0%
3.8%
4.6%
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Versus recommend with reservations and not recommend.
*** Versus strongly recommend and recommend with reservations.
Longitudinal tests: not available for this item.
70
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
F. Institutional and Departmental
Climate Change
Faculty were asked to report whether and to what extent they or others had experied a change in
the atmosphere in their departments and on campus.
71
Institutional and Departmental Climate
Change Summary
Department Climate Change
In the 2006 survey, faculty were asked to evaluate whether and to what degree their departmental
climate had changed since January 2003. Most faculty reported no change in their own
experiences of department climate between 2003 and 2006. For those who did indicate a change,
faculty more often reported that their department’s climate had improved, rather than
deteriorated. This is true for faculty as a whole, but more marked for gay/lesbian faculty and
faculty who describe their research as non-mainstream. Overall, women faculty were slightly
more likely to report an improved department climate, while faculty of color were somewhat less
likely to report climate improvements as compared to their counterparts. Among female faculty
and faculty of color in the sciences, both are significantly (at p<0.01) more likely to report an
improvement in their department’s climate as compared to men and majority faculty.
WISELI may have played a role in climate improvements in some departments. Faculty in
departments that participated in WISELI workshops or events were more likely to report positive
changes in their departments’ climate between 2003 and 2006. This relationship was strongest
among participating science departments. Faculty or departments who chose to participate in
WISELI events were, however, more likely to report a positive department climate for women
and faculty of color in the 2003 survey, thus selection is playing a role in these positive results.
72
Table CC1. Department Climate Change - Wave 2 (2006)**
N
All Faculty
For Me
Personally
For Other
Faculty
For
Staff
980
24.5%
21.7%
22.6%
Women
Men
296
682
29.7% *
22.3%
21.1%
21.5%
21.8%
22.9%
Untenured
Tenured
153
827
29.4%
23.6%
13.8% *
22.6%
13.2% *
24.1%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
356
193
254
159
24.7%
31.1% *
21.3%
22.0%
19.5%
22.6%
23.6%
19.8%
21.8%
25.5%
23.5%
19.3%
Science
Non-Science
532
430
27.1% *
21.6%
19.8%
23.0%
22.5%
22.8%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
88
892
17.0%
25.2%
18.8%
21.6%
17.5%
23.0%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
80
898
27.5%
24.3%
20.9%
21.4%
26.2%
22.3%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
380
583
26.3%
23.5%
21.9%
21.4%
22.8%
22.3%
Dept. Chair
Not Chair
77
903
23.4%
24.6%
34.8% *
20.1%
40.6% *
20.9%
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Proportion of faculty reporting "significantly more positive" or "somewhat more
positive" climate versus "significantly more negative," "somewhat more negative,"
or "stayed the same." Excludes faculty who reported that they were first hired at
UW-Madison after January 2003.
Longitudinal tests: Not available for this item.
73
Table CC2. Institutional Climate Change - Wave 2 (2006)**
For Women***
N
All Faculty
For Me
Personally
977
18.9%
Women
Men
294
681
25.5%
16.2%
Untenured
Tenured
153
824
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
Faculty
Staff
35.4%
*
For Persons of Color***
Faculty
23.3%
*
12.8%
27.9%
20.9%
18.6%
20.7%
37.7%
*
354
192
254
159
18.1%
23.4%
16.1%
20.8%
37.8%
47.0%
27.7%
27.6%
Science
Non-Science
529
430
19.1%
19.1%
39.8%
29.4%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
86
891
19.2%
16.3%
26.3%
36.2%
17.0%
23.9%
14.5%
25.6%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
80
895
15.0%
19.3%
42.3%
34.7%
26.8%
22.9%
25.6%
24.0%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
379
581
22.4%
16.9%
Dept. Chair
Not Chair
78
899
19.2%
18.9%
*
*
*
*
Staff
24.2%
25.5%
40.7%
19.3%
18.1%
17.4%
26.9%
*
11.0%
22.0%
15.3%
24.5%
12.9%
25.9%
*
11.8%
20.3%
13.6%
18.9%
26.6%
28.2%
16.9%
17.8%
27.5%
27.4%
22.5%
14.0%
20.8%
27.1%
13.3%
14.1%
21.9%
20.6%
13.7%
12.8%
*
20.9%
14.5%
*
26.8%
18.1%
27.9%
40.1%
*
17.9%
26.6%
48.3%
34.1%
*
21.3%
23.5%
*
On
Campus
Overall
*
*
*
*
26.4%
20.7%
17.5%
28.2%
22.7%
24.4%
22.4%
14.2%
*
*
*
*
16.8%
18.7%
11.9%
20.1%
13.2%
18.6%
27.3%
18.4%
12.9%
18.5%
14.6%
21.8%
16.3%
19.1%
16.2%
19.5%
25.8%
17.4%
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Proportion of faculty reporting "significantly more positive" or "somewhat more positive" climate versus "significantly more
negative," "somewhat more negative," or "stayed the same." Excludes faculty who reported that they were first hired at UW-Madison
after January 2003.
*** Many faculty answered "don't know" for these items; affirmative answers only reported here. The number of respondents reflected
here is smaller than for other items presented in this table
Longitudinal tests: Not available for this item.
74
CC3. Attribution of Climate Change
Administration-Positive
Factor
Positive efforts/attidudes from admin/deans
General-Positive
N
23
Change of administrator(s)
4
School/college initiatives
Admin oversight of efforts to improve climate
2
3
Administration-Negative
Factor
Scandals/public realtions problems with
administration
Dean of the Medical School
Problems with administration
(general/unspecified/misc)
N
2
Recognition/awareness/talk about/acceptance
of climate/diversity/gender equity
Demographic changes within the field
Efforts to improve climate or equity
Increased openness towards differences &
different contributions
31
3
11
2
General-Negative
N
7
Factor
2
Low salaries/benefits
17
Insufficient/infrequent raises
12
19
Bureaucratic nature of administration
2
Lack of female/minority leaders in admin
4
Lack of leadership/accountability in admin
5
Disconnect between admin & fac/depts
5
Not enough/too slow/superficial efforts to
recognize and/or address climate & diversity
issues
7
Department-Positive
Factor
Policies of department or chair
Problematic faculty leave department
Critical mass of women faculty (and graduate
students)
Dept. chair's efforts to address
climate/diversity (general)
Department receives campus or nat'l
recognition
New dept. leader
Increasing communication
New faculty hire(s)
People in the department (general)
Attention to recruiting/hiring/retaining
female/minority faculty
Junior colleagues treated better
Reduced power of senior fac/recognition by
senior fac of climate problems
Chair or department values climate
Chair/department leader (general)
More diversity on fac
Change in dept. staff
"Generational shift" (older faculty are replaced
by younger)
Factor
Positive mentoring
N
4
3
N
Lack of funding/resources and/or budget cuts
109
Women/minority faculty leaving/not getting
tenure // too few tenured women/minority
faculty
Decline in/restrictions on research
"Old boys'" network privledges traditional
research & people // male leadership unwilling
to change
3
Insufficient effort/attention to diversity efforts
5
Resource allocation (general)
Resource constraints effecting ability to
"Backlash" against diversity efforts ("politicially
2
3
4
8
7
Programs-Positive
3
Factor
N
5
Women faculty mentoring program
3
3
Climate programs (unspecified)
7
Gender Pay Equity Study
Plan 2008
WISELI stimmulated openness/positive
WISELI activities and visibility
2
2
3
2
WISELI - general
9
24
2
6
3
7
2
2
3
6
4
8
13
Self-Positive
Factor
Own work leads to acceptance/recognition on
Received tenure/promotion
Moved into tenure-track position
Individual efforts to improve climate
N
13
6
2
5
75
General efforts at dept. level to improve
climate
6
Increased collaboration // more connections
w/ colleagues on campus
5
Department restructured/decision-making
processes changed//shift of department focus
8
Increasing senority on campus // more
experience
6
Reduced work burden
3
Positive developments with research
Received funding/grant money
Changed labs
2
4
2
Department-Negative
Factor
Traditional-minded/older faculty
Clerical/administrative/service burden on
faculty
Competitive pressures/stresses
Isolation/compartmentalization within/between
department(s)
Faculty understanffing/cutbacks
Workload burden/lack of job security for
faculty
Poor department climate/low morale
Department chair problematic/contributes to
negative climate
Climate and/or diversity agendas not
consistently carried out or enforced at the
department level
Resource allocation in department
Department staff people
overworked/underpaid/lack job security // too
few staff people
Interpersonal problems/bad acts by
individual(s)/specific negative event in
department
Self-serving/individualistic attitudes in
department
Problems with new hires or hiring decisions in
department
Department staff turn-over // poor work
performance by department staff
Faculty leave/retire // lose senior faculty
Change in the direction/reorganization of the
department
Service/teaching not recognized // focus of
faculty job shifts away from teaching/research
towards clinical/grant writing
N
2
6
10
Self-Negative
Factor
N
Denied tenure
2
3
University-Positive
8
9
Factor
N
2
Critical mass of women on campus
5
11
University-Negative
2
2
Factor
N
18
Climate on campus decreasing (unsepecified)
4
11
University recieves poor publicity/negative
media attention
11
4
Liberalism/political correctness/intollerance of
conservatism on campus
3
8
Increasing bureacratization/regulation
5
5
Too little diversity on campus (too few
women/minorities)
2
5
University-Neutral
2
6
Factor
N
Stasis in university climate
10
Politics (State/National)-Negative
Factor
Political problems with state/legislature -attacks on/budget cuts for UW-Madison
Lack of support for GLBT/no domestic partner
Right-wing/conservative politics
Lack of acceptance of diversity in wider
Other
N
31
3
4
2
Factor
Uninterpretable
Not otherwise coded
DNK
N
17
32
6
Highlighted items are top 3 responses.
76
Table CC4. Improvement in Department Climate Skills - Wave 2 (2006)**
N
All Faculty
Creating a
Welcoming
Environment
Treating
Others
Collegially
Recognizing
How Actions
Affect Others
892
8.2%
5.6%
Women
Men
264
627
12.5%
6.4%
*
8.3%
4.5%
Untenured
Tenured
137
755
14.6%
7.0%
*
7.2%
5.3%
18.8%
12.7%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
329
184
229
138
8.5%
11.4%
6.6%
6.5%
6.3%
6.0%
5.7%
3.6%
15.7%
13.1%
10.5%
15.4%
Science
Non-Science
497
383
9.9%
6.3%
6.4%
4.7%
14.8%
12.4%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
79
813
6.3%
8.4%
6.3%
5.5%
17.5%
13.3%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
74
816
12.2%
7.8%
6.6%
5.5%
17.3%
13.4%
Dept. Chair
Not Chair
75
817
13.3%
7.7%
6.8%
5.5%
23.0%
12.9%
*
13.7%
*
18.6%
11.6%
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Proportion of faculty reporting a higher level of skill in Spring 2006 than Spring 2003 as
compared to those reporting the same or lower skill level. Excludes faculty who reported
that they were first hired at UW-Madison after January 2003.
Longitudinal tests: Not available for this item.
77
Table CC5. Improvement in Hiring Process Climate Skills** - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Establishing
Procedures
for Equitable
Review
Establishing
Procedures
for Equitable
Hiring
Creating
Welcoming
Climate for
New Hires
849
20.7%
19.4%
13.2%
Women
Men
248
600
24.6%
19.2%
21.5%
18.5%
16.2%
12.0%
Untenured
Tenured
124
725
29.0%
19.3%
22.8%
18.8%
16.0%
12.8%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
314
176
221
127
20.7%
20.5%
23.1%
18.1%
17.2%
23.2%
20.7%
18.1%
11.2%
15.9%
15.5%
10.4%
Science
Non-Science
475
363
19.4%
22.9%
18.9%
20.3%
12.9%
13.5%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
78
771
19.2%
20.9%
20.5%
19.3%
19.5%
12.6%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
69
778
31.9%
19.8%
28.2%
18.6%
16.4%
13.0%
Dept. Chair
Not Chair
72
777
26.4%
20.2%
26.4%
18.7%
21.6%
12.5%
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Proportion of faculty reporting a higher level of skill in Spring 2006 than Spring 2003 as
compared to those reporting the same or lower skill level. Excludes faculty who reported
that they were first hired at UW-Madison after January 2003.
Longitudinal tests: Not available for this item.
78
Table CC6. Improvement in General Climate Skills - Wave 2 (2006)**
N
All Faculty
Mentoring
Junior
Faculty
Increasing
Visibility of
Women
Evaluating
Tenure
Equitably
875
22.7%
11.5%
13.8%
Women
Men
259
615
25.5%
21.6%
13.5%
10.6%
16.9%
12.6%
Untenured
Tenured
125
750
36.0%
20.5%
9.7%
11.8%
13.3%
13.9%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
327
185
221
131
26.0%
28.1%
18.1%
15.3%
14.1%
12.5%
8.7%
8.7%
15.6%
15.2%
14.2%
7.9%
Science
Non-Science
496
368
26.2%
18.2%
13.1%
9.4%
15.3%
12.2%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
77
798
27.3%
22.3%
15.4%
11.1%
21.3%
13.1%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
73
800
35.6%
21.6%
14.7%
11.2%
24.3%
12.9%
Dept. Chair
Not Chair
76
799
22.4%
22.8%
*
*
*
*
*
23.3%
10.4%
*
*
*
10.8%
14.1%
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Proportion of faculty reporting a higher level of skill in Spring 2006 than Spring 2003
as compared to those reporting the same or lower skill level. Excludes faculty who
reported that they were first hired at UW-Madison after January 2003.
Longitudinal tests: Not available for this item.
