Annual Report: 1008549
Annual Report for Period:10/2010 - 09/2011
Principal Investigator: Steffen-Fluhr, Nancy .
Organization: NJIT
Submitted By:
Steffen-Fluhr, Nancy - Principal Investigator
Submitted on: 06/01/2011
Award ID: 1008549
Title:
More than the Sum of Its Parts:Advancing Women at NJIT through Collaborative Research Networks
Project Participants
Senior Personnel
Name: Steffen-Fluhr, Nancy
Worked for more than 160 Hours:
Contribution to Project:
Yes
Name: Wu, Yi-Fang
Worked for more than 160 Hours:
Contribution to Project:
Yes
Name: Friedman, Robert
Worked for more than 160 Hours:
Contribution to Project:
Yes
Name: Passerini, Katia
Worked for more than 160 Hours:
Contribution to Project:
Yes
Name: Hiltz, Starr
Worked for more than 160 Hours:
No
Contribution to Project:
Consultant on self-reported social network data collection and analysis
Name: Gruzd, Anatoliy
Worked for more than 160 Hours:
Yes
Contribution to Project:
Consultant on social network data collection and analysis
Name: Zhu, Mingzhu
Worked for more than 160 Hours:
Yes
Contribution to Project:
RA focusing on database construction and automated bibilographic data collection
Post-doc
Graduate Student
Name: Wang, Yiran
Worked for more than 160 Hours:
Yes
Contribution to Project:
RA focusing on self-reported data collection and SNA analysis
Page 1 of 5
Annual Report: 1008549
Undergraduate Student
Name: Vo, Jonathan
Worked for more than 160 Hours:
No
Contribution to Project:
Designed new NJIT ADVANCE brochure.
Name: Dave, Vaidehi
Worked for more than 160 Hours:
No
Contribution to Project:
Redesigned and maintained NJIT ADVANCE website.
Technician, Programmer
Name: Sears, Mary
Worked for more than 160 Hours:
No
Contribution to Project:
Helped with brochure design and event logistics
Other Participant
Research Experience for Undergraduates
Organizational Partners
New Jersey Technology Council
The NJ Technology Council co-sponsored the NJIT ADVANCE April 20 Innovation and Collaboration Research Showcase and publicized the
event to its members.
UMDNJ - School of Health Related Professions
NJIT ADVANCE collaborates with UMDNJ Professor Ellen Townes Anderson, Department of Neurosciences, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical
School and director of the UMDNJ Faculty Mentoring Program. We share best practice in mentoring and are exploring the possibility of using
our new Research Map tool to foster cross-institutional collaboration among NJIT and UMDNJ faculty. (See ACTIVITIES
report.)Townes-Anderson serves on the NJIT ADVANCE External Advisory Committee.
Other Collaborators or Contacts
Activities and Findings
Research and Education Activities: (See PDF version submitted by PI at the end of the report)
See attached file.
Findings:
The FINDINGS SECTION is included in the ACTIVITIES REPORT I have uploaded.
Training and Development:
The TRAINING SECTION is included in the ACTIVITIES REPORT I have uploaded.
Outreach Activities:
The OUTREACH SECTION is included in the ACTIVITIES REPORT I have uploaded.
Page 2 of 5
Annual Report: 1008549
Journal Publications
Books or Other One-time Publications
Web/Internet Site
URL(s):
http://advance.njit.edu/
Description:
NJIT ADVANCE Website
Other Specific Products
Product Type:
Research Poster
Product Description:
A research poster describing how ADVANCE uses social network analysis to drive institutional transformation.
Sharing Information:
The poster was presented by PI Steffen-Fluhr at the November ADVANCE NSF PIs meeting in Alexandria, VA.
Product Type:
Press Release/News Story
Product Description:
Steffen-Fluhr co-wrote a press release/ news story that NJIT Communications used to officially announce the new grant.
Sharing Information:
The story was released to media on 14 December and was picked up fairly widely on the Web and re-disseminated:
http://www.njit.edu/news/2010/2010-521.php (8,620 hits on Google).
Product Type:
Conference Presentation
Product Description:
ADVANCE RA Yiran Wang wrote a conference paper describing the NJIT ADVANCE self-reported network study and successfully submitted
it to peer review for the INSNA Subbelt Conference.
Sharing Information:
Wang presented the paper on 10 February 2011 at the Sunbelt XXXI Conference (International Network for Social Network Analysis) in St.
Pete Beach, Florida ("Increasing the Reliability, Sustainability and Scalability of Social Network Data Collection")
Product Type:
Data or databases
Product Description:
NJIT ADVANCE has created a database of all publications authored by NJIT faculty between 2000 and 2011. A subset of this DB contains
1,533 publications co-authored by at least two NJIT faculty.
Sharing Information:
Analysis of the DB and dissemination of the results is the core work of the NJIT ADVANCE project and will be disseminated in journal
articles and conference papers, along with discussion of innovative network data collection methods. Preliminary results are presented in this
annual report.
Product Type:
Page 3 of 5
Annual Report: 1008549
Audio or video products
Product Description:
Co-PI Katia Passerini used an NJIT "Stories of Innovation" video shoot as an occasion to talk about the work of our ADVANCE project. Nancy
Steffen-Fluhr also appears in the video.
Sharing Information:
The video is available on the NJIT main website at http://www.njit.edu/edge/#Innovations14 and on the NJIT Advance website.
Product Type:
Audio or video products
Product Description:
An archived WIMBA audio/slide version of ADVANCE consultant Anatoliy Gruzd's February 24 workshop presentation "Emerging Trends in
Online Research Dissemination and Collaboration"
Sharing Information:
The Wimba audio recording of the ADVANCE February 24 colloquium, plus Gruzd's PowerPoint slides, can be accessed on the NJIT
ADVANCE website by clicking Gruzd's photo.
Product Type:
Brochure
Product Description:
A new NJIT ADVANCE color brochure: 4 sides, 8.5" by 11" each.
Sharing Information:
The brochure was distributed at the ADVANCE April 20 Showcase and is available in digital form on the ADVANCE website.
Product Type:
Audio or video products
Product Description:
In April, research assistant Yiran Wang created a Camtasia Studio demonstration showing how our Research Map tool can help faculty identify
potential collaborators.
Sharing Information:
Wang's Camtasia demo was rolled out at the April 20 Advance Research Showcase and is now available on the NJIT ADVANCE website
Product Type:
Research Poster
Product Description:
ADVANCE RA Mingzhu Zhu created a research poster describing ADVANCE data collection methods.
Sharing Information:
The poster was presented at the ADVANCE April 20 Showcase and is now available on the ADVANCE website.
Product Type:
Research posters
Product Description:
Digital copies of the April 20 Showcase research posters are available.
Sharing Information:
The posters can be accessed from a virtual archive on the ADVANCE website, along with a video of the panel discussion
Product Type:
Instruments or equipment developed
Product Description:
ADVANCE researchers have created and fielded a new seven page survey instrument and protocol designed to collect network data from
human subjects.
Sharing Information:
Page 4 of 5
Annual Report: 1008549
Other ADVANCE projects and SNA researchers can use the NJIT ADVANCE survey and data collection methods to collect faculty network
data at their home institutions.
Product Type:
Conference Paper
Product Description:
Ye, Lingun and Anatoliy Gruzd. "Studying research collaborations in GRAND via coauthorship networks." GRAND 211 Conference. May
12-14. Vancouver, BC, Canada
Sharing Information:
This paper will be published in conference proceedings.
Contributions
Contributions within Discipline:
The CONTRIBUTIONS SECTION has been included in the ACTIVITIES REPORT that I have uploaded.
Contributions to Other Disciplines:
This aspect of NJIT ADVANCE contributions is discussed in the Contributions Section included in the ACTIVITIES REPORT.
Contributions to Human Resource Development:
This aspect of NJIT ADVANCE contributions is also discussed in the Contributions Section included in the ACTIVITIES REPORT I have
uploaded.
Contributions to Resources for Research and Education:
Our Contributions Section addresses this issue as well. Please see Contributions Section of our ACTIVITIES REPORT.
Contributions Beyond Science and Engineering:
We summarize the broader impacts of our ADVANCE Project work in the Contributions Section in the ACTIVITIES REPORT.
Conference Proceedings
Special Requirements
Special reporting requirements: None
Change in Objectives or Scope: None
Animal, Human Subjects, Biohazards: None
Categories for which nothing is reported:
Any Journal
Any Book
Any Conference
Page 5 of 5
NJIT ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Project
An Accomplishment-Based Renewal Grant
Annual Report for 2010-2011
ACTIVITIES & FINDINGS SECTION
Principal Investigator: Steffen-Fluhr, Nancy
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT)
Award ID: HRD- 1008549
Title: More Than the Sum of Its Parts: Advancing Women at NJIT through Collaborative
Research Networks
Capsule Description: The NSF-funded ADVANCE Program at NJIT pioneers the use of social
network analysis to affect institutional change and ensure the full participation of women in
academic science and engineering.
II. A. Major Research and Education Activities
Overview of Project Background, Goals and Methodology: The roots of this project go back
to 2005 when research for our Status of Women Faculty Report made it clear that at NJIT, as at
other similar institutions, women felt isolated and were isolated, outside the information loop. In
our initial proof-of-concept grant, we addressed this issue by stimulating greater
interconnectivity among researchers and, simultaneously, studying existing patterns of
interconnectivity. The concept at issue was whether or not supporting collaboration supports
women faculty. Our initial research suggested that it does, especially when collaboration occurs
across lines of discipline and gender and is informed by data from social network analysis. We
found significant correlations between collaboration, network structure, and career
advancement. Our 2010-2012 accomplishment-based renewal grant builds on that work,
moving from concept to application and institutionalization....in particular, the use of social
network analysis to create a data-driven approach to faculty mentoring.
In this annual report, we begin with a brief discussion of start-up processes. Then,
following the structure of our management plan, we document our Year One activities and
preliminary findings in three broad categories:
1. Collecting and Mapping Network Data
2. Supporting Research Collaboration
3. Disseminating Best Practices in Retention
1. Initial Project Management Processes: Preliminary management group discussions
began in the summer of 2010, even before the project was officially funded on 30
September. This head-start allowed the primary research team to begin work in the fall,
while the PI simultaneously addressed the requirements of the Advance cooperative
agreement.
1.1. Project Management Plan: Formalizing the discussion we had had over the summer,
soon after the project inception date, we fleshed out the Management Plan presented
in our ABR proposal. The detailed, two-year work plan--presented to NSF ADVANCE
Program Directors Mack and Rogers during the 2 February site visit--maps specific
1
activities to project strategies and personnel, indicating who is assigned to each subtask, when it is to be started and completed, and, most importantly, the relationship of
each task to ADVANCE objectives. A separate Assessment Plan describes how
each activity is to be measured. (See also the NJIT ADVANCE Evaluation Plan
submitted to NSF ADVANCE program officers along with Quarterly Report #2.)
1.2. Internal Steering Committee: Actualizing the support strategies outlined in our
Sustainability Plan, we formed an 11-person Internal Steering Committee composed
of key university players who had already indicated their ongoing support of
ADVANCE goals and methods. (See list of names and titles below.) The committee,
chaired by Provost Ian Gatley, participated in the initial NSF Site Visit on 2 February
2011.
NJIT ADVANCE Internal Steering Committee Members
Ian Gatley, Provost (Steering Committee Chair)
Lisa Axe, Associate Dean, Newark College of Engineering
Fadi Deek, Dean, College of Science & Liberal Arts
Eugene P. Deess, Director, Institutional Research and Planning
Norbert Elliot, Chair, NJIT Middle States Self-Study Team
Rose Federici, Assistant to the Provost/ co-chair, Committee on Women’s Issues
Judith Redling, Associate Provost
James Robertson, Director, Web Services*
Judith Sheft, Associate VP, Technology Development
Richard Sweeney, University Librarian
David Ullman, Associate Provost for Information Services & Technology/ CIO
*Note: In March 2011, James Robertson left the employ of NJIT to become Executive
Director of Web Services at NYU. ADVANCE maintains a collaborative relationship with
Jim (he is our chief contact with Elsevier), but he is no longer eligible to serve on our
internal steering committee.
1.3. External Advisory Committee: We have successfully created an External Advisory
Committee composed of people who have a well-established commitment to
ADVANCE goals and special expertise relevant to the thrust of our project. (See list of
names and titles below.) Provost Gatley will serve as convener and ex-officio
member. The first formal meeting of the committee will take place early in the Fall
semester, 2011.
NJIT ADVANCE External Advisory Committee Members
Dr. Laura Kramer, Montclair University (Emerita) & former NSF ADVANCE Program
Director;
Susan Metz, Co-Founder, WEPAN;
Dr. Ellen Townes-Anderson, Professor, Department of Neurosciences, UMDNJ-New
Jersey Medical School and director of the UMDNJ Faculty Mentoring Program;
Dr. Caroline Haythornthwaite, Director and Professor, School of Library, Archival &
Information Studies, University of British Columbia.
2
1.4. Indicator Data : During the start-up period, we reviewed the NSF 12 Indicators with
Institutional Research and Planning director Perry Deess and arranged for him to
collect the required data. Deess met with ADVANCE Program Directors Dr. Kelly
Mack and Dr. Amy Rogers during the February 2 Site Visit to clarify the underlying
research questions being addressed by the Indicators. Because of the focus and
scope of the our grant, the Program Directors agreed to exempt NJIT ADVANCE from
having to report Indicator #11 ("Study of space allocation of STEM faculty by gender
(with additional controls such as department, etc.")
1.5. Project Space: By January 2011, we had identified and secured office and lab space
out of which the Advance team could work. Our public headquarters is in the Murray
Center for Women in Technology (2nd floor Campus Center). (Signage directs visitors
to the reception area.) We share a large lab (4219) in the GITC building. We also
have additional office space on the first floor on Fenster Hall.
1.6. External Evaluator: In March 2011, Dr. Katherine Mayberry accepted an invitation to
serve as the NJIT ADVANCE Project's external evaluator. Dr. Mayberry, Vice
President for Special Projects at the Rochester Institute of Technology, is an
experienced evaluator and a strong advocate for diversity in higher education. Since
2007, she has served as a Periodic Report Review reviewer for the Middle States
Commission for Higher Education. In 2007, she was the first reviewer in the Middle
States analysis of the NJIT accreditation self-study i.e., Mayberry understands
institutional transformation and she understands NJIT. We believe she will serve us
effectively an our external evaluator.
1.6.1.1.
Evaluation Plan: We have submitted a detailed two-year Evaluation Plan
to NSF ADVANCE Program Directors Mack and Rogers and have reviewed
the approved plan with Mayberry. The key evaluation questions are
incorporated into the language of the consultant's contract being used to hire
Mayberry. She has agreed to submit the first of her two evaluation reports by
the end of the Year One funding period (29 September 2011).
1.7. Site Visit: On 2 February 2011, ADVANCE hosted Program Directors Mack and
Rogers for a one-day site visit to the NJIT campus. The agenda included an initial
briefing and discussion with the NJIT ADVANCE team; a meeting with Provost Gatley,
Associate Provost Redling, and CSLA Dean Deek; a working lunch with the
ADVANCE team and the Internal Steering Committee; an informal focus group with
women tenure-track faculty members; a discussion of NSF Indicators with Institutional
Research Director Deess; a review of budgetary guidelines with representatives from
the Grants and Contracts Accounting Office; and a final debriefing session with the
ADVANCE team. The PI and two of the three Co-PIs participated in the site visit. (The
third Co-PI, Dr Robert Friedman, could not attend because a major ice storm the
previous day had destroyed part of his house.) ADVANCE RAs Yiran Wang and
Mingzhu Zhu, doctoral students in Information Systems, attended the morning briefing
session and the working lunch, as did Murray Center staff members Talina Knox
(Assistant Director) and Fran Sears (Special Projects Manager).
2. Collecting and Mapping Network Data: In broad terms, the goal of NJIT ADVANCE is to
demonstrate that social network analysis can be used to affect institutional change and
ensure the full participation of women in academic science and engineering. Over the next
16 months, ADVANCE plans to introduce network mapping tools that will make it easier for
3
faculty to locate potential interdisciplinary research collaborators and to take snapshots of
their professional networks as they develop over time. These new network mapping tools
will also help university administrators spot blockages in information flow, identify emerging
leaders, and assess mentoring programs.
2.1. Automating Publications Data Collection: In order for network mapping to be a
sustainable, scalable practice in mentoring and institutional transformation, network
data collection needs to be automated and accurate. Beginning in October 2010, coPI Brook Wu laid the groundwork necessary to achieving this crucial objective,
identifying and training an Information Systems doctoral student, Mingzhu Zhu, to
assist her. Wu and Zhu analyzed the structure of the project's existing database (DB),
created during the first phase of the NJIT ADVANCE grant (2006-2010). The
database is substantial, containing over 7200 journal publications co-authored by
NJIT faculty from 2000 to 2008. However, the structure cumbersome; so Wu and Zhu
decided to redesign and repopulate the DB using a two-phase approach to achieve
efficiency, accuracy, and sustainability.
2.1.1.
The Phase One Approach uses Google scholar, a meta-search engine
that receives results from many digital libraries and databases. Human Resources
provided ADVANCE with a spreadsheet containing the names of all NJIT faculty (20002010) by gender and rank. Wu and Zhu wrote a program that sends each faculty name
to Google Scholar's author search function. A parser program for Google Scholar is then
used to process each paper in the search results. Parsed raw data from Google Scholar
for each paper consists of a title link, author names, a short snippet of content, the name
of the source digital library or database, a citation count, etc.
Figure 1. Display of Publications in Google Scholar and ACM
The title link leads to a web page dynamically generated by the source database using a
unique pattern and display format. Using the pattern, a parser program created by Wu
and Zhu extracts bibliographic information on that web page.
4
Figure 2. ACM Parser and Parsed Results
In order to provide the level of accuracy needed for subsequent network analysis, noise
has to be removed from the data. The "common name problem" is especially
troublesome--i.e., distinguishing the work of an NJIT faculty member from the work of
non-NJIT authors who have the exact same name. Luckily, there are no NJIT faculty
who have an identical full name, although the common academic practice of using first
initials creates some issues. In general, however, institutional affiliation information can
be used to remove publications of same-name authors who are not from NJIT. NJIT
students and NJIT faculty who have identical names can generally be distinguished by
their departmental affiliation. Searching a list of NJIT student names identifies the rare
instances where students have identical names with faculty in the same department.
They can then be distinguished semi-automatically.
In the initial run, a Google Scholar meta search returned 63,937 raw search hits
matching the names of NJIT faculty. These hits come from more than 2,500 separate
source databases. Predictably, the raw data includes many duplicates, different
versions of the same work, incorrectly parsed bibliographic data, missing affiliations, as
well as common name problems. Wu and Zhu are cleaning the raw data using the
procedures described above. This is a time-consuming process, largely because, In
theory, one dedicated parser is needed for each digital library or database. To speed up
the operation, Wu and Zhu are prioritizing the development of parsers for databases
based on the number of NJIT faculty papers they contain. Although the raw faculty
publication hits come from more than 2,500 databases, many of them are subsets of
larger databases. To date, Wu and Zhu have developed 35 parsers and estimate that
they need 45 more before they can start parsing the bibliographic data on the source
web pages they gathered via the title link in the Google Scholar search results. They will
determine whether they need additional parsers once the 80 parsers are deployed to
process the raw data.
The Co-Authorship DB: Because other ADVANCE team members needed
bibliometric data immediately for analysis and mapping, Wu decided to focus first on
papers co-authored by NJIT faculty with each other, building this subset of the DB before
she and Zhu finished constructing the complete publications DB. In the DB subset, only
papers with at least two NJIT authors qualified for inclusion, which significantly reduced
the noise, narrowing the candidates from 63,937 raw search hits to 2,043 papers.
Method: Since there are no NJIT faculty members with identical full names, after
a name is used in an author search in Google Scholar, a publication list is generated for
that name. If a paper is co-authored by two NJIT faculty, this paper should appear in
two different publication lists. e.g., Suppose for two authors, A and B, two publication
lists named Pa and Pb are denoted:
Publication list for author A: Pa={P(a)1, P(a)2, P(a)3, ……., P(a)n}, and
Publication list for author B: Pb={P(b)1,P(b)2, P(b)3, ……., P(b)m}
5
If a publication p is coauthored by A and B, then p ∈ Pa and p ∈ Pb. That is, coauthored papers are identified by the common titles between publication lists. Suppose
Title(P(a)2)=Title(P(b)3), then Author A’s second paper is the same as the Author B’s
third paper which is then selected as a candidate for inclusion in the co-authorship
database. Each paper is linked to the main source page via the title link and to other
source pages via the "all versions" link. All these versions of each paper are
downloaded. A program checks whether the main source page of a paper contains
variations of the "NJIT" affiliation designation. If it does, that paper is labeled "NJIT" in
the database and qualifies for inclusion. Of the 2,043 papers initially downloaded, about
600 papers do not have variations of "NJIT" in their main source page. As a second
step, all other source pages linked to the "all versions" link are checked manually.
Duplicates caused by incorrectly parsed titles generated by Google Scholar and
other problems are eliminated manually from the database. To avoid inadvertently
including publications written by students, Wu and Zhu searched the NJIT Van Houten
Library's ETD service, a database of electronic thesis and dissertations. They identified
eight pairs of students and faculty members that have the same names. However, only
three of those students have co-authored papers with NJIT faculty, and all three have
subsequently become NJIT research faculty. Therefore, Wu decided not to remove their
publications, 30 in total, from the co-authorship database. There are seven additional
papers where one co-author is a current NJIT faculty member and the other co-author a
former NJIT faculty member who has moved to another university. These papers were
included in the co-author DB as well.
Including these seven, the cleaned co-authorship DB now contains 1,533
publications co-authored by at least two NJIT faculty.
2.1.2.
Data Collection, Phase Two: Because digital libraries periodically
change the way they present data, parsers need to be periodically rewritten. Faculty and
student name lists need to be updated as well. This fluidity creates obvious sustainability
issues. Responding to this challenge, Wu and Zhu have developed a second data
collection approach that uses text-mining to extract bibliographic data from Digital
Measures (DM), a commercial software system adopted by the university in 2009
through which faculty are required to submit their annual reports. (Founded in 1999,
Digital Measures software is now used at over 2000 schools and colleges, including
ADVANCE campuses such as the University of Wisconsin and Virginia Tech.) A recent
policy agreement between the university and the faculty union now links the annual
report requirement to merit pay increases, thus guaranteeing that a steady stream of
self-reported bibliographic data will flow into DM. By text-mining Digital Measures, the
university can sustain network data collection with relatively little maintenance cost after
the grant ends. In addition, DM includes data on faculty research proposals submitted
(funded and not-funded), work-in-progress, and committee assignments, allowing
ADVANCE researchers to identify new faculty ties as they emerge. Over the next 16
months, the ADVANCE team will develop the Phase Two data collection approach, in
collaboration with Dave Ullman, NJIT CIO and member of the ADVANCE Internal
Steering Committee. We will compare the results obtained using the two approaches
and invite selected STEM faculty to verify the accuracy of the data.
2.1.3.
Data Collection, a Third Alternative: In addition to designing the data
collection methods described above, in April Co-PI Wu met with Rafael Sidi, Vice
President, Product Management, Application Marketplace and Developer Network at
Elsevier, a leading publisher of science information. Wu exchanged ideas with Sidi and
his team on using publication data to derive co-authorship networks and, in the future,
6
sharing NJIT ADVANCE tools with other universities via Elsevier's Marketplace platform.