79
Table CC7. Improvement in Identifying and Addressing Climate Issues - Wave 2
(2006)**
N
All Faculty
Identifying
Issues in
Department
Addressing
Issues in
Department
869
18.3%
14.2%
Women
Men
256
612
21.9%
16.8%
18.3%
12.5%
Untenured
Tenured
128
741
26.6%
16.9%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
325
178
224
129
20.6%
22.5%
13.4%
14.7%
Science
Non-Science
488
368
20.7%
14.9%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
78
791
Non-Citizen
Citizen
Dept. Chair
Not Chair
*
Addressing
Issues at
UW-Madison
9.4%
*
14.1%
7.5%
14.0%
14.2%
9.7%
9.4%
13.6%
18.6%
12.6%
13.0%
9.9%
15.9%
6.0%
6.5%
14.6%
13.9%
11.5%
7.0%
24.4%
17.7%
19.2%
13.7%
13.2%
9.0%
72
795
16.7%
18.5%
17.8%
13.9%
14.5%
9.0%
76
793
31.6%
17.0%
*
*
*
24.3%
13.3%
*
*
*
*
*
10.3%
9.3%
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Proportion of faculty reporting a higher level of skill in Spring 2006 than Spring 2003 as
compared to those reporting the same or lower skill level. Excludes faculty who reported
that they were first hired at UW-Madison after January 2003.
Longitudinal tests: Not available for this item.
80
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
G. UW-Madison Programs and
Resources
UW-Madison has implemented a number of programs designed to improve the working
environments of faculty on the UW-Madison campus. The questions in this section evaluated
some of these campus-wide initiatives.
81
Table UWP1. Value and Use of Tenure Clock Extension Program
N
All Faculty
Program is
Very, Quite,
or Somewhat
Valuable**
Never
Heard of
Program
Ever
Used
Program
1163
3.8%
93.9%
Women
Men
379
783
1.3%
4.2%
96.3%
92.7%
*
31.5%
15.6%
*
Untenured
Tenured
294
869
6.8%
2.8%
*
90.5%
95.1%
*
32.2%
16.9%
*
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
419
223
317
186
6.4%
2.7%
1.6%
3.2%
*
91.7%
91.9%
96.9%
96.2%
*
26.3%
11.7%
22.6%
18.4%
*
*
Science
Non-Science
619
526
5.3%
2.1%
*
91.6%
96.6%
*
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
100
1063
3.0%
3.9%
94.0%
93.9%
19.2%
21.1%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
122
1039
6.6%
3.5%
89.3%
94.4%
18.8%
21.2%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
52
1111
1.9%
3.9%
96.2%
93.8%
18.4%
21.0%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
212
926
3.3%
4.0%
94.8%
93.6%
20.7%
21.2%
Parent
Non-Parent
897
258
3.1%
6.2%
94.7%
91.1%
23.4%
12.2%
*
Child Under 18
No Child Under 18
544
619
3.3%
4.2%
94.1%
93.7%
28.1%
14.5%
*
Child Under 6
No Child Under 6
171
992
3.5%
3.8%
93.6%
94.0%
42.9%
17.0%
*
Stay Home Spouse
Working/No Spouse
245
885
3.7%
4.0%
92.2%
94.1%
19.7%
20.5%
Used Program
Never Used Program
226
820
---
98.7%
93.7%
*
20.9%
*
*
20.2%
22.0%
---
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Compared to Not at all Valuable or Never Heard of Program.
82
Table UWP2. Value and Use of Dual Career Hiring Program
N
All Faculty
Program is
Very, Quite,
or Somewhat
Valuable**
Never
Heard of
Program
73.8%
Ever
Used
Program
1145
22.1%
Women
Men
375
768
17.9%
24.1%
*
79.5%
71.1%
*
25.3%
18.4%
*
Untenured
Tenured
290
855
37.2%
17.0%
*
60.0%
78.5%
*
15.7%
22.4%
*
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
411
223
315
178
24.3%
18.4%
20.6%
24.2%
72.3%
78.0%
75.6%
70.2%
18.6%
19.1%
21.0%
26.4%
Science
Non-Science
612
515
22.6%
21.6%
73.9%
74.2%
19.0%
22.5%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
100
1045
17.0%
22.6%
79.0%
73.3%
20.7%
20.7%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
121
1022
42.2%
19.7%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
52
1093
21.2%
22.1%
76.9%
73.7%
26.7%
20.4%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
211
909
19.0%
22.8%
76.8%
73.4%
28.9%
18.8%
*
Parent
Non-Parent
881
257
20.7%
27.6%
22.9%
13.8%
*
Child Under 18
No Child Under 18
533
612
23.8%
20.6%
Child Under 6
No Child Under 6
167
978
30.5%
20.7%
*
65.9%
75.2%
*
25.0%
20.0%
Stay Home Spouse
Working/No Spouse
239
873
28.5%
20.5%
*
66.1%
75.6%
*
12.6%
22.7%
Used Program
Never Used Program
211
772
---
96.2%
72.5%
*
---
*
*
54.6%
76.1%
75.4%
68.5%
20.7%
*
*
73.2%
74.4%
21.4%
20.7%
23.0%
18.7%
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Compared to Not at all Valuable or Never Heard of Program.
83
Table UWP3. Value and Use of Provost's Strategic Hiring Initiative
N
All Faculty
Program is
Very, Quite,
or Somewhat
Valuable**
Never
Heard of
Program
55.4%
Ever
Used
Program
1139
37.9%
Women
Men
369
768
47.2%
33.3%
*
50.1%
58.1%
*
15.5%
15.9%
Untenured
Tenured
290
849
68.3%
27.6%
*
29.7%
64.2%
*
4.4%
19.3%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
410
222
312
177
40.7%
32.9%
41.0%
32.8%
51.5%
56.3%
54.8%
64.4%
*
14.2%
21.9%
12.5%
15.8%
Science
Non-Science
610
511
37.7%
38.4%
53.0%
58.3%
17.5%
13.3%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
99
1040
32.3%
38.5%
58.6%
55.1%
12.4%
16.1%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
123
1014
49.6%
36.5%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
49
1090
44.9%
37.6%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
213
901
29.6%
40.0%
*
66.2%
52.9%
*
23.6%
13.8%
*
Parent
Non-Parent
876
256
34.0%
51.6%
*
58.0%
46.1%
*
17.8%
9.2%
*
Child Under 18
No Child Under 18
531
608
40.7%
35.5%
Child Under 6
No Child Under 6
165
974
49.7%
35.9%
*
43.6%
57.4%
*
13.9%
16.1%
Stay Home Spouse
Working/No Spouse
242
866
44.2%
35.8%
*
47.1%
58.1%
*
12.1%
16.3%
Used Program
Never Used Program
151
770
---
91.4%
54.9%
*
---
*
45.5%
56.6%
15.8%
*
*
51.0%
55.6%
*
*
10.1%
16.3%
19.1%
15.6%
52.4%
58.1%
14.7%
16.7%
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Compared to Not at all Valuable or Never Heard of Program.
84
Table UWP4. Value and Use of Anna Julia Cooper Fellowships
N
All Faculty
Program is
Very, Quite,
or Somewhat
Valuable**
Never
Heard of
Program
17.1%
Ever
Used
Program
1155
81.5%
5.8%
Women
Men
376
777
76.6%
83.8%
*
22.3%
14.7%
*
8.2%
4.6%
Untenured
Tenured
293
862
91.1%
78.2%
*
8.5%
20.1%
*
4.2%
6.3%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
413
227
317
179
91.3%
86.8%
69.4%
73.7%
*
*
*
*
6.8%
11.9%
29.7%
25.7%
*
*
*
*
1.6%
5.3%
10.4%
8.2%
*
Science
Non-Science
618
518
89.3%
72.2%
*
8.7%
27.2%
*
3.1%
9.1%
*
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
97
1058
62.9%
83.2%
*
35.1%
15.5%
*
17.7%
4.6%
*
Non-Citizen
Citizen
124
1029
91.1%
80.3%
*
8.9%
18.2%
*
2.5%
6.1%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
53
1102
84.9%
81.3%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
215
914
71.2%
83.9%
*
27.4%
14.9%
*
10.3%
4.9%
Parent
Non-Parent
886
261
79.6%
87.4%
*
18.9%
11.9%
*
6.4%
3.9%
Child Under 18
No Child Under 18
537
618
81.9%
81.1%
16.8%
17.5%
Child Under 6
No Child Under 6
168
987
86.3%
80.7%
11.3%
18.1%
*
3.5%
6.1%
Stay Home Spouse
Working/No Spouse
240
881
87.9%
79.8%
10.8%
18.7%
*
3.2%
6.2%
Used Program
Never Used Program
49
778
---
95.9%
17.0%
*
---
11.3%
17.4%
*
*
0.0%
6.0%
*
5.1%
6.3%
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Compared to Not at all Valuable or Never Heard of Program.
85
Table UWP5. Value and Use of Workshops for Search Committees
N
All Faculty
Program is
Very, Quite,
or Somewhat
Valuable**
Never
Heard of
Program
Ever
Used
Program
1149
53.9%
39.9%
18.7%
Women
Men
375
772
56.3%
52.6%
39.7%
40.2%
17.2%
19.5%
Untenured
Tenured
294
855
73.1%
47.3%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
410
226
313
182
50.5%
52.2%
60.4%
52.2%
Science
Non-Science
614
517
51.0%
57.3%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
97
1052
52.6%
54.0%
44.3%
39.5%
26.0%
18.1%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
124
1023
59.7%
53.1%
33.9%
40.8%
12.4%
19.5%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
53
1096
73.6%
52.9%
*
20.8%
40.9%
*
7.1%
19.2%
*
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
208
916
47.1%
55.4%
*
47.1%
38.5%
*
25.1%
17.6%
*
Parent
Non-Parent
879
262
51.9%
60.3%
*
41.5%
35.1%
22.8%
14.2%
*
Child Under 18
No Child Under 18
533
616
56.3%
51.8%
38.8%
40.9%
17.8%
19.5%
Child Under 6
No Child Under 6
167
982
61.1%
52.7%
*
33.5%
41.0%
10.0%
20.1%
Stay Home Spouse
Working/No Spouse
239
877
61.1%
51.2%
*
35.6%
41.9%
17.0%
19.2%
Used Program
Never Used Program
176
729
---
*
*
*
23.8%
45.5%
*
4.4%
23.3%
44.6%
42.5%
32.0%
40.7%
*
16.5%
20.5%
19.8%
21.0%
43.7%
35.8%
*
86.4%
35.3%
*
*
*
18.3%
19.6%
*
---
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Compared to Not at all Valuable or Never Heard of Program.
86
Table UWP6. Value and Use of Family Leave
N
All Faculty
Program is
Very, Quite,
or Somewhat
Valuable**
Never
Heard of
Program
85.1%
Ever
Used
Program
1144
13.4%
Women
Men
370
772
10.3%
14.9%
*
88.4%
83.6%
*
13.3%
7.5%
Untenured
Tenured
285
859
22.8%
10.2%
*
75.4%
88.4%
*
8.1%
9.8%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
411
222
310
182
13.6%
14.9%
13.2%
11.5%
84.2%
82.9%
85.8%
88.5%
9.9%
4.4%
9.3%
15.1%
Science
Non-Science
610
515
14.4%
12.2%
83.3%
87.2%
7.7%
11.5%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
97
1047
15.5%
13.2%
82.5%
85.4%
7.5%
9.5%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
122
1020
27.1%
11.8%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
50
1094
12.0%
13.4%
84.0%
85.2%
2.3%
9.7%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
212
906
11.8%
13.6%
85.9%
85.1%
9.8%
9.4%
Parent
Non-Parent
878
258
11.5%
19.4%
Child Under 18
No Child Under 18
528
616
13.5%
13.3%
Child Under 6
No Child Under 6
163
981
Stay Home Spouse
Working/No Spouse
Used Program
Never Used Program
*
*
72.1%
86.7%
86.9%
79.5%
9.4%
*
*
*
*
*
*
7.9%
9.5%
11.6%
2.1%
*
85.0%
85.2%
13.4%
6.0%
*
15.3%
13.1%
81.6%
85.7%
18.8%
7.8%
*
238
874
14.7%
13.2%
82.4%
85.7%
6.0%
10.4%
*
94
881
---
97.9%
87.7%
*
---
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Compared to Not at all Valuable or Never Heard of Program.
87
Table UWP7. Value and Use of Ombuds for Faculty
N
All Faculty
Program is
Very, Quite,
or Somewhat
Valuable**
Never
Heard of
Program
50.4%
Ever
Used
Program
1132
45.6%
12.1%
Women
Men
366
765
40.7%
47.8%
*
56.6%
47.6%
*
15.5%
10.4%
Untenured
Tenured
289
843
56.8%
41.8%
*
41.9%
53.4%
*
10.4%
12.6%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
413
224
304
173
37.3%
50.9%
49.7%
49.1%
*
58.6%
45.1%
45.1%
49.1%
*
18.5%
5.8%
8.8%
11.0%
*
*
Science
Non-Science
614
500
42.4%
48.8%
*
53.4%
47.4%
*
14.4%
9.4%
*
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
98
1034
36.7%
46.4%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
121
1009
57.9%
44.1%
*
41.3%
51.5%
*
14.6%
11.8%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
52
1080
65.4%
44.6%
*
32.7%
51.3%
*
2.4%
12.5%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
212
895
36.8%
47.3%
*
58.0%
49.2%
*
13.4%
11.8%
Parent
Non-Parent
867
257
43.6%
51.4%
*
52.3%
45.1%
*
13.6%
7.3%
Child Under 18
No Child Under 18
522
610
49.6%
42.1%
*
48.7%
52.0%
10.7%
13.2%
Child Under 6
No Child Under 6
166
866
48.2%
45.1%
50.0%
50.5%
17.7%
11.2%
Stay Home Spouse
Working/No Spouse
236
868
57.6%
42.1%
Used Program
Never Used Program
114
779
---
57.1%
49.8%
*
*
7.8%
12.4%
40.7%
53.3%
*
7.8%
13.3%
85.1%
51.7%
*
---
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Compared to Not at all Valuable or Never Heard of Program.