At the same time, NJIT ADVANCE consultant Anatoliy Gruzd also began working with
Elsevier to explore a possibility of creating a web application based on the publisher's
development platform. Elsevier now allows researchers to combine the latest web 2.0
technologies, such as mashups of Google maps and social tagging, with information
from the millions of bibliographic records in their database. Both of these efforts offer an
opportunity to ensure that NJIT ADVANCE innovations are sustainable and scalable
beyond the life of the grant.
2.2. Collecting and Analyzing Self-Reported Network Data: Working in parallel to Wu
and Zhu, in October PI Steffen-Fluhr, research assistant Yiran Wang, and consultants Roxanne
Hiltz and Anatoliy Gruzd began a multi-modal network study designed to collect self-reported
data about many forms of collegial interaction, including advice networks. The first round of data
collection was completed in April and is now being analyzed by Steffen-Fluhr, Wang, and
Gruzd. Our primary objective is to compare the self-reported networks to networks generated
from mined bibliometric data, testing our hypothesis that the latter are a valid proxy for the
former. (If this hypothesis is supported, then SNA-driven interventions are sustainable and
scalable, at NJIT and across the country.) We are also interested in exploring the relationship
between network structure and career advancement, taking faculty members' network
perceptions into consideration.
In the fall, Wang conducted an extensive SNA literature search, culling out best
practices in network data collection from human subjects. With these practices in mind, SteffenFluhr, Wang, and Hiltz drafted a seven page survey instrument designed to be administered in a
series of face-to-face interviews with selected STEM faculty in the College of Science and
Liberal Arts (CSLA). (See Appendix C.) The team submitted the survey to the NJIT Institutional
Review Board (IRB) on 7 January 2011. In response to one IRB reviewer's request for changes
in language, Steffen-Fluhr revised the survey slightly and resubmitted it. The survey instrument
received IRB approval on February 21. On March 5, CSLA dean Fadi Deek and PI SteffenFluhr sent a joint invitation to all tenured/tenure track faculty and research professors in what we
will hereafter call "Department X." Faculty response was good (87%), and on March 9, Wang
and Steffen-Fluhr began a series of one-hour interviews. One faculty participant subsequently
dropped out because of serious illness, but 12 of the 15 eligible faculty completed the survey
process, the last session taking place on April 18. Preliminary analysis of the data is presented
in the Findings Section of this annual report. More detailed analysis will continue during the
summer, ultimately becoming part of a journal article/ conference proceedings paper
2.3. Analyzing Co-Authorship Network Data: Although it necessarily consumes much
of the project team's time and energy, collecting network data is a means to an end: the ongoing
effort to better understand how information and influence are being shared at NJIT, knowledge
that is essential to institutional transformation. Consultant Anatoliy Gruzd, an expert in social
network analysis, is central to that effort. Throughout the year, he worked closely with Co-PI
Brook Wu on co-authorship network data collection. In May, he began to examine the cleaned
co-authorship data, using Organizational Risk Analyzer (ORA) software and other tools to
analyze and visualize network connections. He was able to retest many of the hypotheses
developed by the original 2006-2010 NJIT ADVANCE team, of which he was a member. (See
Findings Section of 2010 NJIT ADVANCE final report.) Two of these hypotheses cannot be
retested until Wu and Zhu complete the database this summer because they require total
publication counts:
7
H4: During the period 2000-2010, NJIT faculty members who co-authored more with other NJIT
faculty members had a higher average per capita publication rate than NJIT faculty members who
co-authored less with other NJIT faculty members.
H5: During the period 2000-2010, NJIT assistant and associate professors who co-authored more
with other NJIT faculty members exhibited greater upward movement in rank than assistant and
associate professors who co-authored less with other NJIT faculty members.
However, Gruzd had enough good data to draw some preliminary conclusions. (See Findings
Section of this report for a detailed discussion.) Over the next 16 months, Gruzd and the project
RAs will perform additional analysis on the enlarged data set (2000-2012), further exploring
correlations between network characteristics and career advancement.
2.4. Analyzing Online Social Network Data: As we noted in our ABR proposal, in the
last few years, academic researchers have begun to use online social network (OSN)
technologies to exchange ideas and communicate their research to the public. There are
several reasons for this. First, OSN technologies are now widely available, easy to use and free.
Secondly, there is no hierarchical peer-review bottleneck to delay the publication of timesensitive research. Thirdly, content posted to OSN-based websites is instantly available to
community members for consumption and dissemination. Existing OSN sites oriented toward
academic STEM researchers include epernicus.com (“Where Science Meets”), a commercial
service, and two free sites, researchgate.net and sciespace.net. In Year One of the project,
ADVANCE began to introduce NJIT STEM faculty to the new knowledge exchange
opportunities available through research-oriented OSN technologies. We conducted an
awareness session on academic OSN as part of a February 24 Provost’s Workshop
presentation featuring Anatoliy Gruzd. (See section 3.2 below.) We also collected survey data
about faculty communication modes and OSN usage during the Gruzd workshop and as part of
the self-reported network data collection study of Department X. (See Findings Section for a
detailed discussion of the preliminary results.)
3. Supporting Research Collaboration (Building Networks): The second of NJIT
Advance's core strategies involves three principal tactics: a) developing an effective tool that
NJIT faculty can use to find potential collaborators who have similar or complimentary research
interests; b) hosting interdisciplinary research colloquia in order increase information flow and
opportunities for collaboration; and c) hosting cross-sector research showcases designed to
stimulate translational research and academic entrepreneurship among NJIT women faculty and
to provide opportunities for them to present their work to a wider audience. During the Year One
of our grant, we have used all three tactics, as follows:
3.1.
Research Map Tool: With consultant Dr. Anatoliy Gruzd taking the lead, NJIT
ADVANCE has developed an initial prototype of a web-based tool (dubbed "Research Map")
that visualizes existing and potential research connections among faculty members. The Map
connects each faculty member to his/her research topics. These connections are based on the
keywords that faculty have provided manually or the keywords that were retrieved automatically
from their publications. In early April, PI Steffen-Fluhr and Gruzd used this approach to generate
a list of possible collaborators in response to a request from a senior researcher who was trying
to identify faculty with relevant expertise whom he could invite to participate in a new,
interdisciplinary research center to be funded by a corporate partner. In late April, research
assistant Yiran Wang created a Camtasia Studio demonstration showing how Research Map
can help faculty identify potential collaborators and help students find potential supervisors for
8
their thesis work or independent studies. Wang's Camtasia demo was rolled out at the April 20
Advance Research Showcase to much acclaim. (See below.) It is now available on the NJIT
ADVANCE website at http://advance.njit.edu/
3.2. Interdisciplinary Research Colloquia #1: Gruzd's work on a related topic was
featured at the first of NJIT Advance's 2011 interdisciplinary research colloquia--a February 24
presentation on " Emerging Trends in Online Research Dissemination and Collaboration" (cosponsored by the Provost’s Office). Gruzd discussed data from his ongoing study of changing
scholarly communication and dissemination practices, including data on academics' use of
online social media tools. Advance Co-PI Rob Friedman and his colleague Dr. Michael
Brownstein (Humanities) also discussed the tools being developed in their NSF-funded OKES
grant ("An Open Knowledge Exchange System to Promote Meta-Disciplinary Collaboration...").
This colloquia was the first move in NJIT Advance's efforts to increase information flow (and
diminish elite information hoarding) by promoting faculty use of online social network tools. (A
Wimba audio recording, plus Gruzd's PowerPoint slides, can be accessed on the NJIT Advance
website by clicking Gruzd's photo.)
3.2.1. Assessment: Attending faculty and academic administration members
were asked to complete the collaboration tools section of the self-reported network survey, the
results of which are discussed in the Findings Section to this annual report. We also
distributed a post-event evaluation form which about a third of the attendees submitted as they
left. The evaluations were extremely positive. All of the respondents agreed that the speaker
was knowledgeable and that presentation had been interesting, informative, and useful. All said
they would attend similar events in the future. 93% of the respondents said that they enjoyed
the post-presentation roundtable discussion. (One person was "neutral.") The two lower ratings
(items three and four) have nothing to do with the quality of the presentation but much to do with
a key ADVANCE strategy: to use these colloquia to broker new ties among research faculty
from different disciplines. In that respect, we were modestly pleased as well: over half of the
respondents reported that they had interacted with colleagues they rarely see, and nearly half
(46%) said that they had met colleagues they didn't know before.
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
THE PRESENTATION WAS INTERESTING.
61.50%
38.50%
100.00%
I LEARNED SOMETHING NEW.
61.50%
38.50%
100.00%
I MET COLLEAGUES I DIDN'T KNOW BEFORE.
15.40%
30.80%
46.20%
I INTERACTED WITH COLLEAGUES I RARELY SEE.
30.80%
23.00%
53.80%
I ENJOYED THE DISCUSSION.
53.00%
40.00%
93.00%
THE SPEAKER WAS KNOWLEDGEABLE.
84.60%
15.40%
100.00%
THE WORKSHOP WAS USEFUL.
69.20%
30.80%
100.00%
I AM LIKELY TO ATTEND ANOTHER WORKSHOP
92.30%
7.70%
100.00%
Table 1. Results of February 24 Colloquium Evaluation [n=13]
3.3. Interdisciplinary Research Colloquia #2: The second event on the NJIT ADVANCE
spring 2011 calendar was a March 23 Lillian Gilbreth Colloquium presentation on “The Art of
Choosing” by Dr. Sheena Iyengar, S.T. Lee Professor of Business at Columbia Business School
and the Research Director at the Jerome A. Chazen Institute of International Business. The
colloquium drew a faculty and student audience of over 250, but we co-hosted a much smaller
pre-event luncheon before to give women faculty an opportunity to interact closely with Dr.
Iyengar. The colloquium--the keynote event in NJIT's 2011 Women's History Month celebration-was co-sponsored by the Murray Center for Women in Technology, the Technology and
9
Society Forum, the Albert Dorman Honors College, and Sigma Xi. (A video of Dr. Iyengar's
presentation is available to faculty and students on NJIT I-Tunes.)
3.4. Research Showcase #1: On April 20, ADVANCE hosted the first of its cross-sector
Innovation and Collaboration Research Showcases. The event, which began at 11:30am and
ended at 5pm, consisted of three parts: 1) A networking luncheon and panel discussion on the
new importance of academic entrepreneurship and translational research ("The Entrepreneurial
Professor - New Opportunities for Women in Academia“); 2) A research poster session
showcasing the work of 19 NJIT women professors; 3) a colloquium on "Academic
Entrepreneurship" featuring a lecture by Dr Donald Siegel, Dean of the School of Business,
SUNY Albany. The showcase was co-sponsored by the NJIT Office of Technology Development
and the NJ Technology Council.
An overflow crowd of 93 people attended the panel discussion and research showcase,
including the provost, the Senior VP for Research, four of NJIT's five deans, many departmental
chairs and faculty, plus several dozen representatives from NJ industry and the chief aide to NJ
lieutenant governor Kim Guadagno. The panel, moderated by school of management associate
dean Dr. Shanthi Gopalakrishnan, included Dr. Alice White, Vice-President of Bell Labs North
America, Alcatel-Lucent; Dr. Kathryn Uhrich, Dean of Mathematical & Physical Sciences,
Rutgers University and founder of the Polymerix Corporation; Dr. Vikki Hazelwood, Professor of
biomedical engineering at Stevens University and CEO of SPOC, Inc.; and Dr. Tara Alvarez,
associate professor of biomedical engineering at NJIT. (See Appendix G for more detail.)The
panelists' comments strongly supported NJIT Advance strategies, emphasizing the importance
of collaboration to career success and the importance of diversity in sparking innovation.