88
Table UWP8. Value and Use of New Faculty Workshops
N
All Faculty
Program is
Very, Quite,
or Somewhat
Valuable**
Never
Heard of
Program
Ever
Used
Program
1136
16.6%
80.9%
Women
Men
369
766
14.9%
17.5%
84.3%
79.2%
*
53.9%
36.1%
*
Untenured
Tenured
299
837
9.4%
19.2%
*
89.0%
78.0%
*
70.0%
31.8%
*
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
412
226
305
176
20.9%
15.0%
12.1%
15.9%
*
76.7%
81.9%
84.6%
83.5%
*
38.2%
39.5%
47.0%
46.5%
Science
Non-Science
615
504
19.4%
13.1%
*
77.8%
84.7%
*
38.3%
46.8%
*
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
98
1038
12.2%
17.1%
82.7%
80.7%
53.1%
40.9%
*
Non-Citizen
Citizen
126
1008
12.7%
17.2%
84.9%
80.4%
59.6%
39.9%
*
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
52
1084
5.8%
17.2%
88.5%
80.5%
62.2%
40.9%
*
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
211
901
16.1%
16.4%
82.0%
80.9%
46.0%
41.5%
Parent
Non-Parent
870
258
16.7%
15.9%
81.0%
81.0%
39.4%
51.3%
*
Child Under 18
No Child Under 18
532
604
15.4%
17.7%
82.1%
79.8%
47.8%
36.7%
*
Child Under 6
No Child Under 6
172
964
9.9%
17.8%
64.7%
37.9%
*
Stay Home Spouse
Working/No Spouse
241
865
16.6%
16.5%
80.9%
80.9%
Used Program
Never Used Program
421
540
---
98.6%
73.3%
*
*
*
87.2%
79.8%
41.9%
*
44.3%
41.2%
*
---
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Compared to Not at all Valuable or Never Heard of Program.
89
Table UWP9. Value and Use of Equity in Faculty Salaries Policy
N
All Faculty
Program is
Very, Quite,
or Somewhat
Valuable**
Never
Heard of
Program
65.1%
Ever
Used
Program
1146
27.8%
24.9%
Women
Men
377
768
23.6%
29.8%
*
71.9%
61.9%
*
39.1%
18.3%
*
Untenured
Tenured
292
854
52.7%
19.3%
*
45.2%
71.9%
*
10.4%
29.3%
*
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
414
222
311
182
32.4%
34.7%
22.5%
18.7%
*
*
*
*
61.1%
58.1%
68.5%
76.9%
*
*
23.3%
15.7%
28.6%
34.2%
Science
Non-Science
613
516
33.6%
21.1%
*
59.4%
71.9%
*
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
100
1046
25.0%
28.1%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
122
1022
41.8%
26.1%
*
54.1%
66.4%
*
20.0%
25.5%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
52
1094
42.3%
27.2%
*
51.9%
65.7%
*
13.2%
25.4%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
217
905
22.1%
29.1%
*
70.1%
64.2%
Parent
Non-Parent
878
259
25.7%
35.1%
*
67.1%
58.3%
Child Under 18
No Child Under 18
531
615
30.3%
25.7%
Child Under 6
No Child Under 6
168
978
40.5%
25.7%
*
56.0%
66.7%
*
20.2%
25.7%
Stay Home Spouse
Working/No Spouse
240
874
39.6%
24.7%
*
55.8%
67.5%
*
14.1%
27.2%
Used Program
Never Used Program
235
691
---
92.3%
61.1%
*
---
*
67.0%
64.9%
20.1%
30.8%
*
*
*
21.1%
25.3%
31.4%
23.5%
*
63.5%
66.5%
*
25.2%
23.9%
23.0%
26.6%
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Compared to Not at all Valuable or Never Heard of Program.
90
Table UWP10. Value and Use of Women Faculty Mentoring Program
N
All Faculty
Program is
Very, Quite,
or Somewhat
Valuable**
Never
Heard of
Program
70.8%
Ever
Used
Program
1126
25.6%
26.4%
Women
Men
373
752
4.3%
36.0%
*
90.4%
61.2%
*
67.0%
5.2%
Untenured
Tenured
286
840
33.9%
22.7%
*
62.6%
73.6%
*
30.8%
25.0%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
407
216
307
178
31.0%
33.3%
19.2%
14.6%
*
*
*
*
64.9%
63.9%
76.6%
82.6%
*
*
*
*
23.9%
14.7%
33.8%
35.3%
Science
Non-Science
601
507
32.3%
17.6%
*
63.7%
79.1%
*
20.1%
34.4%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
97
1029
20.6%
26.0%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
121
1003
36.4%
24.2%
*
59.5%
72.2%
*
27.3%
26.4%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
51
1075
41.2%
24.8%
*
52.9%
71.6%
*
26.8%
26.4%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
207
894
18.4%
27.2%
*
77.3%
69.4%
*
33.7%
25.3%
Parent
Non-Parent
865
253
26.2%
22.9%
Child Under 18
No Child Under 18
525
601
29.7%
22.0%
*
66.5%
74.5%
*
27.4%
25.6%
Child Under 6
No Child Under 6
168
958
33.9%
24.1%
*
60.1%
72.7%
*
30.5%
25.8%
Stay Home Spouse
Working/No Spouse
231
863
42.9%
21.3%
*
54.6%
74.6%
*
9.6%
29.9%
Used Program
Never Used Program
262
677
---
94.3%
67.4%
*
---
75.3%
70.4%
*
*
*
*
*
30.5%
26.1%
70.5%
71.9%
*
25.7%
29.4%
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Compared to Not at all Valuable or Never Heard of Program.
91
Table UWP11. Value and Use of Committee on Women
N
All Faculty
Program is
Very, Quite,
or Somewhat
Valuable**
Never
Heard of
Program
Ever
Used
Program
1110
57.5%
39.8%
4.9%
Women
Men
367
742
55.9%
58.2%
41.4%
39.1%
10.3%
2.4%
Untenured
Tenured
285
825
75.1%
51.4%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
402
217
302
173
57.5%
60.8%
56.3%
54.9%
39.8%
35.0%
40.7%
39.0%
4.6%
5.0%
3.6%
7.8%
Science
Non-Science
597
497
59.1%
55.3%
37.5%
42.7%
4.5%
5.3%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
95
1015
54.7%
57.7%
40.0%
39.8%
9.0%
4.5%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
123
985
62.6%
56.9%
34.2%
40.5%
6.7%
4.7%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
52
1058
75.0%
56.6%
*
19.2%
40.8%
*
0.0%
5.1%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
203
884
49.3%
59.2%
*
49.8%
37.8%
*
5.3%
4.8%
Parent
Non-Parent
849
254
55.0%
65.4%
*
42.4%
31.9%
*
4.2%
7.4%
Child Under 18
No Child Under 18
516
594
61.4%
54.0%
*
36.2%
42.9%
*
4.1%
5.6%
Child Under 6
No Child Under 6
162
948
67.9%
55.7%
*
30.9%
41.4%
*
3.3%
5.2%
Stay Home Spouse
Working/No Spouse
230
851
67.0%
54.8%
*
30.4%
42.4%
*
2.5%
5.5%
Used Program
Never Used Program
44
800
---
86.4%
42.5%
*
---
*
24.2%
45.2%
*
*
2.7%
5.6%
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Compared to Not at all Valuable or Never Heard of Program.
92
Table UWP12. Value and Use of Office of Campus Child Care
N
All Faculty
Program is
Very, Quite,
or Somewhat
Valuable**
Never
Heard of
Program
54.5%
Ever
Used
Program
1119
43.1%
Women
Men
369
748
34.7%
47.2%
*
62.1%
50.8%
*
14.9%
5.1%
*
Untenured
Tenured
291
828
50.5%
40.5%
*
48.5%
56.6%
*
15.6%
5.8%
*
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
401
221
303
176
43.6%
51.1%
39.9%
38.6%
Science
Non-Science
600
501
47.3%
38.5%
*
50.2%
59.5%
*
7.4%
9.5%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
97
1022
32.0%
44.1%
*
65.0%
53.5%
*
11.4%
8.1%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
122
995
50.0%
42.2%
48.4%
55.3%
8.5%
8.3%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
50
1069
50.0%
42.8%
46.0%
54.9%
8.1%
14.3%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
206
888
37.9%
44.7%
60.7%
52.9%
*
8.7%
8.2%
Parent
Non-Parent
859
252
39.6%
54.4%
*
57.7%
44.1%
*
10.3%
1.4%
*
Child Under 18
No Child Under 18
524
595
39.7%
46.1%
*
57.6%
51.8%
*
15.1%
2.4%
*
Child Under 6
No Child Under 6
169
950
35.5%
44.4%
*
61.5%
53.3%
*
28.4%
4.8%
*
Stay Home Spouse
Working/No Spouse
232
858
50.4%
41.5%
*
47.8%
55.8%
*
7.0%
8.0%
Used Program
Never Used Program
77
808
---
93.5%
57.8%
*
---
*
53.6%
46.6%
57.8%
60.2%
8.3%
*
7.7%
7.1%
8.7%
10.7%
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Compared to Not at all Valuable or Never Heard of Program.
93
Table UWP13. Value and Use of Cluster Hire Initiative
N
All Faculty
Program is
Very, Quite,
or Somewhat
Valuable**
Never
Heard of
Program
Ever
Used
Program
1164
6.4%
80.6%
39.7%
Women
Men
377
785
7.7%
5.9%
83.0%
79.5%
37.5%
40.8%
Untenured
Tenured
291
873
14.4%
3.8%
*
80.1%
80.8%
22.9%
45.4%
*
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
414
229
320
182
9.2%
3.5%
7.2%
3.3%
*
*
78.5%
83.0%
78.8%
86.3%
34.9%
43.7%
41.3%
41.1%
*
Science
Non-Science
620
525
7.3%
5.7%
79.8%
81.7%
38.8%
40.1%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
100
1064
4.0%
6.7%
85.0%
80.2%
35.6%
40.1%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
124
1038
12.9%
5.7%
*
77.4%
81.0%
35.2%
40.1%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
54
1110
0.0%
6.8%
*
98.2%
79.7%
*
91.7%
37.2%
*
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
216
922
2.3%
7.6%
*
87.0%
79.2%
*
51.6%
36.5%
*
Parent
Non-Parent
894
262
5.6%
9.5%
*
80.4%
80.5%
42.9%
28.6%
*
Child Under 18
No Child Under 18
537
627
6.0%
6.9%
80.1%
81.0%
43.0%
36.9%
*
Child Under 6
No Child Under 6
170
994
10.6%
5.7%
79.4%
80.8%
39.6%
39.7%
Stay Home Spouse
Working/No Spouse
239
892
8.8%
5.9%
78.2%
81.1%
36.2%
40.3%
Used Program
Never Used Program
407
601
---
88.2%
78.5%
*
*
---
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Compared to Not at all Valuable or Never Heard of Program.
94
Table UWP14. Value and Use of Sexual Harassment Information Sessions
N
All Faculty
Program is
Very, Quite,
or Somewhat
Valuable**
Never
Heard of
Program
1125
22.0%
Women
Men
367
757
25.9%
20.1%
Untenured
Tenured
288
837
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
Ever
Used
Program
70.0%
26.8%
*
68.1%
70.9%
24.5%
27.8%
38.9%
16.1%
*
57.6%
74.3%
*
14.1%
30.9%
*
404
222
308
174
13.1%
31.1%
29.2%
19.0%
*
*
*
75.7%
62.2%
64.6%
76.4%
*
*
*
*
35.6%
18.2%
24.3%
20.9%
*
*
Science
Non-Science
604
504
19.7%
25.0%
*
71.0%
68.9%
29.0%
23.9%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
99
1026
19.2%
22.2%
75.8%
69.5%
23.7%
27.0%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
124
999
33.9%
20.5%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
50
1075
32.0%
21.5%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
206
895
18.9%
22.7%
Parent
Non-Parent
861
256
19.3%
31.3%
Child Under 18
No Child Under 18
517
608
24.4%
19.9%
Child Under 6
No Child Under 6
163
962
31.3%
20.4%
*
63.2%
71.2%
*
19.7%
27.9%
*
Stay Home Spouse
Working/No Spouse
233
862
28.8%
19.8%
*
62.2%
72.2%
*
19.5%
28.8%
*
Used Program
Never Used Program
263
671
---
87.5%
68.7%
*
---
*
*
61.3%
71.1%
17.4%
27.8%
*
62.0%
70.4%
13.6%
27.4%
*
72.3%
69.8%
33.3%
25.2%
*
29.6%
18.0%
*
72.1%
62.9%
*
*
68.7%
71.2%
23.8%
29.3%
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Compared to Not at all Valuable or Never Heard of Program.
95
Table UWP15. Value and Use of Life Cycle Grant Program
N
All Faculty
Program is
Very, Quite,
or Somewhat
Valuable**
Never
Heard of
Program
Ever
Used
Program
1125
37.7%
60.2%
Women
Men
368
756
32.9%
40.0%
65.8%
57.5%
*
7.6%
3.6%
Untenured
Tenured
291
834
47.4%
34.3%
*
51.9%
63.1%
*
3.5%
5.4%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
407
219
307
177
44.5%
39.3%
28.7%
36.2%
*
52.3%
59.8%
69.4%
62.7%
*
4.2%
3.7%
7.4%
4.1%
Science
Non-Science
606
504
42.7%
31.8%
*
54.8%
66.7%
*
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
97
1028
33.0%
38.1%
65.0%
59.7%
7.7%
4.7%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
124
999
39.5%
37.4%
58.9%
60.4%
5.3%
4.9%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
52
1073
26.9%
38.2%
69.2%
59.7%
2.3%
5.0%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
211
892
33.7%
38.7%
66.4%
58.9%
Parent
Non-Parent
863
254
36.4%
42.1%
61.3%
56.7%
Child Under 18
No Child Under 18
525
600
34.7%
40.3%
63.8%
57.0%
Child Under 6
No Child Under 6
165
960
36.4%
37.9%
61.8%
59.9%
3.0%
5.2%
Stay Home Spouse
Working/No Spouse
233
861
40.8%
37.1%
56.7%
60.9%
4.4%
4.8%
Used Program
Never Used Program
46
847
---
97.8%
65.1%
*
4.9%
*
*
*
3.7%
6.4%
4.0%
5.3%
5.0%
4.6%
*
*
4.7%
5.1%
---
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Compared to Not at all Valuable or Never Heard of Program.
96
Table UWP17. Value and Use of Plan 2008 Diversity Initiative
N
All Faculty
Program is
Very, Quite,
or Somewhat
Valuable**
Never
Heard of
Program
Ever
Used
Program
1127
50.8%
43.0%
13.6%
Women
Men
367
759
49.3%
51.4%
45.5%
41.9%
18.2%
11.5%
*
Untenured
Tenured
292
835
72.3%
43.2%
*
25.7%
49.1%
*
7.9%
15.4%
*
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
412
219
307
172
60.9%
54.3%
42.4%
36.6%
*
34.7%
35.6%
50.2%
59.9%
*
*
*
*
9.0%
10.7%
20.0%
17.8%
*
Science
Non-Science
609
501
59.3%
40.3%
*
34.2%
53.9%
*
9.0%
19.4%
*
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
96
1031
34.4%
52.3%
*
56.3%
41.8%
*
22.4%
12.9%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
123
1002
71.5%
48.1%
*
26.0%
45.2%
*
10.1%
14.1%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
53
1074
64.2%
50.1%
*
28.3%
43.8%
*
5.1%
14.0%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
209
894
42.6%
52.6%
*
49.3%
41.7%
*
22.4%
11.8%
Parent
Non-Parent
862
257
49.2%
55.6%
Child Under 18
No Child Under 18
524
603
56.1%
46.1%
*
38.9%
46.6%
*
12.9%
14.3%
Child Under 6
No Child Under 6
164
963
67.7%
47.9%
*
27.4%
45.7%
*
8.3%
14.5%
Stay Home Spouse
Working/No Spouse
235
863
60.9%
48.1%
*
34.9%
45.1%
*
7.1%
15.3%
Used Program
Never Used Program
124
738
---
87.9%
43.1%
*
---
*
*
44.0%
40.5%
*
*
14.5%
11.2%
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Compared to Not at all Valuable or Never Heard of Program.
97
Table UWP17. Value and Use of WISELI
N
All Faculty
Program is
Very, Quite,
or Somewhat
Valuable**
Never
Heard of
Program
65.7%
Ever
Used
Program
1120
31.5%
20.9%
Women
Men
365
754
24.1%
35.0%
*
74.0%
61.8%
*
34.3%
14.2%
Untenured
Tenured
284
836
46.1%
26.6%
*
52.5%
70.2%
*
17.7%
21.9%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
407
220
308
169
28.0%
18.6%
38.6%
44.4%
*
*
*
*
68.6%
78.2%
58.1%
55.6%
Science
Non-Science
605
499
25.3%
39.3%
*
71.1%
58.9%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
98
1022
28.6%
31.8%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
122
996
41.8%
30.2%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
52
1068
28.9%
31.7%
65.4%
65.7%
15.9%
21.1%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
206
891
26.7%
32.6%
70.9%
64.7%
24.7%
20.2%
Parent
Non-Parent
859
253
29.3%
38.7%
Child Under 18
No Child Under 18
517
603
33.1%
30.2%
Child Under 6
No Child Under 6
163
957
39.9%
30.1%
*
57.7%
67.1%
Stay Home Spouse
Working/No Spouse
231
860
37.2%
29.8%
*
61.0%
67.2%
Used Program
Never Used Program
200
707
---
*
*
*
*
67.4%
65.6%
*
*
57.4%
66.8%
67.8%
58.9%
24.9%
29.7%
14.0%
11.6%
*
*
*
*
26.6%
13.7%
*
23.4%
20.7%
*
*
64.2%
67.0%
96.5%
65.4%
*
16.8%
21.4%
21.5%
19.3%
21.4%
20.4%
*
23.7%
20.4%
14.6%
22.5%
*
*
---
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Compared to Not at all Valuable or Never Heard of Program.
98
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
H. Sexual Harassment
Questions in this section used the UW-Madison definition of sexual harassment as including
unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and verbal or physical conduct of a
sexual nature when such conduct influences employment or academic decisions, interferes with
an employee's work, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work or learning
environment to assess and analyze the incidence of sexual harassment for faculty.
99
Table SH1. Experience of Sexual Harassment by Faculty Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Experience
Harassment
Past 3 Yrs
1177
5.6%
Women
Men
383
792
11.0%
3.0%
Untenured
Tenured
301
876
5.0%
7.3%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
423
232
320
185
6.6%
3.9%
5.6%
5.9%
Science
Non-Science
631
529
5.7%
5.7%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
111
1066
5.4%
5.7%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
130
1045
3.1%
5.9%
Gay/Lesbian
Bi/Heterosexual
21
1122
19.0%
5.3%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
444
710
8.3%
4.1%
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
Longitudinal tests: not available for this item.
100
Table SH2. UW-Madison's Response to Sexual Harassment - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Big
Problem
On Campus**
Taken
Seriously
On Campus
1074
93.1%
Women
Men
329
744
89.4%
94.8%
Untenured
Tenured
231
843
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
405
198
283
170
95.8%
92.4%
90.5%
91.2%
*
Science
Non-Science
582
474
94.7%
90.9%
*
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
98
976
85.7%
93.9%
*
Non-Citizen
Citizen
103
969
97.1%
92.7%
*
Gay/Lesbian
Bi/Heterosexual
18
1027
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
404
651
25.4%
*
93.1%
93.1%
32.2%
22.8%
*
17.8%
27.1%
*
21.6%
21.1%
28.3%
36.9%
*
21.5%
30.9%
*
41.0%
23.8%
*
81.6%
77.0%
83.8%
*
57.0%
79.1%
66.0%
86.4%
*
61.0%
74.1%
*
83.3%
73.6%
81.9%
85.5%
79.9%
83.4%
*
83.3%
81.5%
19.4%
26.0%
76.7%
82.1%
93.4%
24.6%
64.0%
82.0%
91.3%
94.2%
32.5%
21.7%
*
Effective
Process for
Resolving
Complaints**
Knows
Steps to
Take
77.7%
83.9%
72.6%
*
75.9%
71.2%
71.0%
69.1%
74.3%
70.8%
67.4%
73.1%
73.0%
72.5%
72.4%
66.5%
75.5%
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Many respondents answered "don't know" for these items; only affirmative responses are reported here.
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at p<0.10; darker grey indicates over-time
change significant at p<0.05. Arrows indicate the direction of change between 2003 and 2006.
101
Table SH3. Don't Know About Campus Sexual Harassment
Incidence/Processes** - Wave 2 (2006)
Don't Know if
Harassment is
A Big Problem
N
All Faculty
1207
32.2%
Women
Men
393
812
Untenured
Tenured
308
899
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
435
232
328
192
Science
Non-Science
643
544
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
116
1091
32.8%
32.1%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
129
1076
48.1%
30.3%
Gay/Lesbian
Bi/Heterosexual
25
1148
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
459
724
Don’t Know if
UW has
Effective
Process
58.3%
41.5%
27.6%
*
62.2%
56.4%
*
50.6%
25.8%
*
80.8%
50.6%
*
26.7%
34.5%
35.4%
36.5%
*
53.3%
68.4%
58.1%
57.8%
*
*
29.2%
35.7%
*
58.1%
58.5%
60.3%
58.1%
*
44.0%
31.8%
36.4%
29.3%
71.3%
56.8%
*
64.0%
58.0%
*
61.7%
55.9%
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Percent responding "don't know" as compared to all affirmative responses.
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.10;
darker grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.05. Arrows indicate the
direction of change between 2003 and 2006.
102
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
I. Balancing Personal & Professional
Life
This section asked faculty to assess the extent to which they are able to balance personal and
professional life.
a. Spouse/partner
103
Table WS1. Marital/Partner Status of Faculty - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Married/
Partnered,
Live Apart**
Married/
Partnered
1213
88.6%
Women
Men
393
818
79.9%
92.8%
*
7.1%
3.8%
Untenured
Tenured
311
902
83.3%
90.5%
*
6.4%
4.3%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
434
239
329
192
91.0%
91.6%
84.5%
86.5%
*
3.7%
3.8%
5.8%
6.8%
Science
Non-Science
649
545
91.4%
85.3%
*
*
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
105
1108
85.7%
88.9%
3.8%
5.0%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
130
1081
83.1%
89.3%
6.2%
4.7%
Homosexual
Not Homosexual
25
1154
72.0%
89.3%
16.0%
4.6%
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
559
654
94.5%
83.6%
*
1.8%
7.5%
*
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
178
1035
98.3%
87.0%
*
2.2%
5.3%
*
4.9%
*
3.5%
6.2%
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Married/partnered but living apart may include persons who are
separated.
104
Table WS2. Spouse/Partner's Employment Status - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
1073
Paid Labor
Force FullTime
53.8%
Paid Labor
Force PartTime
Not in Paid
Labor
Force**
21.5%
17.2%
6.1% *
21.8%
Women
Men
311
760
78.8% *
43.4%
8.0% *
27.1%
Untenured
Tenured
256
817
64.8% *
50.3%
18.4%
22.5%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
392
219
278
166
55.4%
40.2% *
55.8%
63.3% *
21.7%
25.1%
20.9%
18.7%
16.6%
26.5% *
15.5%
10.2% *
Science
Non-Science
590
465
49.7% *
58.5%
23.1%
20.0%
20.3% *
13.5%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
90
983
61.1%
53.1%
22.2%
21.5%
14.4%
17.5%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
108
963
54.6%
53.7%
21.3%
21.6%
22.2%
16.7%
Homosexual
Not Homosexual
1027
54.0%
21.2%
17.4%
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
531
542
52.4%
55.2%
25.0% *
18.1%
22.0% *
12.5%
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
174
899
55.2%
53.5%
20.1%
21.8%
16.0%
17.6%
24.7% *
15.8%
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Excludes retired spouse/partner
Dash (-) indicates data suppressed because of insufficient cases.
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.10; darker
grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.05. Arrows indicate the direction of
change between 2003 and 2006.
105
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
I. Balancing Personal & Professional
Life
This section asked faculty to assess the extent to which they are able to balance personal and
professional life.
b. Children
106
Table WC1. Parental Status of Faculty - Wave 2 (2006)
Parent,
Any Age
Parent,
Age 19+
Parent,
Age 6-18
Parent,
Under 6
1213
77.3%
39.4%
38.5%
14.8%
Women
Men
394
817
62.2% *
84.6%
24.7%
46.5%
*
33.2%
40.9%
*
16.1%
14.2%
Untenured
Tenured
310
903
58.1% *
83.8%
6.1%
50.8%
*
31.9%
40.7%
*
35.8%
7.6%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
432
238
332
191
81.5% *
77.7%
76.2%
69.1% *
44.1%
38.0%
38.8%
30.8%
*
40.2%
38.8%
39.1%
34.9%
16.2%
14.9%
13.1%
15.4%
Science
Non-Science
646
547
80.2% *
73.9%
42.3%
35.7%
*
40.0%
37.3%
15.4%
14.4%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
105
1108
81.0%
76.9%
32.1%
40.1%
42.5%
38.1%
19.8%
14.3%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
130
1081
63.1% *
78.9%
13.7%
42.4%
40.5%
38.2%
25.2%
13.6%
All Faculty Parents
937
100.0%
51.0%
50.4%
19.3%
Women
Men
245
691
26.2%
73.8%
39.6%
55.0%
*
53.9%
49.1%
26.1%
16.9%
*
Untenured
Tenured
180
757
19.2%
80.8%
10.6%
60.6%
*
55.6%
49.1%
62.2%
9.1%
*
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
352
185
253
132
38.2%
20.1%
27.4%
14.3%
53.7%
48.1%
51.4%
45.5%
49.7%
50.8%
51.8%
51.5%
20.2%
18.9%
17.4%
22.7%
Science
Non-Science
518
404
56.2%
43.8%
52.1%
49.0%
50.4%
51.2%
19.3%
19.8%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
85
852
9.1%
90.9%
40.0%
52.1%
*
52.9%
50.1%
24.7%
18.8%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
82
853
8.8%
91.2%
20.7%
53.8%
*
64.6%
49.0%
N
All Faculty
*
*
*
40.2%
17.4%
*
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
107
Table WC8. Living Arrangements for Faculty Parents of Younger Children** Wave 2 (2006)
N
Live With
Full Time
Live With
Part Time
Not Living
With
All Faculty Parents of
Younger Children
576
91.2%
6.4
2.4%
Women
Men
171
404
90.1%
91.6%
9.4%
5.2%
0.6%
3.2%
Untenured
Tenured
170
406
89.7% *
94.7%
4.1%
7.4%
1.2%
3.0%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
212
119
152
88
89.6%
93.3%
88.8%
95.5% *
7.5%
5.0%
7.9%
3.4%
2.8%
1.7%
3.3%
1.1%
Science
Non-Science
319
252
90.9%
91.3%
6.6%
6.3%
2.5%
2.4%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
59
517
93.2%
90.9%
5.1%
6.6%
1.7%
2.5%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
74
501
91.9%
91.0%
6.8%
6.4%
1.4%
2.6%
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Children ages 0 to 18 years
108
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
I. Balancing Personal & Professional
Life
This section asked faculty to assess the extent to which they are able to balance personal and
professional life.