The NJIT women faculty, assisted by their graduate students, presented their research
posters to an interactive and engaged cross-sector audience for an hour before lunch and
nearly an hour after the panel. All attendees received a packet of information, including the new
NJIT ADVANCE brochure (see Appendix E) and data on each woman faculty member, her
research interests and website. Digital copies of the research posters are available in a virtual
archive on the ADVANCE website, along with a video of the panel discussion.
Co-PI Brook Wu and research assistant Mingzhu Zhu presented a poster on the
ADVANCE project's data collection methods (See Appendix B), and RA Yiran Wang presented
her Camtasia Studio demo of our new Research Map tool. (See Appendix H.) The poster and
demo sparked considerable interest and have led to ongoing conversations between SteffenFluhr, Passerini, and Dr Ellen Townes-Anderson, UMDNJ professor and NJIT Advance steering
committee member, about how the tool could be used to foster research collaboration among
NJIT and UMDNJ faculty, an idea that UMDNJ senior dean Dr William Gause supports. Townes
Anderson is director of UMDNJ's faculty mentoring program. (See below.)
3.4.1. Assessment: The size of the audience and complexity of the April 20 Showcase
made it impossible to conduct an evaluation during the event itself; however, during the
following week, we created a post-event evaluation instrument on Survey Monkey and
emailed all of the participants, asking them to fill it out online. The response rate was
modest (28%; n=26), but it gave us some useful feedback. We created three slightly
different survey instruments for each of the three principal groups of people who had
attended the event: 1) The women faculty who had presented posters; 2) other NJIT
faculty, graduate students, and academic administrators; 3) non-NJIT participants. (The
survey of the women faculty participants included additional questions on their mentoring
experience. (See Appendix L.) The results of the evaluation were encouraging. One
respondent, an NJIT non-presenter, marked N/A to the questions evaluating the panel
discussion, presumably because he/she had missed that part of the Showcase.
Disregarding that data, all of the other respondents in all three categories strongly
agreed/ agreed that the panel discussion was "interesting," the speaker
10
"knowledgeable," and the Showcase "useful." All indicated that they would attend similar
events in the future. As in the February 24 survey, the scores were lower on the two
questions concerning interaction with new or infrequently seen colleagues. All of the
NJIT non-presenters strongly agreed/agreed that they had interacted with new and
infrequently seen colleagues, and (not surprisingly) all of the external attendees strongly
agreed/agree that they met new people. Three external attendees disagreed that they
had "interacted with colleagues I rarely see," as did two of the NJIT women presenters.
All of the NJIT non-presenters and all but one of the external attendees strongly
agreed/agreed that "the Showcase increased my interest in cross-sector collaboration."
On this question, however, the responses of the women faculty presenters differed
noticeably: None strongly agreed, half somewhat agreed, and two disagreed/strongly
disagreed. Although the number of respondents was small and results inconclusive, we
will nevertheless redouble our efforts to demonstrate the value of translational research
to women faculty. (See the chart below for a quick summary of the April 20 survey results
from women faculty participants. The complete survey results are in Appendix J.)
Figure 2. Results of Survey of April 20 Women Faculty Presenters [n=8]
3.5. Interdisciplinary Research Colloquia #3: The third of our spring 2011 colloquia, on
“Diversity and Innovation in Higher Education," was originally slated for March 24, but it had to
be postponed until May 19 because of a scheduling conflict. The principal presenter, Dr. Alfreda
Brown, Vice President, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion at Kent State, is a former RIT colleague
of our provost Ian Gatley; and we used the occasion of her visit to begin to reframe the
conversation about diversity on the NJIT campus. The May 19 event began with a working
brunch designed not only to introduce Brown to key diversity stakeholders on campus but also
to reintroduce them to each other. In the afternoon, Brown made a formal presentation to an
11
audience that included the Provost and Associate Provost, the senior VP of Research and
Development, the director of Sponsored Research, the VP of Human Resources, the Associate
Dean of the Newark College of Engineering, the chair of the Chemical Engineering Department
the co-chairs of the Committee on Women's Issues, the incoming president of the Student
Senate, among many others. After the Q&A period, Brown meet privately for a briefly and
discussion with the Provost, Associate Provost, PI Steffen-Fluhr, and the President's Chief of
Staff. The May 19 event was designed as the beginning of an ongoing conversation with Dr
Brown about how best to incentive efforts to recruit and retain women and underrepresented
minority faculty in an institutional climate in which everyone feels pressed to do more with less.
3.6. Travel Grants: Faculty participation in the colloquia, the April 20 Showcase, and the
Department X network study was incentivized by entering participants in a series of conference
travel grant lotteries. The 2011 winners were announced in May.
4. Disseminating Best Practices in Retention: Most of the activities related to mentoring
are slated for Year Two of the grant. Therefore, in Year One we have focused primarily on
research and planning, informed by data collection on existing NJIT practices. We are in the
process of assembling a planning and advisory team. Based on our research, we have decided
to structure our program as a Mentoring Academy to which potential mentees will apply. We will
use our interest-mapping tool and the results of our social network analysis to facilitate
connections across departmental boundaries.
4.1.
Research and Planning: Significant background resources have been identified and
saved on the project's private site (SharePoint). They include: program guides, templates,
typical contracts used in mentoring programs, several research articles on mentoring, and
assessment templates. These resources were used to define the concept of the “Mentoring
Academy” (MAC) and to put together the planning checklist for its deployment. All these
documents are accessible through SharePoint, as well as the project overview documents
distributed during the February 2, 2011 site visit.
Mentoring Directory on
SharePoint
Planning Materials
Templates, Guides, Research
Articles
Figure 3. NJIT ADVANCE SharePoint Planning Site (screenshot)
4.2.
NJIT Practices: Co-PI Katia Passerini has collected descriptions of mentoring
practices from the College of Sciences and Liberal Arts (CSLA), the college that will be used for
piloting the Mentoring Academy (MAC). Appendix K shows junior faculty career mentoring
practices currently managed by department chairs. The descriptions suggest the existence of
“informal mentoring” practices. However, some of the activities listed by the department heads
overlap with general service activities, which should not be part of a mentoring relationship. This
data reinforces the notion that a structured program is essential. The survey responses
12
captured through a post-event survey (see Appendix L ) provide additional support. The
respondents reported having engaged in informal mentoring at NJIT but strongly agreed with
ADVANCE effort to launch a formal mentoring program. The open-ended responses are also
aligned with ADVANCE goals. The respondents generally commented that the pairing of
mentors and mentees is a crucial aspect of the program success. Therefore, using network
mapping data may in fact emerge as a useful and innovative strategy to test matching
effectiveness in mentoring.
4.3.
Planning and Advisory Team: With the assistance of Ellen Townes-Anderson,
Professor in the Department of Neurology and Neurosciences at the New Jersey Medical
School (UMDNJ), co-PI Passerini reviewed the guidelines of the mentoring program at UMDNJ.
Dr. Townes-Anderson heads the program and is supported by a part-time staff assistant. We
have explored opportunities to collaborate and invited Ellen to advise NJIT on piloting the
Mentoring Academy (MAC). Thus far, two faculty members have been invited to join the MAC
planning team. One senior faculty member, Hindy L. Schachter, is a long-time champion of
gender equity, both at NJIT and beyond, and has been involved in past mentoring initiatives at
NJIT. A junior faculty member, Ellen Thomas, one of the few recent NJIT hires, will be
instrumental in defining needs and expectations of NJIT junior faculty. We expect to include
additional planning members within the next four weeks as well as to invite ex-officio members
from each Dean’s office.
5. Personnel Update: Aside from the departure of Internal Advisory Board Member Jim
Robertson (see section 1.2 above), the ADVANCE personnel roster has remained stable
throughout Year One. There will be two changes in Year Two, however: Co-PI Rob Friedman
recently announced that he is leaving NJIT to take a position at the University of WashingtonTacoma. Since Rob's role as a liaison to CSLA for our mentoring program can be assumed
directly by CSLA dean Fadi Deek and Rob's role as an OSN expert can be assumed by
consultant Anatoliy Gruzd, we do not intend to replace him. RA Yiran Wang has also announced
that she is transferring from NJIT to the doctoral program at the University of California. She will
be replaced by NJIT Information Systems doctoral student Regina Collins. Collins served as an
RA on the previous NJIT ADVANCE grant from 2009-2010 while she was getting her Masters
degree in Professional and Technical Communication. She has considerable experience with
the social network analysis tools and techniques being used in the current ADVANCE project
and has co-authored ADVANCE-related journal articles/papers with both Steffen-Fluhr and
Gruzd; so the transition should be easily. (Except that we will all miss Yiran!)
13
II.B. Major Findings
1.
Social Network Analysis of the Updated NJIT Co-authorship Network: In May, NJIT
ADVANCE consultant Anatoliy Gruzd began to examine the preliminary co-authorship data
(2000-2010) collected and cleaned by Co-PI Brook Wu and RA Mingzhu Zhu. The findings that
follow were drawn from centrality calculations made using the Organizational Risk Analyzer
(ORA) software package. (Measures of centrality here are limited to Betweenness and total
Degree Centrality.) Gruzd also calculated External-Internal (E-I) measures in UCINET, a social
network analysis program distributed by Analytic Technologies. (See terminology definitions
below.) In addition, actors’ attributes were compared in light of the findings that emerged from
the centrality analysis. Attributes in this case included department, gender, professional position
within the university (rank), and whether or not the actor has received tenure. Figure 1 below is
a data visualization (map) of the co-authorship network among NJIT faculty members. In the
network, each faculty member is represented as a node. (Males are represented by circles;
females, by silhouettes.) Two people are connected by a tie if they wrote a paper together. The
node size represents the number of co-authors. There are 319 nodes (269 males, 50 females)
and 710 ties.
.
Figure 1: NJIT Co-authorship network
14
Based on ORA's centrality calculations, we identified the top ten most central actors in
terms of Betweenness and total Degree Centrality. (See Table 1 below). Degree Centrality
represents the number of collaborators, and it helps to identify well-connected people who can
directly reach many other people in the network. Being well-connected means that a person has
easier access to more sources of information and is exposed to more novel ideas, all of which
are important for academic advancement. However, having many connections does not always
constitute “power.” A person can be central within her group of close friends, but if nobody in
that group is connected to a larger network, then even the central person can find herself quite
isolated. To account for such situations, we also relied on another measure called Betweenness
Centrality. This measure reflects the extent to which a person has the ability to control
information flow in the network. In general, Betweenness counts how many times a person
functions as a “missing link" between two people or groups who are not connected directly.
Among other things, high Betweenness may indicate an interdisciplinary research agenda.
The names in Table 1 have been replaced by coded identifiers to protect subject
anonymity; however, the legend indicates the gender, rank, and current employment status of
each actor.
Table 1: Top ten most central actors in Betweenness & total Degree Centrality, measured by ORA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total Degree
823D
47F
188D
1320D
167D
2516F
106D
107F
138F
1010R
Betweenness
106D
73xR
1023F
1418F
514F
619F
107xF
18F
42F
1616AO
D= Distinguished Professor; F=Full Professor; AO=Associate Professor; R= Research Professor
x=No longer at the university as of 2011; Actors in boldface are female
Only one actor appears in both of these measures, 106D – ranked first in Betweenness
Centrality and seventh in total degree centrality. The centrality of this faculty member is not
surprising: he is known as a prolific researcher and interdisciplinary collaborator. Interestingly,
he has also been an active participant in NJIT ADVANCE activities. In addition to the centrality
of 106D, a number of other attributes of the top ten actors are worth noting:
•
•
15
Professorial Rank: Of the 19 faculty members who appear on either of the top 10 lists,
there are five distinguished professors (all of them in the high degree centrality list), 11
full professors, one associate professor, and two research professors There are no
assistant professors listed among these actors. That is, the network centrality of these
actors is strongly correlated with rank.