c. Balance
109
Table WB1. Balancing Personal and Professional Life - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Seriously
Considered
Leaving
UW-Madison
Usually
Satisfied
33.8%
Forgo
Professional
Activities
Career
Progression
Slowed
1217
61.1%
Women
Men
392
823
48.2%
67.3%
*
45.6%
28.0%
Untenured
Tenured
307
910
53.1%
63.7%
*
39.9%
31.7%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
434
238
332
193
66.4%
59.2%
59.0%
54.9%
*
31.0%
28.4%
39.2%
36.9%
Science
Non-Science
648
549
64.4%
57.2%
*
Faculty of color
Majority faculty
105
1112
63.8%
60.8%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
130
1085
61.2%
60.0%
Homosexual
Not Homosexual
25
1158
32.0%
61.7%
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
560
657
59.6%
62.3%
34.1%
33.5%
60.1%
24.0%
*
59.5%
30.1%
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
176
1041
59.7%
61.3%
37.7%
33.1%
64.2%
36.9%
*
Stay Home Partner
No Stay Home Partner
250
931
61.6%
61.0%
26.6%
35.5%
*
51.0%
37.3%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
461
732
51.2%
66.9%
45.0%
26.4%
*
45.8%
38.2%
Department Chair
Not Department Chair
87
1130
60.9%
61.1%
*
*
40.9%
43.7%
*
41.9%
40.3%
54.6%
38.4%
*
35.4%
42.7%
61.1%
*
44.6%
43.4%
65.4%
58.9%
*
60.3%
61.3%
38.1%
41.0%
51.2%
47.1%
*
41.9%
39.7%
38.7%
49.8%
*
39.0%
33.3%
44.8%
40.6%
49.0%
43.2%
58.6%
61.3%
37.8%
33.3%
38.8%
41.1%
40.6%
44.0%
52.8%
62.0%
29.2%
41.3%
37.5%
43.8%
88.0%
60.3%
*
*
57.3%
64.3%
*
63.8%
40.2%
*
55.5%
62.0%
*
51.6%
40.4%
*
58.4%
62.0%
*
51.1%
38.8%
*
61.9%
60.6%
29.6%
38.6%
58.3%
33.2%
*
*
*
29.1%
34.1%
43.9%
38.8%
43.7%
32.1%
*
Long Hours
a Sign of
Commitment**
45.3%
40.5%
*
39.1%
44.0%
*
59.5%
62.6%
61.7%
61.1%
61.1%
60.8%
60.9%
61.1%
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Longitudinal tests not available for this item.
Longitudinal tests: no significant longitudinal changes observed for these items.
110
Table WB2. Departmental Support of Family Obligations - Wave 2 (2006)
N
Difficulty
Adjusting
Schedules
Supportive
Colleagues
Early or
Late
Meetings
Communicates
Options for
Baby**
Supports
Family
Leave
33.9%
38.7%
68.6%
86.6%
36.3%
32.6%
39.5%
38.3%
67.9%
68.9%
80.2%
89.6%
33.6%
34.0%
35.9%
39.6%
55.1%
72.8%
79.2%
88.4%
82.4%
76.3%
84.1%
77.6%
*
*
41.9%
36.4%
31.1%
47.1%
66.0%
57.3%
78.2%
67.6%
38.4%
33.3%
27.7%
35.8%
85.6%
83.2%
89.4%
87.0%
596
522
80.7%
81.2%
36.7%
30.9%
*
Faculty of color
Majority faculty
93
1041
82.8%
80.6%
32.9%
34.0%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
112
1020
78.6%
81.2%
Homosexual
Not Homosexual
23
1083
56.5%
81.7%
*
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
530
604
77.5%
83.6%
*
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
166
968
Stay Home Partner
No Stay Home Partner
All Faculty
1134
80.8%
Women
Men
367
765
74.7%
83.9%
Untenured
Tenured
276
858
80.4%
80.9%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
410
211
314
183
Science
Non-Science
*
*
*
*
Kids=
Less
Committed
14.9%
*
24.7%
10.3%
*
*
19.9%
13.4%
*
14.1%
14.0%
14.9%
18.7%
85.5%
87.7%
14.1%
16.1%
80.6%
87.2%
16.0%
14.9%
76.6%
87.7%
16.1%
14.7%
14.6%
19.8%
10.5%
*
26.5%
12.9%
*
11.1%
15.7%
*
*
39.3%
37.8%
62.6%
74.6%
*
40.0%
38.6%
46.3%
70.5%
*
25.7%
34.7%
29.5%
39.8%
33.5%
54.2%
38.4%
68.7%
41.4%
36.3%
58.5%
80.5%
*
82.0%
90.7%
*
76.4%
88.5%
*
58.4%
69.8%
*
86.8%
35.4%
32.4%
81.9%
80.6%
34.1%
33.9%
42.3%
38.1%
48.7%
74.2%
*
235
863
78.7%
81.8%
30.1%
35.2%
43.9%
37.3%
61.3%
70.6%
*
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
427
685
74.5%
84.5%
37.5%
32.0%
58.9%
74.5%
81.5%
90.2%
*
41.7%
36.9%
*
21.4%
10.6%
Department Chair
Not Department Chair
85
1049
84.7%
80.5%
32.1%
34.1%
84.6%
66.6%
94.9%
85.7%
*
33.3%
39.1%
*
12.8%
15.1%
*
*
83.2%
88.0%
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Longitudinal tests not available for this item.
NOTE: Many respondents answered "don't know" for the items presented here; only affirmative responses are reported.
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.10; darker grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.05. Arrows indicate the
direction of change between 2003 and 2006.
111
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
I. Balancing Personal & Professional
Life
This section asked faculty to assess the extent to which they are able to balance personal and
professional life.
d. Health
112
Table WH1. Rating of Overall Health - Wave 2 (2006)
%
Good**
Health
%
Poor***
Health
1128
92.6%
7.5%
Women
Men
369
758
89.7% *
93.9%
10.3% *
6.1%
Untenured
Tenured
290
838
89.3% *
93.7%
10.7% *
6.3%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
405
220
304
183
92.6%
91.8%
92.1%
94.0%
7.4%
8.2%
7.9%
6.0%
Science
Non-Science
599
513
92.3%
92.8%
7.7%
7.2%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
95
1033
88.4%
92.9%
11.6%
7.1%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
127
1000
91.3%
92.7%
8.7%
7.3%
N
All Faculty
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Proportion of faculty reporting "excellent," "very good," or "good"
health.
*** Proportion of faculty reporting "fair" or "poor" health.
Longitudinal tests: no significant over-time changes observed for
these measures.
113
Table WH2. Ratings of Physical and Emotional States** - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Happy
1197
73.0%
Women
Men
390
806
67.7% *
75.6%
Untenured
Tenured
307
890
69.7%
74.1%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
427
237
327
188
77.9% *
69.5%
71.8%
69.1%
Science
Non-Science
640
539
74.6%
71.4%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
104
1093
66.3%
73.6%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
131
1064
58.5% *
74.7%
WellRested
Physically
Fit
Stressed
Nervous
50.2%
49.5%
18.9%
11.0%
10.1%
29.1%
51.7%
66.4% *
42.3%
65.5% *
41.6%
29.0% *
14.1%
17.4% *
7.8%
14.4% *
8.0%
25.3% *
30.9%
44.9% *
55.0%
62.2% *
46.1%
61.6% *
45.3%
30.0% *
15.1%
13.4%
10.1%
13.8% *
8.8%
22.0% *
31.5%
43.8% *
54.4%
16.4%
17.4%
21.1%
22.5%
8.7%
11.4%
11.9%
13.4%
7.7% *
11.9%
11.3%
10.8%
16.4% *
21.7%
9.9%
12.1%
9.6%
11.1%
47.5%
46.4%
53.5%
54.3%
47.3% *
53.2%
48.7%
46.2%
54.6% *
46.3%
48.0%
51.1%
53.8%
49.9%
48.1%
49.6%
57.3%
49.3%
56.2%
48.6%
19.2%
18.9%
29.2% *
17.7%
Depressed
ShortTempered
Fatigued
16.9%
10.3%
29.8%
26.3%
29.4%
28.3%
51.2%
52.3%
50.2%
53.7%
9.1%
11.2%
28.5%
29.1%
52.0%
51.0%
9.7%
10.1%
24.0%
29.6%
50.0%
51.9%
23.8%
29.7%
55.4%
51.3%
17.7% *
9.2%
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Fraction of faculty responding that they "very often" or "quite often" experience the emotional/physical state.
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.10 (two-tailed test), darker grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.05
(two-tailed test). Arrows indicate the direction of change between 2003 and 2006.
114
Table WH3. Faculty With Significant Health Issues or Disabilities - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
%
Disabled
Department
Accommodating?**
UW-Madison
Accommodating?**
1190
10.5%
63.4%
61.3%
Women
Men
386
802
11.7%
10.0%
50.0%
70.8%
Untenured
Tenured
304
886
8.2%
11.3%
64.1%
62.1%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
419
237
328
186
11.2%
8.4%
11.3%
10.8%
61.0%
80.0%
66.7%
-
63.2%
64.5%
-
Science
Non-Science
632
538
10.1%
11.2%
69.0%
58.5%
63.0%
60.8%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
101
1089
15.8%
10.0%
64.9%
61.5%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
130
1058
6.9%
10.9%
61.2%
60.0%
*
57.1%
63.4%
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
** Among those respondents reporting a significant health issue or disability; % reporting
department or University is "very" or "quite" accommodating.
Dash (-) indicates data suppressed because of insufficient cases.
Longitudinal tests: no significant over-time changes observed for these measures.
115
Table WH4. Symptoms of Burnout
N
All Faculty
%
Burnout
Symptom
1192
26.1%
Women
Men
386
804
35.8% *
21.4%
Untenured
Tenured
306
886
27.1%
25.7%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
424
234
325
189
24.3%
26.1%
28.6%
24.3%
Science
Non-Science
635
537
24.6%
27.4%
URM
Majority
66
1126
21.2%
26.4%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
131
1059
29.0%
25.8%
* T-test between groups significant at p <.05.
** Burnout is indicated if respondent selected
c, d, or e. No burnout symtoms if respondent
selected a ("I enjoy my work. I have no
symptoms of burnout" or b ("Occasionally I am
under stress, and I don't always have as much
energy as I once did, but I don't feel burned out.")
116
Table WH5. Suggested Changes to Culture of UW-Madison to Lower Stress on Faculty
University/Administration
Factor
Policies and Programs
N
Change administrative structure of university //
reduce red-tape and bureaucratic delays //
change decision-making processes
Change incentives for administrators // ensure
administration is in-touch with and oriented to
serve faculty needs
Increase diversity (gender/ethnicity) &
support/commitment to diversity // remove
biases
Reduce buisness-type attitudes of
administration // less top-down administration
Shorter semesters // change semester
schedule/structure
More tenure lines // hire more faculty
Change top administrators // better top
leadership
Make departments more accountable to
deans/administrators
Unify & rationalize the University
mission/goals
Improve UW relations with legislature //
independence from state // turn-about of state
attitude towards UW
Reorganize department structure so that
faculty are grouped by research interests, not
discipline // remove disciplinary boundaries
Improved PR/press coverage of University //
more public support/appreciation of University
32
11
Increase salary // more raises
Better mentoring/guidance // more support for
tenure process
More/better staff/tech support for faculty
Provide support durring summers // make all
faculty appointments 12 months // reduce
summer burden for faculty
Correct unfair/non-transparent process of
resource allocation // fix salary inequities //
reduce reliance on outside offers in allocating
resources // more transparent hiring
negotiations
N
4
15
8
Improve childcare options for faculty // more
on-campus childcare
9
2
Allow acess to family leave for other reasons
1
7
Support part-time appointments
7
Support for faculty with disabilities
More resources to support partner/spousal
hires
Paid leave for new parents // resources for
maternity leave
More acess to mental health/mind-body
resources for faculty
1
22
11
3
2
2
3
3
More acess to bridge/stop-gap funding for
between grants // Villas Life-Cycle Grants
4
2
Release junior faculty from other duties so that
they can focus solely on research pre-tenure //
junior leave/release policy
7
3
More faculty access to athletics/sporting
events // incentives for faculty to exercise
6
Accellerate tenure for highly sucessful faculty
1
16
Resources
Factor
Factor
Clarify implementation & standardize
dissemination of University policies - e.g.
teure clock extension, family leave // make
UW policies more transparent
More programs/supports for balancing work &
family life // value and support faculty's
personal lives
N
54
Get rid of/appropriately deal with problematic
faculty
Institute an effective disciplinary procedure for
tenured faculty // ensure due process for
faculty
Recognize clinical and teaching staff as
faculty // tenure-track conversion
2
7
1
12
Climate
78
9
Factor
19
More diversified reward system for faculty that
acknolwedges different contributions // reward
varried sucesses more often // compensate
faculty fairly for the varried roles they take on
(administrative duties/teaching/etc)
N
21
117
Improve the University budget // more
resources for the University // more state
support // address financial problems at
University
More support for faculty research (techs/grad
students/etc)
More support for grant proposal preparation
27
22
4
More resources for hiring grad students
13
Give faculty (more) access to funded
sabbaticals/leaves
12
More teaching assistance // more
support/resources to help faculty develop
teaching skills // paid release to
upgrade/incorporate tech into teaching //
resources to support teaching responsibilities
33
Provide domestic partner benefits
3
Reduce cost/burden of doing research at UW
// overhead
3
More/better parking for faculty // fix parking
issues // better transportation
4
Fix problems with/improve facilities/buildings //
more space/equipment
More University-based $$ resources for
research/travel // funding for academic
programs/departments // more resources for
research
Offer legal resources for faculty/staff
More federal funding for research // reduce the
funding crunch // recognize that federal
funding has declined sharply recently
Free tuition for faculty children
More adequate resources/funding (general)
Nature of the Job
Factor
Reduce administrative/service burden for
faculty // distribute service burden evenly
across faculty // provide resources to support
service/administration
Limit job responsibilities of faculty // lower
faculty loads
Lower time expectation for faculty
Clarify expectations for tenure and promotion
& apply consistently
Make tenure success less-reliant on grant
getting // value teaching and service, not just
research // lower publication requirements for
tenure // lenghten/get rid of the tenure clock //
separate clinical tenure track // deemphasize
tenure
16
26
Foster trust // more sense of community //
cultivate culture of mutual support on campus
// more relaxed professional environment
Hold more parties/events // more social
contact among faculty
More recognition for women faculty and their
contributions
Reduce the level of department and interfaculty politics
More open communication // shared decisionmaking
Improve department climate // take climate
issues seriously // make climate more
welcoming for women/minorities
Raise awareness of biases in hiring &
promotion
More openness to non-mainstream
research/ideas // value different approaches in
research // academic freedom
More positive feedback on job performance //
positive recognition to make faculty feel
valued
Recognize and accept differences among
faculty & in their goals
18
8
1
5
3
9
1
4
7
3
Equal respect for all disciplines on campus
2
1
Reduce racism on campus
3
8
More awareness of/sensitivity to LGBT issues
1
1
28
Tolerance for diverse view-points/opinions
Eliminate sexual harassment
Encourage collaboration
1
1
1
N
Negative/Other Responses
77
14
5
14
29
Factor
Can't/shouldn't be changed - nature of the job
& a top University
Nothing needs to change
Problem is endemic to culture of
academia/science
Problem is too big to change
N
25
13
11
3
118
Use a standardized set of criteria to evaluate
performance of faculty // make division
committee criteria more transparent // base
evaluations on quality not quantity
5
Lower teaching loads // more flexibility in
teaching responsibilities // distribute teaching
load fairly across faculty
28
Problem owes to tenure process
Return focus of job to teaching and research //
less emphasis on getting grant $$ // value
various contributions of faculty/weight all
aspects of faculty work equally // value clinical
work, less emphasis on clinical $$
61
Culture/stress isn't a big problem for faculty //
happy w/ culture at UW
16
22
Nothing needs to change, stress is selfinduced
19
Have a more resonable (attainable) model for
faculty success/promotion // lower
expectations for faculty // dispense with
traditional "male" model of faculty work
Distribute workload more evenly/fairly across
faculty members
More time for research
Fewer students // smaller class sizes
Incorporate collegiality as a tenure criteria
Eliminate annual merit reviews // reduce the
burden of reviewing faculty performance // get
rid of performance metrics
Miscellaneous
Factor
Fix problems with personel structure (easier to
hire/fire staff without losing positions)
Respond more rapidly to technological
changes/advances
Better/different faculty
Treat staff people fairly // better pay for staff
Change culture of entitlement among
undergrads
Change of department chair
Get rid of joint appointments
Change geographical location of campus
Respect for cluster hires
Problem is about Madison/department/other
factors -- not University
9
Situation has already improved
6
8
1
DNK
Uninterpretable // not otherwise coded
10
2
1
34
37
5
N
1
1
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
Top 3 responses are highlighted.
119
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
J. Diversity Issues at UW-Madison
Questions in this section asked about faculty members' awareness and concern about diversity
issues in their departments.
120
Table DV1. Recruitment of Women and Minority Faculty - Wave 2 (2006)
Women Faculty
Identified
Ways to
Recruit
Too
Few
N
Actively
Recruited
N
Too
Few
Faculty of Color
Identified
Ways to
Recruit
Actively
Recruited
79.9%
1137
83.6%
44.1%
65.5% *
86.4%
373
764
87.9% *
81.5%
39.0% *
46.6%
58.7%
66.0%
75.4%
81.1%
289
848
83.7%
83.6%
62.6%
68.8%
65.6%
60.5%
82.0%
83.9%
77.1%
74.1%
399
225
320
177
86.0%
84.9%
83.8%
75.7% *
36.3%
37.3%
53.1%
53.1%
*
*
*
*
51.5% *
50.8% *
67.4% *
57.2%
*
65.1%
63.6%
82.9% *
76.2%
601
520
85.7% *
81.0%
35.9% *
53.2%
50.8% *
63.8%
*
57.8%
65.2%
80.6%
79.8%
111
1026
76.6%
84.4%
49.5%
43.5%
50.5%
58.0%
43.0%
50.1%
66.7%
64.3%
78.1%
80.0%
122
1014
69.7% *
85.3%
46.5%
43.9%
54.1%
57.5%
87
1086
49.4%
49.4%
73.8%
63.7%
*
88.5% *
79.1%
85
1052
83.5%
83.7%
50.6%
43.5%
65.5%
56.4%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
447
703
50.1%
48.5%
59.4%
67.5%
*
74.7% *
82.9%
434
683
85.9%
81.8%
40.7%
45.7%
Less than 12.5% Female
More than 12.5% Female
269
904
79.9%
40.3%
*
68.4%
63.3%
86.6% *
77.7%
261
876
86.2%
82.9%
41.7%
44.8%
56.2%
57.5%
Less than 35.0% Female
More than 35.0% Female
777
396
64.0%
20.7%
*
64.5%
64.6%
81.5%
76.5%
755
382
85.8% *
79.3%
40.5% *
50.8%
53.1% *
64.9%
All Faculty
1173
49.4%
Women
Men
384
789
41.4%
53.2%
*
48.7%
71.6%
Untenured
Tenured
296
877
41.9%
51.9%
*
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
418
225
322
190
52.6%
74.7%
50.0%
26.8%
Science
Non-Science
619
536
61.2%
35.8%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
112
1061
35.7%
50.8%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
128
1044
Department Chair
Not Chair
64.5%
*
*
*
*
57.2%
44.8%
41.3%
48.5% *
61.4%
52.3%
58.5%
51.7% *
60.0%
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
NOTE: Many respondents answered "don't know" for the items presented here; only affirmative responses are reported.
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.10; darker grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.05. Arrows indicate the
direction of change between 2003 and 2006.
121
Table DV2. Climate for Women and Minority Faculty - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Women Faculty
Identified
Ways to
Enhance
Climate
Good
Climate
1122
84.1%
Women
Men
378
744
75.9%
88.2%
Untenured
Tenured
278
844
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
59.8%
*
Taken
Steps to
Enhance
Climate
Good
Climate
Faculty of Color
Identified
Ways to
Enhance
Climate
785
71.1%
41.1%
N
61.5%
39.8%
70.3%
*
38.6%
73.2%
*
242
543
54.1%
78.6%
84.6%
82.4%
50.0%
62.0%
*
51.6%
63.7%
*
183
602
66.7%
72.4%
403
211
307
185
83.9%
84.4%
84.7%
82.2%
61.0%
65.2%
55.9%
55.9%
61.7%
66.1%
60.0%
56.2%
278
124
237
140
74.8%
79.0%
67.1%
62.9%
Science
Non-Science
594
512
84.3%
83.4%
62.7%
55.8%
63.8%
58.1%
387
392
76.0%
66.1%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
108
1014
82.4%
84.2%
56.0%
60.2%
57.6%
62.0%
92
693
Non-Citizen
Citizen
118
1003
83.9%
84.0%
57.3%
60.0%
60.3%
61.6%
Dept. Chair
Not Chair
85
1037
94.1%
83.2%
74.7%
58.3%
*
73.2%
60.3%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
426
675
75.8%
89.0%
51.9%
64.9%
*
51.5%
67.6%
Less than 12.5% Female
More than 12.5% Female
256
866
85.5%
83.6%
Less than 35.0% Female
More than 35.0% Female
745
377
82.1%
87.8%
*
*
29.2%
47.3%
41.4%
*
28.7%
48.1%
*
36.1%
42.3%
36.4%
42.6%
39.0%
38.7%
44.9%
39.0%
36.9%
40.7%
47.6%
38.3%
38.6%
43.1%
37.3%
45.1%
62.0%
72.3%
43.2%
40.8%
38.5%
41.8%
82
703
76.8%
70.4%
45.5%
40.7%
40.7%
49.1%
*
62
723
79.0%
70.4%
52.5%
39.9%
55.0%
40.0%
*
*
288
483
59.4%
77.4%
*
31.2%
47.5%
32.4%
47.4%
*
*
39.1%
41.6%
64.1%
58.6%
66.5%
60.1%
163
622
84.0%
67.7%
61.0%
57.5%
63.0%
58.6%
504
281
71.8%
69.8%
*
*
Taken
Steps to
Enhance
Climate
*
*
*
37.9%
46.2%
*
*
*
38.7%
42.0%
*
37.7%
47.3%
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
NOTE: Many respondents answered "don't know" for the items presented here; only affirmative responses are reported.
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.10; darker grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.05. Arrows indicate the
direction of change between 2003 and 2006.
122
Table DV3. Leadership of Women and Minority Faculty - Wave 2 (2006)
Too Few in
Leadership
Positions
N
Women Faculty
Identified
Ways to
Move Into
Leadership
1158
36.9%
62.6%
Women
Men
382
776
39.5%
35.6%
50.0%
69.1%
Untenured
Tenured
288
870
36.1%
37.1%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
411
225
315
190
42.1%
42.7%
34.0%
24.7%
Science
Non-Science
614
527
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
112
1046
Non-Citizen
Citizen
124
1033
Dept. Chair
Not Chair
All Faculty
Effort
to Promote
Into
Leadership
71.5%
*
60.2%
77.2%
*
N
Too Few in
Leadership
Positions
945
70.1%
317
628
75.1%
67.5%
Faculty of Color
Identified
Ways to
Move Into
Leadership
38.0%
*
26.1%
44.2%
Effort
to Promote
Into
Leadership
44.2%
*
32.1%
50.4%
*
57.8%
63.6%
67.7%
72.4%
244
701
67.2%
71.0%
27.7%
40.0%
45.0%
40.7%
60.4%
63.3%
63.9%
64.0%
70.8%
69.8%
73.0%
72.2%
319
174
286
156
73.4%
66.1%
72.0%
65.4%
33.3%
46.7%
39.8%
35.2%
40.7%
50.5%
50.0%
34.0%
62.0%
63.1%
71.0%
72.0%
476
459
70.6%
69.9%
38.3%
37.8%
43.9%
44.6%
32.1%
37.4%
61.3%
62.7%
71.9%
71.5%
100
845
71.0%
69.9%
32.4%
38.7%
46.1%
44.0%
33.9%
37.3%
62.2%
62.5%
72.4%
71.4%
99
845
57.6%
71.5%
38.3%
37.9%
38.7%
44.8%
86
1072
34.9%
37.0%
74.4%
61.3%
*
86.7%
70.0%
*
69
876
72.5%
69.9%
52.8%
36.6%
*
64.2%
42.4%
*
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
442
694
41.0%
34.6%
*
56.8%
65.7%
*
63.7%
76.1%
*
367
562
73.0%
67.4%
31.8%
41.8%
*
37.7%
48.3%
*
Less than 12.5% Female
More than 12.5% Female
262
896
50.4%
32.9%
*
63.0%
62.4%
205
740
70.2%
70.0%
44.5%
36.4%
50.8%
42.7%
Less than 35.0% Female
More than 35.0% Female
766
392
46.0%
19.1%
*
59.4%
68.3%
611
334
71.4%
67.7%
36.4%
40.6%
41.5%
48.7%
42.7%
30.6%
*
*
*
69.7%
72.0%
*
68.6%
76.8%
*
*
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
NOTE: Many respondents answered "don't know" for the items presented here; only affirmative responses are reported.
Longitudinal tests: lighter grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.10; darker grey indicates over-time change significant at p <0.05. Arrows indicate the
direction of change between 2003 and 2006.
123
Table DV4. Perceptions of Women and Minority Faculty's Competence - Wave 2 (2006)
N
All Faculty
Women Faculty
Must Work
Harder to
Be Perceived
As Competent
1100
24.2%
Women
Men
361
739
49.0%
12.0%
Untenured
Tenured
259
841
30.1%
22.4%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
393
211
300
182
21.4%
18.5%
28.7%
30.8%
Science
Non-Science
583
503
19.7%
29.8%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
101
999
Non-Citizen
Citizen
N
Faculty of Color
Must Work
Harder to
Be Perceived
As Competent
730
19.3%
*
206
524
32.5%
14.1%
*
154
576
20.8%
18.9%
228
119
241
133
11.0%
16.0%
22.4%
31.6%
335
386
12.8%
25.1%
*
24.8%
24.1%
87
643
43.7%
16.0%
*
116
983
23.3%
24.3%
80
650
21.3%
19.1%
Dept. Chair
Not Chair
86
1014
14.0%
25.0%
*
58
672
19.0%
19.3%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
414
667
35.0%
17.2%
*
274
447
28.8%
13.6%
*
Less than 12.5% Female
More than 12.5% Female
250
850
16.8%
26.4%
*
143
587
12.6%
21.0%
*
Less than 35.0% Female
More than 35.0% Female
730
370
21.5%
29.5%
*
460
270
17.0%
23.3%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* T-test between groups significant at p <0.05.
NOTE: Many respondents answered "don't know" for the items presented here; only affirmative
responses are reported.
Longitudinal tests: Not available for these items.
124
Section 3: Detailed Results by Topic
K. Personal Demographics
This section reports on the demographic variables used to perform bivariate analyses to assess
group differences for each survey question. The demographic variables used include gender,
rank, departmental division, underrepresented minority, citizenship status, sexual orientation,
and parental status.