Gender: Two females (188D & 1010R) were identified as the third and tenth most central
actors respectively, according to total degree centrality. No other females appeared in
•
•
either centrality measure. This data is especially disturbing since actor 188D has
recently retired, and actor 101R is a research professor, a rank that is outside the
tenure-track process and hence outside the room when hiring and promotion decisions
are made in departments.
Tenure: Of the 19 actors listed here, 17 are tenured. (The other two are research
professors.) The tenure status and professorial rank data suggest, not surprisingly, that
the network centrality of these actors is correlated with seniority.
Department: Concerning departmental affiliations, there are seven actors from computer
science, five from physics, two from electrical and computer engineering, two from
mathematical sciences, and one each from bio-medical engineering, the Center for Solar
Research, and chemical engineering.
In addition to Centrality, Gruzd also calculated External-Internal (E-I) measures. The E-I index
measures the group embedding on a scale from -1 (all ties are within the group) to +1 (all ties
are with external members of the group). In our 2011 ADVANCE study, E-I measures are based
on a division of the NJIT faculty network into two groups: male and female. (See Figure 2.) The
results of the External-Internal (E-I) measures indicate that male faculty members tend to
publish more with other males than with females. At first glance, it seems that females also tend
to publish more with males than they do with other females, but this is because there are five
times more males in the network than females. When the numbers of males and females are
normalized, it becomes clear that female faculty members are more likely to co-author with
other female faculty members (and less with males) than would be expected by chance. These
observations are in line with our previous study (Osatuyi et.al., 2011), underscoring the need for
programs such NSF ADVANCE at historically male dominated technological universities where
women faculty need to navigate through collaborative research networks in order to advance.
Table 2: Group level E-I Index
Gender
M
F
Internal External Total
E-I
ties
ties
ties
988
190
1,178 -0.68
50
180
230
0.57
References
Osatuyi, B, N. Steffen-Fluhr, A. Gruzd, and R. Collins. (2010). An empirical investigation of
gender dynamics and organizational change. The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture
and Change Management, 10(3):23–36, 2010.
2.
Collecting and Analyzing Self-Reported Network Data: In Year One, ADVANCE
conducted the first phase of a multi-modal network study designed to collect self-reported data
about many forms of collegial interaction, including advice networks. ADVANCE RA Yiran Wang
took the lead, conducting an extensive SNA literature search that culled out best practices in
network data collection from human subjects. Several key issues emerged. e.g. Single
generators often fail to provide reliable estimates across a broad spectrum of network
measures, but behavioral specificity, high salience, and small network size can be used as
strategies to eliminate forgetting. Moreover, drop-out rate and the proportion of missing data are
lower in a face-to-face data collection mode than in other modes. With these issues in mind,
16
Wang, Steffen-Fluhr, and Hiltz drafted a seven page instrument designed to be administered in
a series of face-to-face interviews with members of NJIT Department X.
Steffen-Fluhr and Wang combined three different data collection methods in order to
increase response rate and data accuracy while reducing subject burden: a brief online survey,
an oral name generator and interpreter in the form of a wall-sized projection of an Excel
spreadsheet, and a real-time network mapping tool (VennMaker). The two-part online survey
asked subjects about their research interests, data we subsequently incorporated in our
Research Map tool. Subjects were also asked about the communication modes they use to
maintain ties with colleagues and friends. (See below and Appendix C.) The Excel
spreadsheet, pre-populated with NJIT faculty names, was used both to prompt the subject's
recall and to collect network ties in a convenient one-step process. In addition, we created a
spreadsheet for each subject containing external co-authors we had identified from her/his
publications. These names were used to prompt the subject’s recall about how they had
established the external collaboration, data that will be used in designing our new junior faculty
mentoring program. The VennMaker screen allowed subjects to draw a research network map
of their department, as each of them perceived the network--an innovative feature of the study.
One faculty participant subsequently dropped out because of serious illness, but 12 of the 15
eligible Department X faculty completed the interview process, the last session taking place on
April 18.
Using the name generator, we collected each faculty member's ego-network, both inside
of NJIT and outside of NJIT. The mean ego-network size for the Department X NJIT colleagues
network is 52. (The smallest size 12; the largest, 113.) The mean ego-network size for the
external colleagues network is 24. (The smallest is 3; the largest is 54.) We asked subjects to
define the nature of their ties to each of their NJIT colleagues, thereby creating a set of subnetworks defined by specific relational behaviors. There were seven categories:
a.
Co-author
papers
b.
Collaborate
on projects or
grant writing
c.
Discuss
research
d.
Serve on the
same
committee(s)
e.
Receive
career
advice
from
f.
Give
career
advice to
g.
Socialize
with or
discuss
personal
matters
We combined the data from categories E and F, creating six networks (e.g., a co-authorship
network, a collaboration network, an advice network etc.). Although we used a behavioral
specificity strategy when constructing the network categories, providing subjects with specific
explanations and examples, we observed inconsistency across subjects in how they interpreted
several of the categories, especially C (discuss research) and G (socialize). Some subjects
responded to C and G very broadly, as if we had asked "who do you know?"--including anyone
whose name they recognized. Other subjects responded much more narrowly and precisely.
Integrating the ego-networks, we constructed whole networks using Department X as the
network boundary. We calculated basic network-level measures on the reported networks, the
results of which are provided in the tables below.
Co-author
Collaborate
Discuss
Reciprocity
0.667
0.115
0.217
Table 3. Reciprocity measure of Co-author network, Collaborate network, Discuss network
17
Density
Co-author
Collaborate
Discuss
0.038
0.029
0.124
Degree
centralization
0.121
0.132
0.352
Betweenness
centralization
0.010
0.011
0.239
Closeness
centralization
0.014
0.017
0.086
Table 4. Basic network level measures after removing the nonreciprocal ties
As the figures show, the reciprocity of ties is very low, meaning that faculty members did not
report their relationships accurately. To some extent, this data suggests that the strength of the
relationships in Department X is weak. That is why A reported that he/she has collaborated with
B, but B did not report such a relation with A. Other measures are consistently low as well,
which means the Department X networks are very sparse: i.e., there are not many ties. Indeed,
despite the relatively small size of Department X, we detected quite a few isolates--people who
are not connected to anybody. The chart below shows the 10 agents that are repeatedly topranked in the following measures: Emergent Leader, total degree centrality, eigenvector
centrality, hub centrality, authority centrality, betweenness centrality.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ia_79
bu_23
rl_71
kv_53
de_45
yh_39
gg_13
kj_38
qz_29
Gender
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Rank
Distinguished Professor
Distinguished Professor
Professor
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Research Professor
Assistant Professor
Professor
Research Professor
Network Size
84
57
39
37
67
44
12
80
30
Table 5. The most central actors in Department X, as measured by ORA
Figure 2. The most central actors in Department X, as measured by ORA
The data we collected from Department X also revealed sharp differences in network
perceptions. We constructed the actual research network of Department X by integrating the
reciprocal co-author and collaboration networks. Following figures show that, even in this small
department, individual perception of network structure often differs markedly from the reality:
18
Figure 3. The Actual Department X Network
Figure 4. Faculty Member ia_79: Perception of the Department X Network
solid lines are correct links, dotted lines are wrong ones
Figure 5. Faculty Member rl_71: Perception of the Department X Network
19
Figure 6. Faculty Member gg_13: Perception of the Department X Network
Although the analyses above are preliminary, they suggest how social network data collection
can be used in institutional transformation. Network mapping reveals the often surprising
relational structures hidden underneath the official organization chart, disclosing how people are
really connected (or disconnected). Over the summer, we will continue our data analysis,
focusing on the attributes of individual actors, with special attention to the potential relationship
of network perception, gender, and rank. In addition, we will explore whether the giving and
receiving of career advice is a good indicator of knowledge sharing, especially crossdepartmental advice ties. More importantly, once the new bibliometric database is fully
populated, we will compare whether the networks generated from objectively mined publication
data result in the same findings that we get from self-reported survey data.
3.Studying Communication Modes: In Year One of the project, ADVANCE conducted a pilot
survey of faculty communication modes in order to establish baseline data on OSN usage and
develop effective networking strategies for our new mentoring program. A three-part survey
was distributed to faculty who attended the February 24 OSN workshop, co-sponsored by
ADVANCE and the Provost's Office. The same survey was administered via Survey Monkey to
members of Department X during the self-reported network interview sessions.
The communication modes survey instrument, designed by Wang, Steffen-Fluhr, Hiltz,
and Gruzd, asked subjects to use a five point Likert scale to rank how frequently they used each
of seven communication modes to maintain contact with three groups of people: research
colleagues within NJIT; research colleagues outside of NJIT; and personal friends and family.
The seven communication modes listed were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
FACE-TO-FACE (SCHEDULED)
FACE-TO-FACE (UNSCHEDULED) (e.g. hallway encounters, office visits)
PHONE (office or cell phone)
VIDEO/TELE-CONFERENCING (e.g. Skype, IM)
EMAIL
SOCIAL NETWORKING OR SOCIAL MEDIA SITES (e.g. LinkedIn, Facebook, blogs, wiki)
OTHER WEB 2.0 TOOLS (e.g. Google docs, Dropbox, Delicious or Connotea)
An eighth choice ("other") allowed subjects to describe options we had missed, and a couple of
people did. (See Figure 7 below, showing the first section of a paper version of the survey
instrument. The full survey is in Appendix C of this report.)
20
Figure 7. Communication Modes Survey (partial view)
Thirty-one faculty members have been surveyed thus far. 19 people filled out a paper version at
the February 24 workshop; 12 Department X faculty completed the online (Survey Monkey)
version. Although both groups expressed a preference for more "traditional" modes of
communication (e.g. f2f, phone, email) and reported that they used OSN tools infrequently,
there were differences between the groups in many areas. Within each group, there was
variance in mode preference across the three relational categories (NJIT colleagues, external
colleagues, friends & family). When communicating with NJIT colleagues, the Feb.24
respondents said that they most frequently used email. 63% said that they used it daily. 94%
said that they used it daily, weekly, or monthly. Unscheduled face-to-face communication was
the next most frequently used mode (88%). At the other end of the spectrum, 56% reported that
they never used social networking or social media sites to communicate with NJIT colleagues.
Interestingly, 32% said that they did use OSN tools regularly (weekly, monthly) for collegial
interaction, and 38% reported that they used Web 2.0 tools as well. This finding is decidedly
different from the Department X results. This difference may reflect the fact that all the Feb.24
respondents had chosen to attend a workshop on OSN tools.
Use Daily, Weekly, Monthly
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Frequency
Figure 8. Feb. 24 Survey: Communication with NJIT Colleagues
In contrast, 100% of the Department X respondents reported that they never used Web 2.0
21
tools to communicate with NJIT colleagues, and 92% said that they never used teleconferencing
or social media either. These faculty prefer to communicate with their colleagues by email
(75%), phone (75%), and unscheduled f2f meetings (75%). (See Figure 9 below.) In general,
Department X faculty seem to engage in less communication of any sort with their colleagues
than do their Feb. 24 peers. This observation is consistent with the preliminary findings of our
self-reported networks study (Section 2 above) which notes that reciprocal ties within
Department X are relatively sparse and that network perceptions are fairly inaccurate.
Use Daily, Weekly, Monthly
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Frequency
Figure 9. Department X Survey: Communication with NJIT Colleagues
The patterns are somewhat different when faculty describe how they communicate with
colleagues at other universities. Seventy-seven percent of February 24 respondents reported
that they had scheduled f2f meetings with external colleagues, but these meetings took place
yearly, not more frequently (probably at conferences). Predictably, they communicated with
external colleagues on a weekly-monthly basis primarily by email (86%) and phone (50%). Less
predictably, they also used Web 2.0 tools (50%), OSN (39%), and teleconferencing (23%). (See
Figure 10 below.)