125
Table D1. Analysis Variables - Wave 2 (2006)
Full Sample
N
%
All Faculty
Women Faculty
N
%
Men Faculty
N
%
1230
100.0%
397
32.3%
831
67.7%
Assistant Professor**
Associate Professor
Professor
301
183
722
25.0%
15.2%
59.9%
149
73
173
37.7% *
18.5% *
43.8% *
152
110
549
18.7%
13.6%
67.7%
Untenured
Tenured
313
915
25.5%
74.5%
154
243
38.8%
61.2%
159
672
19.1%
80.9%
Biological
Physical
Social
Humanities
438
242
335
195
36.2%
20.0%
27.7%
16.1%
129
41
137
89
32.6%
10.4% *
34.6% *
22.5% *
309
201
198
106
38.0%
24.7%
24.3%
13.0%
Science***
Non-Science
655
555
54.1%
45.9%
158
238
39.9% *
60.1%
497
317
61.1%
38.9%
Faculty of Color
Majority Faculty
106
1122
8.6%
91.4%
38
359
9.6%
90.4%
68
763
8.2%
91.8%
Non-Citizen
Citizen
131
1096
10.7%
89.3%
41
356
10.3%
89.7%
90
740
10.8%
89.2%
Homosexual
Not Homosexual
25
1166
2.1%
97.9%
-
-
-
-
Children Under 18
No Kids Under 18
562
666
45.8%
54.2%
170
227
42.8%
57.2%
392
439
47.2%
52.8%
Children Under 6
No Kids Under 6
178
1050
14.5%
85.5%
64
333
16.1%
83.9%
114
717
13.7%
86.3%
Non-Mainstream
Mainstream
465
735
38.8%
61.3%
181
202
47.3% *
52.7%
284
533
34.8%
65.2%
Cluster Hire
Not Cluster Hire
56
1172
4.6%
95.4%
22
375
5.5%
94.5%
34
797
4.1%
95.9%
Multiple Appointments
Single Appointment
224
978
18.6%
81.4%
83
311
21.1%
78.9%
141
667
17.5%
82.5%
Department Chair
Not Chair
87
1141
7.1%
92.9%
-
-
-
-
* Pearson's chi-squared significant at p <0.05
** Includes a few cases with C50NN (pre-PhD instructor) titles.
*** See Appendix 2 for definitions.
Dash (-) indicates sample size is too small to be non-identifying
126
Table D2. Other Demographic Variables - Wave 2 (2006)
Full Sample
N
%
Women Faculty
N
%
Father Obtained Advanced Degree
Father Obtained College Degree
Father's Education Less than College Degree
437
287
480
36.3%
23.8%
39.9%
172
94
125
44.0%
24.0%
32.0%
Mother Obtained Advanced Degree
Mother Obtained College Degree
Mother's Education Less than College Degree
228
331
647
18.9%
27.4%
53.8%
94
123
174
24.0%
31.5%
44.5%
Mean
7
28.3%
(S.D.)
(0.2)
(0.0)
Mean
9
38.7%
(S.D.)
(0.4)
(0.0)
Number Women in Department
Percent Women in Department
Men Faculty
N
%
*
*
265
193
355
32.6%
23.7%
43.7%
*
*
*
134
208
473
16.4%
25.5%
58.0%
Mean
6
23.2%
(S.D.)
(0.2)
(0.0)
127
Section 4: Appendices
128
Section 4: Appendices
Appendix 1: Survey Instrument
129
Study of Faculty Worklife at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison
2006
This questionnaire was developed to better understand issues related
to quality of work life for faculty at the University of WisconsinMadison. This is part of a larger project, funded by the National
Science Foundation, to develop new initiatives for faculty on campus.
PLEASE RETURN THIS COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED TO:
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SURVEY CENTER
1800 University Avenue, RM 102
Madison, WI 53726
130
Hiring Process
We are interested in identifying what makes UW-Madison attractive to job applicants, and the aspects of the hiring
process that may be experienced positively or negatively. Please think back to when you first were hired into a faculty
position at UW-Madison to answer the following questions.
1. Were you hired into a faculty position at UW-Madison since January 1, 2003?
a. Yes
Go to question 2
b. No
Go to question 5
2. Please rate your level of agreement with these statements about the hiring process. If you were hired into more than
one department or unit, please answer for the department or unit that you consider to be your primary department or
unit.
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4. Circle NA if the
statement does not apply to you.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
I was satisfied with the hiring process overall.
The department did its best to obtain resources for me.
Faculty in the department made an effort to meet me.
My interactions with the search committee were
positive.
I received advice from a colleague/mentor on the hiring
process.
I negotiated successfully for what I needed.
I was naïve about the negotiation process.
I was pleased with my start up package.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
NA
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
NA
NA
NA
1
2
3
4
NA
1
2
3
4
NA
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
NA
NA
NA
3. What were the three most important factors that positively influenced your decision to accept a position at UWMadison? Check three.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Prestige of university
Prestige of department/unit/lab
Geographic location
Opportunities available for spouse/partner
Research opportunities
Community resources and organizations
Quality of public schools
Teaching opportunities
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
Support for research/creative activity
Salary and benefits
Colleagues in department/unit/lab
Climate of department/unit/lab
Climate for women
Climate for faculty of color
Quality of students
Other, please explain:
4. What factors, if any, made you hesitate about accepting a position at UW-Madison?
The Tenure Process at UW-Madison
5. Please check the appropriate box:
a. I am clinical or CHS faculty
b. I am untenured
Go to question 12
Go to question 6
c. I first received tenure at a university other than the UW-Madison
d. I first received tenure at UW-Madison after January 2003
e. I first received tenure at UW-Madison prior to January 2003
6. Do you currently have tenure?
a. Yes
Go to question 12
Go to question 6
Go to question 12
b. No
131
Page 1
7. In what year did you receive tenure, or do you expect to be considered for tenure?
8. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements regarding your experience with the tenure
process in your primary unit or department.
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4. Circle NA if the statement does not
apply to you.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
NA
1
2
3
4
NA
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
NA
1
2
3
4
NA
1
2
3
4
NA
1
2
3
4
NA
1
2
3
4
NA
1
2
3
4
NA
1
2
3
4
NA
I am/was satisfied with the tenure process overall.
I understand/understood the criteria for achieving tenure.
The requirements/standards for tenure (e.g., level of scholarship,
teaching requirements, and service requirements) are reasonable.
I receive/d feedback on my progress toward tenure.
I feel/felt supported in my advancement to tenure.
I receive/d reduced responsibilities so that I could build my research
program.
I was told about assistance available to pre-tenure faculty (e.g.,
workshops, mentoring).
My senior advisor/mentor committee is/was very helpful to me in
working toward tenure.
I have received mixed messages about the requirements for tenure
from senior colleagues.
I feel there is/was a strong fit between the way I do/did research,
teaching and service, and the way it is/was evaluated for tenure.
Tenure decisions are based primarily on performance, rather than
on politics, relationships or demographics.
NA
NA
NA
9. Have you ever wanted or ever had cause to extend your tenure clock at UW-Madison?
a. Yes
b. No
Go to question 10
Go to question 12
10. Have you ever extended or reset your tenure clock at UW-Madison?
a. Yes
b. No
Go to question 11
Why not?
Go to question 12
11. If you extended or reset your tenure clock at UW-Madison, how supportive was your department? Circle one.
Extremely Supportive
1
Generally Supportive
2
Generally Unsupportive
3
Extremely Unsupportive
4
Professional Activities
We are interested in a number of dimensions of the work environment for faculty at UW-Madison including work hours and
your feelings about research resources, service responsibilities, and interactions with colleagues.
12. a. On average, how many hours per week do you work?
__________ hours per week
b. How many hours per week during the academic year?
__________ hours per week
c. How many hours per week during summer months?
__________ hours per week
d. Appointment type:
a. 12-Month
b. 9-Month
c. Other
132
Page 2
13. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the resources available to you?
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4. Circle NA if the statement does not
apply to you.
a.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
NA
1
2
3
4
NA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
NA
1
2
3
4
NA
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
NA
I have the equipment and supplies I need to adequately conduct my
research.
I receive regular maintenance/upgrades of my equipment.
I have sufficient office space.
I have sufficient laboratory/studio space.
I receive enough internal funding to conduct my research.
I receive the amount of technical/computer support I need.
I have enough office support.
I have colleagues on campus who do similar research.
I have colleagues or peers who give me career advice or guidance
when I need it.
I have sufficient teaching support (including T.A.s).
I have sufficient clinical support.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14. Do you currently collaborate, or have you collaborated in the past three years, on research with colleagues…
Currently collaborate?
Check all that apply.
Yes
a.
b.
c.
No
Collaborated in the past 3 years?
Yes
No
In your primary department?
Outside your department, but on the UW-Madison campus?
Off the UW-Madison campus?
15. Please indicate whether you have ever served on, or chaired, any of the following committees in your department in
the past three years.
Check all that apply. Check NA if the statement does not
apply to you.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Served in past 3 years?
Yes
No
Chaired in past 3
years?
Yes
No
NA
Space
Salaries
Promotion
Faculty search
Curriculum (graduate and/or undergraduate)
Graduate admissions
Diversity committees
Awards
16. Please indicate whether you currently hold, or have held in the past three years, any of the following positions on the
UW-Madison campus.
Check all that apply.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Currently hold?
No
Yes
Held in the past 3 years?
Yes
No
Assistant or Associate Chair
Department Chair
Assistant or Associate Dean
Dean
Director of center/institute
Section/area head
Principal Investigator on a research grant
Principal Investigator on an educational grant
Other, please explain:_____________________
133
Page 3
17. Have you held any of the following leadership positions outside UW-Madison in the past three years?
Check all that apply.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Yes
No
President or high-level leadership position in a professional association or organization?
Executive board member in a professional association or organization?
President or high-level leadership position in a service organization (including community service)?
Executive board member in a service organization (including community service)?
Chair of a major committee in a professional organization or association?
Editor of a journal?
Editorial board member of a journal?
Member of a national commission or panel?
18. Do you have an interest in taking on any formal leadership positions at the UW-Madison (e.g., dean, chair, director of
center/institute, section/area head)?
a. Yes
b. No
19. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your interactions with colleagues and others
in your primary department/unit? Please answer using the department or unit that you consider to be your primary
department or unit.
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4 for each statement.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
I am treated with respect by colleagues.
I am treated with respect by students.
I am treated with respect by staff.
I am treated with respect by my department chair.
I feel excluded from an informal network in my department.
I encounter unwritten rules concerning how one is expected to
interact with colleagues.
I am reluctant to bring up issues that concern me about the behavior
of my departmental colleagues for fear it might affect my reputation
or advancement.
Colleagues in my department solicit my opinion about work-related
matters (such as teaching, research, and service).
In my department, I feel that my research is considered mainstream.
I feel that my colleagues value my research.
I have to work harder than my departmental colleagues to be
perceived as a legitimate scholar.
I do a great deal of work that is not formally recognized by my
department.
I feel like I “fit” in my department.
I feel isolated in my department.
I feel isolated on the UW campus overall.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
20. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your participation in the decision-making
process in your primary department/unit?
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4 for each statement.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
I feel like a full and equal participant in the problem-solving and
decision-making.
I have a voice in how resources are allocated.
Meetings allow for all participants to share their views.
Committee assignments are rotated fairly to allow for participation of
all faculty.
My department chair involves me in decision-making.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
134
Page 4
21. At UW-Madison, climate is defined as the following:
Behaviors within a workplace or learning environment, ranging from subtle to cumulative to
dramatic, that can influence whether an individual feels personally safe, listened to, valued,
and treated fairly and with respect (Campus Climate Network Group, 2002).
On a scale from 1 (very negative) to 5 (very positive), please rate the climate in your primary department. Circle one.
Very Negative
1
Negative
2
Mediocre
3
Positive
4
Very Positive
5
Satisfaction with UW-Madison
We would like to know how you feel about the University of Wisconsin-Madison in general.
22. How satisfied are you, in general, with your job at UW-Madison? Circle one.
Very Satisfied
1
Somewhat Satisfied
2
Somewhat Dissatisfied
3
Very Dissatisfied
4
23. How satisfied are you, in general, with the way your career has progressed at the UW-Madison? Circle one.
Very Satisfied
1
Somewhat Satisfied
2
Somewhat Dissatisfied
3
Very Dissatisfied
4
24. If I had it to do over again, I would accept my current position. Circle one.
Strongly Agree
1
Somewhat Agree
2
Somewhat Disagree
3
Strongly Disagree
4
25. If a candidate for a tenure-track faculty position asked you about your department as a place to work, you would:
Check one.
a. Strongly recommend your department as a place to work.
b. Recommend your department with reservations.
c. Not recommend your department as a place to work.
26. What factors contribute most to your satisfaction at UW-Madison?
27. What factors detract most from your satisfaction at UW-Madison?
28. Have you considered leaving UW-Madison in the past three years?
a. Yes
b. No
Go to question 29
Go to question 32
29. How seriously have you considered leaving UW-Madison? Circle one.
Not very seriously
1
Somewhat seriously
2
Quite Seriously
3
Very seriously
4
30. What factors contributed to your consideration to leave UW-Madison?
31. What factors contributed to your consideration to stay at UW-Madison?
135
Page 5
Institutional and Departmental Climate Change
If you were first hired at UW-Madison after January 2003, please go to items 35-36 on the next page.
The UW-Madison is continually working to improve the working, teaching, and learning climate for all University
employees and students. We are interested to know to the extent to which you have seen or experienced change in the
following areas in the past three years.
32. Since January 2003, how has the climate changed, if at all, for the following individuals or areas? See item #21 for a
definition of “climate.”
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 5 for
each statement.