Department X faculty differed somewhat. They saw their external colleagues face-toface more frequently. (33% had scheduled weekly/monthly meetings.) They communicated
primarily by email (67%) and phone (33%), but a minority also used teleconferencing (25%) and
both OSN (8%) and Web 2.0 tools (8%). (See Figure 11 below.)
22
Use Daily, Weekly, Monthly
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Frequency
Figure 10. Feb. 24 Survey: Communication with External Colleagues
Use Daily, Weekly, Monthly
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Frequency
Figure 11. Department X Survey: Communication with External Colleagues
Both groups of subjects reported that they rely primarily on traditional face-to-face methods
when communicating with friends and family, but e-tools play a significant role as well,
especially email. Among Feb. 24 respondents, the most frequently used mode was unscheduled
f2f meetings (99%) followed closely by phone calling (92%). Emailing was third at 84%.
Respondents also used teleconferencing fairly frequently (50%), as well as OSN sites (67%)
and Web 2.0 tools (33%). (See Figure 12 below.)
23
Use Daily, Weekly, Monthly
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Frequency
Figure 12. Feb. 24 Survey: Communication with Friends and Family
Results for Department X were somewhat different. Unscheduled face-to-face meetings (58%)
were ranked fourth, behind email (92%), phone (100%), and scheduled f2f meetings (83%).
Indeed, three Department X faculty members reported that they never have unscheduled faceto-face meetings with friends and family (a test-taking error, one hopes)! Only one person
reported using Web 2.0 tools, but both teleconferencing (27%) and social mediate sites (25%)
were deemed useful by a minority.
We hope to add to this data in the months to come, sampling faculty participants at
ADVANCE events and working with NJIT CIO Dave Ullman to host an online survey open to all
faculty.
B. 2. NJIT ADVANCE Products and Dissemination:
Although we are still relatively early in the grant period (month 8), we have already succeeded in
creating a number of products and resources that allow us to disseminate our activities and
findings. The bulleted list below briefly describes these products, many of which are collected in
the appendices to this report and/or are available on our new website: http://advance.njit.edu/ ,
designed and maintained by NJIT ADVANCE webmaster Vaidehi Dave.
•
•
•
24
A research poster describing how ADVANCE uses social network analysis to drive
institutional transformation was presented by PI Steffen-Fluhr at the November
ADVANCE NSF PIs meeting in Alexandria, VA.
On 14 December, NJIT Communications officially announced the new grant in a press
release that was picked up fairly widely on the Web:
http://www.njit.edu/news/2010/2010-521.php (8,620 hits on Google).
On February 10, Yiran Wang presented a paper describing the NJIT ADVANCE selfreported network study at the Sunbelt XXXI Conference (International Network for Social
Network Analysis) in St. Pete Beach, Florida ("Increasing the Reliability, Sustainability
and Scalability of Social Network Data Collection"). (See Appendix D.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
25
Katia Passerini used an NJIT "Stories of Innovation" video shoot as an occasion to talk
about the work of our ADVANCE project. Nancy Steffen-Fluhr also appears in the video,
which is available on the NJIT main website and the NJIT Advance website:
http://www.njit.edu/edge/#Innovations14
A Wimba audio recording of the ADVANCE February 24 colloquium, plus Gruzd's
PowerPoint slides, can be accessed on the NJIT ADVANCE website by clicking Gruzd's
photo.
Student designer Jonathan Vo has created a new NJIT ADVANCE brochure. It was
distributed at the April 20 Showcase and is available in digital form on the ADVANCE
website. (See Appendix E.)
In April, research assistant Yiran Wang created a Camtasia Studio demonstration
showing how our Research Map tool can help faculty identify potential collaborators.
Wang's Camtasia demo was rolled out at the April 20 Advance Research Showcase and
is now available on the NJIT ADVANCE website.
A poster created by Mingzhu Zhu describing ADVANCE data collection methods was
presented at the April 20 Showcase and is now available on the ADVANCE website.
Digital copies of the April 20 Showcase research posters are available in a virtual
archive on the ADVANCE website, along with a video of the panel discussion.
On May 14, a paper on faculty networks co-authored by Anatoliy Gruzd was presented
at the GRAND 2011 conference in Vancouver, BC. ("Studying research collaborations in
GRAND via coauthorship networks." (See Appendix M for Abstract.)
Updated stories on ADVANCE, profiles of women faculty researchers, and gender and
technology research links are featured regularly in the new e-newsletter being
disseminated monthly by NJIT's Murray Center for Women in Technology. (See
Appendix N.)
ADVANCE researchers have created and fielded a new seven page survey instrument
and protocol designed to collect network data from human subjects. (See Appendix C.)
II.C. Training, Development & Mentoring
Research Training
Overview: Grounded in the belief that increasing interconnectivity is essential to the
transformation of organizational culture, NJIT ADVANCE relies on each-one-teach-one
strategies to create bridging ties across disciplines, sectors, and hierarchies. Virtually all of the
activities described in the Activities Section above involve some form of research training, both
teacher-to-student and peer-to-peer.
Consultant Anatoliy Gruzd has continued to provide ongoing training in social network
analysis to RA Yiran Wang and the Co-PIs. Brook Wu has trained RA Mingzhu Zhu in the
sophisticated text-mining techniques that are central to the project's data collection strategies.
Mingzhu, in turn, has been an invaluable informant to the rest of the project team. Katia
Passerini has shared her expertise in knowledge management, and PI Steffen-Fluhr has made
sure that the project remains grounded in the work of gender equity research.
Yiran Wang, a doctoral student in Information Systems, joined the ADVANCE team in
the spring of 2010. In preparation for the new ABR grant, we sent Yiran to the week-long
CASOS Summer Institute at Carnegie Mellon University where she received intensive training in
SNA research methods and tools, especially the use of ORA. She subsequently familiarized
herself with additional tools including UCINET and VennMaker, and conducted a thorough
literature review of best methods for gathering network data from human subjects. This spring,
Yiran has passed this knowledge on to Regina Collins, who will replace her, and to Katia
Passerini--ensuring that the fruits of her training will remain available to the project after she
leaves.
26
II. D. Outreach
i.
Stimulating Cross-Sector Synergy: NJIT ADVANCE has matched its efforts to increase
interconnection among women faculty with an effort to forge cross-sector connections, linking
women researchers in academia with women researchers in New Jersey industry. In Year One,
this effort was best expressed in the highly successful April 20 Innovation and Collaboration
Showcase. NJIT ADVANCE reached out to two new partners, the Office of Technology
Development and the NJ Technology Council, who co-sponsored the event and have helped to
publicize ADVANCE activities.
ii.
Forming Local Alliances: At the April 20 Showcase, the ADVANCE poster and Research
Map tool demo sparked considerable interest from faculty at other universities and has led to
ongoing conversations between Steffen-Fluhr, Passerini, and Dr Ellen Townes-Anderson,
UMDNJ professor and NJIT Advance steering committee member. The director of the UMDNJ
faculty mentoring program, Townes-Anderson has suggested that the Research Map tool be
used to foster collaboration among NJIT and UMDNJ faculty, an idea that UMDNJ senior dean
Dr William Gause supports. NJIT ADVANCE will continue to develop this outreach over the
summer.
iii.
Publicizing ADVANCE Activities: Throughout the year, ADVANCE has worked to
ensure that its efforts are visible to the larger community. We updated our website and seeded it
with interactive products, including our handsome new E-brochure, professionally-produced
video clips, and a demo of our Research Map tool, as well as links to new gender equity
research and IT resources. Our initial press release was picked up fairly widely on the Web
(8,620 hits on Google); and Steffen-Fluhr's winning of a 2011 Soroptimist International Ruby
Award offered another opportunity to publicize ADVANCE.
27
IV. Contributions
The NJIT ADVANCE project makes an important contribution to institutional change efforts
across the country by demonstrating that social network analysis can be used effectively to
measure the impact of isolation on women’s careers. The correlation that the study has
established between increase in network centrality and female faculty retention allows us to
map career landscapes in meaningful ways—and to predict who will advance in academia and
who is in danger of dropping out.
The ability to visualize individual networks in dynamic organizational context is
significant for program assessment as well. Work by NJIT ADVANCE thus far suggests that
bibliometric data--more and more easily accessible on a national scale—is a valid proxy for realworld faculty networks. Drawing on such bibliometric data, in the future NSF ADVANCE will be
able to use social network analysis to track changes in organizational health, to identify
emerging leaders or isolated backwaters, or to compare the relative advancement of selected
groups/individuals. In combination with metrics such as the NSF 12, the ability to map changes
in faculty networks over time provides a powerful holistic method of seeing institutional
transformation as it unfolds.
The 2009 National Academy of Sciences report Gender Differences at Critical
Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering and Mathematics Faculty expresses concern
about female faculty isolation and excess attrition of women assistant professors. (“In every
field, women were underrepresented among candidates for tenure relative to the number of
women assistant professors.”) The NAS report observes that women faculty members in the
study “were less likely to engage in conversation with their colleagues on a wide range of
professional topics, including research….This distance may prevent women from accessing
important information and may make them feel less included and more marginalized in their
professional lives.” The report concludes by calling for future research to explore “the causes for
the attrition of women… prior to tenure decisions” and to explain why “female faculty, compared
to their male counterparts, appear to continue to experience some sense of isolation.” The work
done by NJIT ADVANCE on network mapping and retention responds directly to NAS concerns,
demonstrating that SNA methods can be used effectively and efficiently by gender and
technology researchers to measure relative network isolation and its impact on female faculty
careers. SNA can also be used to mitigate that impact by giving junior faculty access to the kind
of aerial view of the organizational landscape normally available only to strategically positioned
“boundary spanners.” Our new "Research Map" tool and other innovative applications will make
it easier for faculty to locate potential interdisciplinary research collaborators; allow faculty to
take snapshots of their professional networks as they develop over time; and support best
practices in faculty mentoring.
The ability to visualize individual networks in dynamic organizational context has the
potential to transform the ways in which STEM faculty researchers—especially women and
underrepresented males--assess and manage their careers. Network mapping also gives
academic administrators a more effective means of identifying problematic characteristics of the
units they manage and brings added value to the task of program assessment, allowing
governmental funding agencies such as NSF to track the effectiveness of the institutional
change projects they support.
In 2008, President Obama expressed concern that “women are significantly
underrepresented in the STEM workforce, and especially in the leadership positions in research
and academia. We need women in leadership roles both for their contribution and for the
message of encouragement and opportunity that their presence sends…” (2008). In November
2009, in launching the "Educate to Innovate" Campaign for Excellence in Science, Technology,
Engineering & Math (STEM) Education, the president reiterated this message: “America needs
28
a world-class STEM workforce to address the grand challenges of the 21st century,” he said,
emphasizing that success in this effort requires “a greater focus on opportunities and access for
groups such as women and underrepresented minorities.”
Like NSF ADVANCE as a whole, the NJIT ADVANCE project responds directly to the
president’s call to action. Our effort to support women science and engineering faculty, and thus
the young people they inspire, is an important part of the larger effort to create a more
representative, and therefore more robust, US technological workforce for the future.
29
Appendix A
NSF Data Indicators for 2010
New Jersey Institute of Technology
ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Project
30
NSF ADVANCE
Indicators of Institutional Progress
Basic Questions:
(1) What is the distribution of faculty by gender, ethnicity, rank and department?
(2a) What are the outcomes of institutional processes of recruitment and advancement
for men and women?
(3a) What is the gender distribution of faculty in leadership positions at NJIT?
(4a) What is the allocation of resources for faculty by gender at NJIT?
NSF 12 Indicators
1. Number of men and women tenured and tenure-track faculty by department, rank
and gender
2. Number of non-tenured men and women faculty (e.g., Instructional, Research,
Clinical, Postdoctoral)
3. Number of faculty who submit tenure packets, and number awarded tenure, by
gender and department
4. Number of faculty who apply for promotion, and number promoted, by gender,
department, and promotion transition (assistant to associate; associate to full)
5. Number of tenured associate professors by department and gender with years-inrank (in 6, 3-year categories)
6. Number of faculty who leave their departments, excluding those who died or retired,
by rank, gender, and department
7. Number of faculty hired by rank, gender, and department
8. Cohort analyses of tenure and promotion, including to full professor
9. Number of men and women scientists and engineers in leadership positions
10. Study of salaries of men and women faculty (with additional controls such as
department, rank, years in rank)
11. Study of space allocation of STEM faculty by gender (with additional controls such
as department, etc.)
12. Study of start-up packages of newly hired faculty by gender (with additional controls
such as field/department, rank, etc.)
31
Institutional-Level Data
GENDER
Table 1.a
Fall 2010 Full-Time Faculty Distribution by Gender (TT and NON-TT)
Division
Department
College of Architecture and Design NJ School Of Architecture
School of Art and Design
College of Architecture and Design Total
College of Computing Sciences
Computer Science
Information Systems
Information Technology
College of Computing Sciences Total
College of Science and Liberal Arts Biological Sciences
Chemistry & Environmental Science
Federated History
Humanities
Mathematical Sciences
Physics
Science & Math Total
Newark College of Engineering
Bio Medical Engineering
Chemical, Biological and Pharmaceutical Engineering
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Electrical & Computer Engineering
Engineering Technology
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
Newark College of Engineering Total
School of Management
School Of Management
School of Management Total
Grand Total
32
Female
Male
6
6
2
2
3
7
3
7
2
13
6
5
21
2
1
7
3
1
14
12
12
75
25
2
27
33
8
3
44
6
14
6
20
45
33
98
11
21
18
31
13
27
121
17
17
333
Grand
%
Total
Female
31
2
33
35
5.70%
10
20%
6
50%
51 13.70%
9 33.30%
21 33.30%
8
33
51 11.80%
38 13.20%
119 17.60%
13 15.40%
22
4.50%
25
28%
34
8.80%
13
0%
28
3.60%
135 10.40%
29
29
408 18.40%
Charts 1.a and 1.aa
33
Institutional-Level Data
ETHNICITY
Table 1.b
Fall 2010 Full-Time URM Faculty Distribution (TT & Non-TT)
Division
Department
College of Architecture and Design
NJ School Of Architecture
Afr
Amr
Amr
Ind
Asian
3
School of Art and Design
College of Computing Sciences
1
2
1
25
1
2
2
1
26
33
6
19
35
2
6
10
6
6
8
31
51
Computer Science
7
Information Systems
1
1
3
8
1
Information Technology
College of Computing Sciences Total
College of Science and Liberal Arts
3
1
2
6
9
5
4
12
21
Federated History
1
1
6
8
2
31
33
Physics
Science & Math Total
Bio Medical Engineering
Chemical, Biological and Pharmaceutical Engineering
Civil & Environmental Engineering
2
1
3
1
2
1
12
Engineering Technology
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
29
1
Newark College of Engineering Total
Grand Total
34
School Of Management
2
1
4
5
4
26
51
3
24
38
16
105
160
1
9
13
2
1
13
22
15
25
1
4
19
34
5
9
9
2
1
7
2
2
15
2
10
Electrical & Computer Engineering
School of Management Total
% URM
31
Biological Sciences
Mathematical Sciences
School of Management
White
Chemistry & Environmental Science
Humanities
Newark College of Engineering
Grand
Total
Non-US Unknown
1
3
College of Architecture and Design Total
URM
Total
Hispanic
2
1
1
6
31
1
1
1
4
4
73
4
3
1
1
9
8
13
17
28
7
6
81
135
1
2
18
29
1
2
18
29
16
33
261
408
0%
10%
0%
2%
0%
0%
7.80%
2.60%
3.10%
15.40%
9%
4%
2.90%
2.30%
3.60%
7.40%
6.10%
35
INDICATOR #1
Number of men and women tenured and tenure-track faculty by department, rank and gender
Table 2.a.1
2010 Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty by Division, Department, Rank, and Gender
Division
College of Architecture and Design
Department
NJ School Of Architecture
NJ School Of Architecture Total
School of Art and Design
School of Art and Design Total
College of Architecture and Design Total
College of Computing Sciences
Rank
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Dist Prof
Prof
Asst Prof
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Dist Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Prof
Information Systems Total
Biological Sciences
Biological Sciences Total
Chemistry & Environmental Science
Chemistry & Environmental Science Total
Federated History
Federated History Total
Humanities
Humanities Total
Mathematical Sciences
Mathematical Sciences Total
Physics
Physics Total
College of Science and Liberal Arts Total
36
2
1
1
1
5
5
Computer Science
Computer Science Total
Information Systems
College of Computing Sciences Total
College of Science and Liberal Arts
Female
1
1
1
1
2
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Dist Prof
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Dist Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Dist Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Dist Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Dist Prof
Prof
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
3
1
4
2
2
4
1
1
15
Male
5
5
1
4
15
1
1
16
11
2
1
11
25
4
1
2
7
32
2
2
4
5
1
1
2
9
3
1
1
1
6
2
2
5
9
16
6
2
14
38
5
2
6
4
17
83
Grand
Total
7
6
2
5
20
1
1
21
11
3
1
11
26
5
1
2
8
34
2
2
1
5
5
2
2
4
13
3
2
1
1
7
5
2
6
13
18
6
2
16
42
6
2
6
4
18
98
%
Female
0%
33.30%
0%
0%
20%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
50%
50%
50%
11.10%
0%
0%
12.50%
16.70%
0%
0%
0%
INDICATOR #1
Number of men and women tenured and tenure-track faculty by department, rank and gender
Table 2.a.2
Newark College of Engineering
Bio Medical Engineering
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Dist Prof
Prof
Bio Medical Engineering Total
Chemical, Biological and Pharmaceutical EngAssoc Prof
Asst Prof
Dist Prof
Prof
Chemical, Biological and Pharmaceutical Engineering Total
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Assoc Prof
Dist Prof
Prof
Civil & Environmental Engineering Total
Electrical & Computer Engineering
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Dist Prof
Prof
Electrical & Computer Engineering Total
Engineering Technology
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Prof
Engineering Technology Total
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
Assoc Prof
Dist Prof
Prof
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering Total
Newark College of Engineering Total
School of Management
School Of Management
School Of Management Total
School of Management Total
Grand Total
37
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Dist Prof
Prof
2
2
1
1
3
3
6
1
1
2
1
1
12
3
2
3
8
8
42
3
2
1
2
8
1
1
3
12
17
2
1
15
18
4
2
4
18
28
5
3
2
10
7
1
15
23
104
4
3
1
6
14
14
249
5
2
1
2
10
1
2
3
12
18
5
1
18
24
5
3
4
18
30
5
3
2
10
8
1
15
24
116
7
5
1
9
22
22
291
40%
0%
0%
0%
0%
50%
0%
0%
60%
0%
16.70%
16.70%
33.30%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
12.50%
0%
0%
INDICATOR #1
Number of men and women tenured and tenure-track faculty by department, rank and gender
Table 2.b
%
Female
%
Male
Assistant
16.70%
83.30%
Associate
12.70%
87.30%
Full
6.70%
93.30%
9%
91%
Distinguished
38
INDICATOR #1
Number of men and women tenured and tenure-track faculty by department, rank and gender
Rank
Table 2.c
n
Female
n
Male
Assistant
4
20
Associate
10
69
Full
7
97
Distinguished
2
20
TOTAL
23
206
2010 TT-T STEM Faculty by Rank & Gender
250
200
150
n Female
n Male
100
50
0
Assistant
39
Associate
Full
Distinguished
TOTAL
INDICATOR #2
Table 2.d.1
Number of non-tenure track men and women faculty
Non-Tenured/Non-Tenure-Track Faculty by Division, Department, Rank, and Gender
Division
Department
College of Architecture and DesignNJ School Of Architecture
NJ School Of Architecture Total
School of Art and Design
School of Art and Design Total
College of Architecture and Design Total
College of Computing Sciences
Computer Science
Computer Science Total
Information Systems
Information Systems Total
Information Technology
Information Technology Total
College of Computing Sciences Total
College of Science and Liberal Arts Biological Sciences
Rank
Resh Prof
Univ Lect
1
1
1
Resh Prof
Sr Univ Lect
Univ Lect
Sr Univ Lect
Sr Univ Lect
Univ Lect
1
1
1
1
3
3
5
Resh Prof
Univ Lect
Grand
Total
Male
Asst Prof
Biological Sciences Total
Chemistry & Environmental ScienceProfessional/Inst
Resh Prof
Sr Univ Lect
Univ Lect
Chemistry & Environmental Science Total
Federated History
Sr Univ Lect
Federated History Total
Humanities
Professional/Inst
Sr Univ Lect
Univ Lect
Humanities Total
Mathematical Sciences
Sr Univ Lect
Univ Lect
Mathematical Sciences Total
Physics
Professional/Inst
Resh Prof
Sr Univ Lect
Univ Lect
Physics Total
College of Science and Liberal Arts Total
40
Female
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
4
3
9
1
1
2
3
1
4
21
1
9
10
1
1
11
1
5
2
8
1
1
2
1
3
12
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
5
3
2
6
11
2
5
7
1
8
3
4
16
41
1
10
11
1
1
12
1
5
3
9
2
2
5
1
6
17
1
3
4
1
1
1
5
8
1
1
5
6
9
20
3
6
9
1
11
4
4
20
62
INDICATOR #2
Table 2.d.2
Number of non-tenure track men and women faculty
Newark College of Engineering
Bio Medical Engineering
Resh Prof
Univ Lect
Bio Medical Engineering Total
Chemical, Biological and Pharmace Resh Prof
Chemical, Biological and Pharmaceutical Engineering Total
Civil & Environmental Engineering Sr Univ Lect
Civil & Environmental Engineering Total
Electrical & Computer Engineering Resh Prof
Univ Lect
Electrical & Computer Engineering Total
Engineering Technology
Univ Lect
Engineering Technology Total
Mechanical & Industrial EngineerinSr Univ Lect
Univ Lect
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering Total
Newark College of Engineering Total
School of Management
School Of Management
Resh Prof
Sr Univ Lect
Univ Lect
School Of Management Total
School of Management Total
Grand Total
41
1
2
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
3
3
2
2
4
17
1
4
4
4
33
2
3
3
84
1
2
3
4
4
1
1
3
1
4
3
3
2
2
4
19
1
4
2
7
7
117
INDICATOR #3
Number of faculty who submit tenure packets, and number awarded tenure, by gender and
department
2011 Data
Table 3
Dept.
BME
CoAD
CS
ET
IS
Math
Physics
Tenure packs submitted
Men
Women
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Recommended for
tenure
Men
Women
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Note: The Board of Trustees needs to approve these tenure recommendations at its June
meeting.
42
INDICATOR #4
Number of faculty who apply for promotion, and number promoted, by gender, department,
and promotion transition (assistant to associate; associate to full)
2011 Data
Table 4.a
Dept.
BME
CoAD
CS
ET
IS
Math
Application for
Promotion from Assisant
Professor to Associate
Professor
Men
Women
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Recommended for
promotion
Men
Women
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 4.b
Dept.
BME
MIE
Physics
Dept.
Physics
Application for
Promotion from
Associate Professor to
Professor
Men
Women
1
2
1
Application for
Promotion from
Assistant Professor to
Professor
Men
Women
1
Recommended for
promotion
Men
Women
1
1
Recommended for
promotion
Men
Women
1
Note: The Board of Trustees needs to approve these recommendations for promotion at
its June meeting.