Significantly
More
Positive
1
Somewhat
More
Positive
2
Stayed
The
Same
3
Somewhat
More
Negative
4
Significantly
More
Negative
5
Don’t
Know
For me personally on campus
For me personally in my department
For other faculty in my department
For staff in my department
For women faculty on campus
For women staff on campus
For faculty of color on campus
For staff of color on campus
On the UW-Madison campus, overall
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
33. If you believe climate has changed in one or more of these areas, to what do you attribute these changes?
34. Please indicate your skill levels in each of the following areas as they were in Spring 2003, and as they are now.
Circle one for 2003 and one for 2006.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
Creating a welcoming environment for
faculty and staff in my department.
Treating others in my department
collegially.
Recognizing how my actions affect
others.
Establishing search procedures to ensure
the equitable review of candidates.
Establishing search procedures to ensure
the equitable hiring of candidates.
Creating a welcoming environment for
new hires.
Mentoring junior faculty.
Increasing the visibility of women at UWMadison.
Evaluating tenure cases equitably.
Identifying climate issues in my
department.
Addressing climate issues in my
department.
Addressing climate issues at UWMadison.
Spring Semester 2003
No
Some
High
Skill
Skill
Skill
0
1
2
Spring Semester 2006
No
Some
High
Skill
Skill
Skill
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
2
136
Page 6
UW-Madison Programs and Resources
UW-Madison has implemented a number of programs designed to improve the working environments of faculty on the
UW-Madison campus. In the questions below, please help us to evaluate some of these campus-wide initiatives.
35-36. For each program available on the UW-Madison campus, please rate your perception of the value of the program
and indicate whether you have used the program.
36. Have you
35. How valuable is each program? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 4 (whether or not you have used it).
ever used or
participated in
this program?
UW-Madison Programs
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
Extension of the tenure clock
Dual Career Hiring Program
Provost's Strategic Hiring Initiative
Anna Julia Cooper Postdoctoral
Fellowships
Workshops for Search Committees
Family Leave
Ombuds for Faculty
New Faculty Workshops
Equity in Faculty Salaries Policy
Women Faculty Mentoring Program
Committee on Women
Office of Campus Child Care
Cluster Hire Initiative
Sexual Harassment Information
Sessions
Vilas Life Cycle Professorships
Plan 2008 Diversity Initiative
Women in Science and Engineering
Leadership Institute (WISELI)
Never Heard of
Program
0
Very
Valuable
1
Quite
Valuable
2
Somewhat
Valuable
3
Not at all
Valuable
4
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
0
1
2
3
4
Yes
No
Sexual Harassment
The UW-Madison defines sexual harassment as including unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and
verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when such conduct influences employment or academic decisions,
interferes with an employee’s work, or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work or learning environment. Please
use this definition as you answer the next two questions.
37. Using this definition, within the last three years, how often, if at all, have you experienced sexual harassment on the
UW-Madison campus? Check one.
Never
1 to 2 times
3 to 5 times
More than 5 times
38. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about sexual harassment at UW-Madison.
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4 for each statement.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Sexual harassment is taken seriously on campus.
Sexual harassment is a big problem on campus.
I know the steps to take if a person comes to me with a
problem with sexual harassment.
The process for resolving complaints about sexual
harassment at UW-Madison is effective.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
Don’t
Know
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
DK
DK
1
2
3
4
DK
1
2
3
4
DK
137
Page 7
Balancing Personal and Professional Life
We would like to know more about your family living arrangements and the extent to which faculty at UW-Madison are
able to balance their professional and personal lives.
39. What is your current marital or cohabitation status?
a. I am married or partnered and I live with my spouse/partner.
Go to question 40
b. I am married or partnered, but we reside in different locations.
Go to question 40
c. I am single (am not married and am not partnered).
Go to question 41
40. What is your spouse or partner’s current employment status?
a. Full-time
b. Part-time
c. Not employed
d. Retired
41. Do you have any children?
a. Yes
b. No
Go to question 42
Go to question 43
42. Living arrangements and ages of children:
For each age range of your child/children, please check the box
that most closely describes their living arrangements.
a.
b.
c.
Living With
Me Full
Time
Living With
Me Part
Time
Not Living With
Me
No Children in
Age Range
Preschool aged children (ages 0 – 5)
School aged children (ages 6 – 18)
Older children (age 19 and older)
43. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements about balancing your personal and
professional lives.
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4. Circle NA if the statement does not
apply to you.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
I am usually satisfied with the way in which I balance my
professional and personal life.
I have seriously considered leaving UW-Madison in order to
achieve better balance between work and personal life.
I often have to forgo professional activities (e.g., sabbaticals,
conferences) because of personal responsibilities.
Personal responsibilities and commitments have slowed
down my career progression.
Working long hours is an important sign of commitment in my
department.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
NA
1
2
3
4
NA
1
2
3
4
NA
1
2
3
4
NA
1
2
3
4
NA
1
2
3
4
NA
138
Page 8
44. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding your department/unit’s
support of family obligations. If you have an appointment in more than one department or unit, please answer the
following questions using the department or unit that you consider to be your primary department or unit.
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4. Circle NA if the
statement does not apply to you.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Most faculty in my department are supportive of
colleagues who want to balance their family and
career lives.
It is difficult for faculty in my department to adjust
their work schedules to care for children or other
family members.
Department meetings frequently occur early in the
morning or late in the day.
The department communicates the options
available for faculty who have a new baby.
The department is supportive of family leave.
Faculty who have children are considered to be
less committed to their careers.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
Don’t
Know
NA
1
2
3
4
DK
NA
1
2
3
4
DK
NA
1
2
3
4
DK
NA
1
2
3
4
DK
NA
1
2
3
4
DK
NA
1
2
3
4
DK
NA
45. A person’s health has been shown to be related to their work environment. Please answer the following questions
about your health.
How would you rate your overall health at the present time? Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 5.
Excellent
1
Very good
2
Good
3
Fair
4
Poor
5
46. How often do you feel:
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 5 for each item.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Happy?
Fatigued?
Stressed?
Nervous?
Depressed?
Short-tempered?
Well-rested?
Physically fit?
Very often
1
Quite often
2
Sometimes
3
Once in a while
4
Rarely
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
47. Do you have a significant health issue or disability?
a. Yes
Go to question 48
Go to question 49
b. No
48. In dealing with this health issue or disability, how accommodating is:
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4 for each statement.
a.
b.
Your primary department?
UW-Madison?
Very
1
Quite
2
Somewhat
3
Not at all
4
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
49. Using your own definition of ‘burnout’, check the item that describes you most of the time:
a. I enjoy my work. I have no symptoms of burnout.
b. Occasionally I am under stress, and I don’t always have as much energy as I once did, but I don’t feel burned out.
c. I am definitely burning out and have one or more symptoms of burnout, such as physical and emotional
exhaustion.
d. The symptoms of burnout that I am experiencing won’t go away. I think about frustrations at work a lot.
e. I feel completely burned out and wonder if I can go on. I am at the point where I may need some changes or may
need to seek some sort of help.
139
Page 9
50. What could be changed about the culture of UW-Madison that would lower the stress on the faculty?
Diversity Issues at UW-Madison
51. With respect to the recruitment of, climate for, and leadership of women faculty, how much would you agree or
disagree with the following statements about your primary department/unit?
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4 for each statement.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
There are too few women faculty in my department.
My department has identified ways to recruit women
faculty.
My department has actively recruited women faculty.
The climate for women in my department is good.
My department has identified ways to enhance the climate
for women.
My department has taken steps to enhance the climate for
women.
Women in my department must work harder than men to
convince colleagues of their competence.
My department has too few women faculty in leadership
positions.
My department has identified ways to move women into
leadership positions.
My department has made an effort to promote women into
leadership positions.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
Don’t
Know
1
2
3
4
DK
1
2
3
4
DK
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
DK
DK
1
2
3
4
DK
1
2
3
4
DK
1
2
3
4
DK
1
2
3
4
DK
1
2
3
4
DK
1
2
3
4
DK
52. With respect to the recruitment of, climate for, and leadership of faculty of color, how much would you agree or
disagree with the following statements about your primary department/unit?
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4 for each statement.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
There are too few faculty of color in my department.
My department has identified ways to recruit faculty of
color.
My department has actively recruited faculty of color.
The climate for faculty of color in my department is good.
My department has identified ways to enhance the climate
for faculty of color.
My department has taken steps to enhance the climate for
faculty of color.
Faculty of color in my department must work harder than
majority faculty to convince colleagues of their
competence.
My department has too few faculty of color in leadership
positions.
My department has identified ways to move faculty of color
into leadership positions.
My department has made an effort to promote faculty of
color into leadership positions.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
Don’t
Know
1
2
3
4
DK
1
2
3
4
DK
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
DK
DK
1
2
3
4
DK
1
2
3
4
DK
1
2
3
4
DK
1
2
3
4
DK
1
2
3
4
DK
1
2
3
4
DK
140
Page 10
53. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about commitment to diversity at UW-Madison?
Circle one number on a scale of 1 to 4 for each statement.
a.
b.
c.
Agree
Strongly
1
Agree
Somewhat
2
Disagree
Somewhat
3
Disagree
Strongly
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
Commitment to diversity is demonstrated in my department.
Commitment to diversity is demonstrated in my school/college.
Commitment to diversity is demonstrated at the UW-Madison.
Personal Demographics
As always, responses to the following questions will be kept confidential. Information from this survey will be presented in
aggregate form above the departmental level (such as college/school or division) so that individual respondents cannot
be identified.
54. What is your sex?
a.
Male
b.
Female
55. What is your race/ethnicity? Check all that apply.
a.
Southeast Asian
b.
Other Asian/Pacific Islander
c.
Black/African American, not of Hispanic origin
d.
Hispanic
e.
Native American (American Indian or Alaskan Native)
f.
White, not of Hispanic origin
g.
Other, please explain:
56. What is your sexual orientation?
a.
Heterosexual
b.
Gay/Lesbian
c.
Bisexual
57. Are you a U.S. citizen?
a.
Yes
b.
No
58. Which department/unit did you have in mind when completing this survey?
59. As a general measure of socioeconomic background, what is/was your parents’ highest levels of education?
Check NA if not applicable.
a.
b.
Less than high
school
Some high
school
High school
diploma
Some
college
College
degree
Advanced
degree
Mother
Father
THANK YOU for your time!
Look for results to be posted at http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu in late 2006.
141
Page 11
NA
Section 4: Appendices
Appendix 2: List of Departments
142
Appendix 2. WISELI-defined Science Departments
Division/Department
School/
College*
"Science"
Department
CALS
CALS
ENGR
ENGR
ENGR
ENGR
ENGR
ENGR
ENGR
ENGR
ENGR
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
CALS
CALS
CALS
CALS
CALS
CALS
CALS
CALS
CALS
CALS
CALS
CALS
CALS
CALS
EDUC
MISC
L&S
L&S
L&S
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Physical Sciences
Biological Systems Engineering
Soil Science
Chemical & Biological Engineering
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Electrical & Computer Engineering
Biomedical Engineering
Industrial Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Materials Science & Engineering
Engineering Physics
Engineering Professional Development
Astronomy
Chemistry
Computer Sciences
Geology & Geophysics
Mathematics
Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences
Physics
Statistics
Biological Sciences
Agronomy
Animal Science
Bacteriology
Biochemistry
Dairy Science
Entomology
Food Microbiology & Toxicology
Food Science
Genetics
Horticulture
Nutritional Sciences
Plant Pathology
Forest Ecology & Management
Natural Resources - Wildlife Ecology
Kinesiology
Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies
Botany
Communicative Disorders
Zoology
Anatomy
Anesthesiology
Biostatistics & Medical Informatics
Family Medicine
Genetics
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Medical History & Bioethics
143
Division/Department
Human Oncology
Medicine
Dermatology
Medical Microbiology
Medical Physics
Neurology
Neurological Surgery
Oncology
Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences
Orthopedics & Rehabilitation
Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
Pediatrics
Pharmacology
Biomolecular Chemistry
Physiology
Population Health Sciences
Psychiatry
Radiology
Surgery
School of Pharmacy
Animal Health & Biomedical Sciences
Medical Sciences
Pathobiological Sciences
Comparative Biosciences
Surgical Sciences
School/
College*
"Science"
Department
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
MED
PHARM
VET
VET
VET
VET
VET
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
CALS
CALS
CALS
CALS
CALS
BUS
EDUC
EDUC
EDUC
EDUC
EDUC
EDUC
SOHE
LAW
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Social Studies
Agricultural & Applied Economics
Life Sciences Communication
Rural Sociology
Natural Resources-Landscape Architecture
Urban & Regional Planning
School of Business
Counseling Psychology
Curriculum & Instruction
Educational Leadership & Policy Analysis
Educational Policy Studies
Educational Psychology
Rehabilitation Psychology & Special Education
School of Human Ecology
Law School
Anthropology
Afro-American Studies
Communication Arts
Economics
Ethnic Studies
Geography
LaFollette School of Public Affairs
School of Journalism & Mass Communication
School of Library & Information Studies
Political Science
144
School/
College*
"Science"
Department
Psychology
Social Work
Sociology
Urban & Regional Planning
School of Nursing
Professional Development & Applied Studies
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
NURS
MISC
No
No
No
No
No
No
Art
Dance
African Languages & Literature
Art History
Classics
Comparative Literature
East Asian Languages & Literature
English
French & Italian
German
Hebrew & Semitic Studies
History
History of Science
Linguistics
School of Music
Philosophy
Scandinavian Studies
Slavic Languages
Languages & Cultures of Asia
Spanish & Portuguese
Theatre & Drama
Women's Studies Program
Social Sciences
Liberal Studies & the Arts
EDUC
EDUC
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
L&S
MISC
MISC
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Division/Department
Humanities
* BUS = School of Business
CALS = College of Agricultural & Life Sciences
EDUC = School of Education
ENGR = College of Engineering
L&S = College of Letters & Science
LAW = Law School
MED = Medical School
MISC = Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (IES), Division of Continuing
Studies, Libraries
NURS = School of Nursing
PHARM = School of Pharmacy
SOHE = School of Human Ecology
145