43
INDICATOR #5
Number of tenured associate professors by department and gender with years-in-rank (in 6, 3-year
categories)
Table 5.a
Summary: T/TT Associate Professors 3 Years in Rank by Gender
Division
Department
College of Architecture and Design
NJ School Of Architecture
College of Architecture and Design Total
College of Computing Sciences
Computer Science
Information Systems
College of Computing Sciences Total
College of Science and Liberal Arts
Biological Sciences
Chemistry & Environmental Science
Federated History
Humanities
Mathematical Sciences
Physics
College of Science and Liberal Arts Total
Newark College of Engineering
2
M
4
Total
6
2
4
6
1
9
3
9
4
1
12
13
1
3
2
2
11
4
1
3
2
4
12
4
23
26
1
1
2
4
5
7
3
1
5
5
5
8
2
1
3
Bio Medical Engineering
2
Chemical, Biological and Pharmaceutical E
Civil & Environmental Engineering
3
Electrical & Computer Engineering
1
Engineering Technology
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
1
Newark College of Engineering Total
7
20
27
School of Management
2
3
5
2
15
3
62
5
77
School of Management Total
Grand Total
44
F
School Of Management
INDICATOR #5
Number of tenured associate professors by department and gender with years-in-rank (in 6, 3-year
categories)
Table 5.b
Summary: T/TT Associate Professors 6 Years in Rank by Gender
Division
Department
College of Architecture and Design
NJ School Of Architecture
College of Architecture and Design Total
College of Computing Sciences
F
1
1
College of Science and Liberal Arts Total
Newark College of Engineering
Bio Medical Engineering
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Electrical & Computer Engineering
Engineering Technology
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
Newark College of Engineering Total
School of Management
School of Management Total
Grand Total
45
Total
4
4
7
3
7
3
10
10
1
2
1
1
8
2
1
2
1
3
9
2
15
18
1
1
1
2
5
5
1
3
3
5
6
4
14
18
3
3
3
45
3
53
Computer Science
Information Systems
Biological Sciences
Chemistry & Environmental Science
Federated History
Humanities
Mathematical Sciences
Physics
3
3
College of Computing Sciences Total
College of Science and Liberal Arts
M
2
1
3
2
1
School Of Management
8
INDICATOR #6
Number of faculty who leave their departments, excluding those who died or retired, by rank,
gender, and department
Table 6
(Excludes deaths and retirements)
TT-T Faculty Who Left NJIT 2009-2011
46
RANK
GENDER
DEPT
Associate
F
ECE
Associate
M
ECE
Assistant
M
MATH
Assistant
M
IS
INDICATOR #7
Number of faculty hired by rank, gender, and department
Table 7.a
STEM T-TT Faculty Hired from 2009-2011
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2011
2011
47
Electrical & Computer Engineering
NCE
Mathematical Sciences
CSLA
Biological Sciences
CSLA
Computer Science
CCS
Computer Science
CCS
Mathematical Sciences
CSLA
Chemical, Biological and Pharmaceutical Engineering NCE
Chemistry & Environmental Science
CSLA
Engineering Technology
NCE
Mathematical Sciences
CSLA
Mathematical Sciences
CSLA
Computer Science
CCS
Engineering Technology
NCE
F
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Hispanic
White
White
White
Asian
Asian
White
Asian
White
White
Asian
White
Black
Asst
Assoc
Asst
Asst
Asst
Asst
Asst
Asst
Asst
Asst
Asst
Prof
Asst
INDICATOR #8
Cohort analyses of tenure and promotion, including to full professor
2004-2010
TT-T STEM Faculty Only
Table 8.a
Female Faculty Who Were Assistant Professors in 2004/2005
Division
Department
College of Computing Sciences
Sex
Information Systems
F
2010 Rank
Assoc Prof
2009
Assoc Prof
2008
2007
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
2006
2005
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
2004
Asst Prof
College of Science and Liberal Arts
Physics
F
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Newark College of Engineering
Bio Medical Engineering
F
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Newark College of Engineering
Bio Medical Engineering
F
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Newark College of Engineering
Civil & Environmental EngineeringF
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Female promotion rate = 100%
Table 8.b
Male Faculty Who Were Assistant Professors in 2004/2005
Department
Sex
2010 Rank
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
Assoc Prof Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Assoc Prof Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Assoc Prof Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Asst Prof
Asst Prof
M
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Electrical & Computer Engineering
M
Asst Prof Asst Prof
Assoc Prof Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Information Systems
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Computer Science
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Computer Science
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Chemistry & Environmental Science
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Asst Prof
Electrical & Computer Engineering
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Computer Science
M
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Chemical, Biological and Pharmaceutical Engineering M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Physics
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Physics
M
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Biological Sciences
M
Assoc Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Asst Prof Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
Electrical & Computer Engineering
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Bio Medical Engineering
M
Assoc Prof
Computer Science
M
Assoc Prof
Chemistry & Environmental Science
M
Chemistry & Environmental Science
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Male promotion rate = 92.3%%
48
Asst Prof
Asst Prof
INDICATOR #8
Cohort analyses of tenure and promotion, including to full professor
2004-2010
TT-T STEM Faculty Only
Table 8.c
Female Faculty Who Were Associate Professors in 2004
Department
Sex
Rank
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
Chemistry & Environmental Science
F
Prof
Prof
Prof
Prof
Prof
Mathematical Sciences
F
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mathematical Sciences
F
Prof
Prof
Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Civil & Environmental Engineering
F
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Civil & Environmental Engineering
F
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Civil & Environmental Engineering
F
Prof
Prof
Prof
Prof
Prof
Electrical & Computer Engineering
F
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
F
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Female promotion rate = 37.5%%
49
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
2004-2010
TT-T STEM Faculty Only
Table 8.d
Male Faculty Who Were Associate Professors in 2004
Department
Sex
Rank
2009
2008
2006
2005
2004
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Chemical, Biological and Pharmaceutical Engineering M
Prof
Prof
Prof
Prof
Prof
Chemical, Biological and Pharmaceutical Engineering M
Prof
Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Chemistry & Environmental Science
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Chemistry & Environmental Science
M
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Civil & Environmental Engineering
M
Prof
Prof
Prof
Prof
Civil & Environmental Engineering
M
Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Civil & Environmental Engineering
M
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Computer Science
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Prof
M
Biological Sciences
M
Computer Science
M
Computer Science
M
Computer Science
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
M
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Computer Science
M
Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Computer Science
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Computer Science
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Computer Science
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Computer Science
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Electrical & Computer Engineering
M
Prof
Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Distn Prof
Prof
Electrical & Computer Engineering
M
Electrical & Computer Engineering
M
Electrical & Computer Engineering
Electrical & Computer Engineering
Prof
Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
M
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
M
Prof
Prof
Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Electrical & Computer Engineering
M
Prof
Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Engineering Technology
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Engineering Technology
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Engineering Technology
M
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Engineering Technology
M
Prof
Prof
Engineering Technology
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Engineering Technology
M
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Information Systems
M
Prof
Prof
Prof
Information Systems
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Information Systems
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Information Systems
M
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Prof
Prof
Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Prof
Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Prof
Prof
Prof
Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Prof
Prof
Prof
Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mathematical Sciences
M
Prof
Prof
Prof
Prof
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
M
Prof
Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Prof
Prof
Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
M
Prof
Prof
Prof
Prof
Prof
Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
M
Prof
Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Physics
M
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Physics
M
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Prof
Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Male promotion rate = 36.2%
50
2007
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Assoc Prof Assoc Prof
Bio Medical Engineering
Assoc Prof
INDICATOR #9
Number of men and women scientists and engineers in leadership positions
(2009-2010)
Faculty in Leadership Positions by Gender
Gender
#
Female
2
Male
13
Total
15
Names below in bf are female science/engineering faculty
Academic and Research Administration
Dr. Judith Redling, Associate Provost for Academic Affairs
Dr. Lisa Axe, Associate Dean for Research, Newark College of Engineering
Dr. Shanthi Gopalakrishnan, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, School of
Management
Judith Sheft, Associate VP for Technology Development
Norma Rubio, Director Sponsored Programs Administration
Dr. Nancy Steffen-Fluhr, Director, Murray Center for Women in Technology
Committee on Academic Affairs (Voting Members only)
29 men
2 women:
Steffen-Fluhr
Redling
Institute Promotion and Tenure Committee
3 male faculty; 4 female faculty:
Karen Franck (Chair) SOA
Lisa Axe, CEE
Nancy Coppola (HUM)
Naomi Rotter (SOM)
Faculty Council
Dr. Mill Jonakait, Distinguished Professor, Federated Biology Department (Council
Chair)
Dr. Priscilla Nelson, Civil and Environmental Engineering Representative
Other Senior Administrators
Holly Stern, Esq., General Counsel
Jacqueline Rhodes, Associate VP for Development
Jean Llewellyn, Executive Director, Strategic Communications
Sheryl Weinstein, Director, Public Relations
Board of Trustees
Kathleen Wielkopolski, (Chair), The Gale Company (retired)
Anne S. Babineau, Esq., Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer
Elizabeth ("Liz") Garcia, PE '73, Manager, Public Affairs, Infineum USA, LP
51
Mariel O’Brien, Astronomy & Physics Educator, Newark Museum
Board of Overseers
Norma J. Clayton, '81, Vice President of Learning, Training and Development, The
Boeing Company
Caren L. Freyer-DeSouza, VP, Director, New Jersey Governmental Relations, Parsons
Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas,
Michelle Hallerdin, Vice President, Organizational Effectiveness, PSEG Services
Corporation
Veronica G. Pellizzi, '84, Senior Vice President, Business Solutions, Verizon
Communications
Teresa Truppi Prieto '83, General Manager, Surface Technology, BASF
Corporation
52
INDICATOR #10
Study of salaries of men and women faculty (with additional controls such as department,
rank, years in rank)
2004-2010 TT-T STEM Faculty Only
Table 10.a
53
INDICATOR #10
Study of salaries of men and women faculty (with additional controls such as department,
rank, years in rank)
2004-2010 TT-T STEM Faculty Only
Table 10.b
54
INDICATOR #11
Study of space allocation of STEM faculty by gender (with additional controls such as
department, etc.)
NJIT ADVANCE is not required to report this data.
55
INDICATOR #12
Study of start-up packages of newly hired faculty by gender (with additional controls such as
field/department, rank, etc.)
Department
Name
Physics
male
Type
1 mo summer
equip
Biology
2,009
8,333
8,600
55,000
5,000
male
1 mo summer
7,778
8,000
104,350
104,350
34,553
34,553
7,500
7,500
15% summer
16,500
17,500
15% summer
16,500
17,500
equip
10,000
10,000
15% summer
15,750
16,700
equip
10,000
10,000
22.2% summer
17,333
0
equip
30,000
30,000
Equip
supplies
travel
SOM
2008
female
male
female
ECE
ChE
male
female
2 mo summer
equip
Math
8,950
125,000
male
1 mo summer
NCE dean
17,333
125,000
8,889
9,200
equip
10,000
10,000
Stipend
14,490
0
Tuition
16,900
0
150,000
100,000
2 months
17,333
19,000
equip/supply
55,000
5,500
5,000
5,000
male
Ying Wu
BME
male
travel
Math
male
1 mo summer
research
Ying Wu Chair
56
reno/equip
7,222
7,500
10,000
10,000
571,862
25,000
25,000
APPENDIX B
ADVANCE Poster Presented at
April 20 Innovation & Research Showcase
See http://advance.njit.edu
57
APPENDIX C
Department X Self-Reported Network Study
IRB Approval Form
Invitation Text
Consent Form
Survey Instrument
58
59
60
61
FACULTY NETWORKS STUDY FOR THE NSF ADVANCE PROJECT
Goals of the Study
We are working on an NSF-sponsored project designed to support and expand the professional
networks of NJIT faculty. Our goal is to stimulate information flow and make it easier for
researchers to find collaborators, ultimately advancing the careers of all NJIT faculty. As
explained on the consent form, this is a research project, and we will not disseminate the
information you give us to anybody who is not part of the research team. The data we collect will
not be used to evaluate you or your colleagues.
Defining Social Networks
Your “social network” consists of family, friends, work colleagues, and others that you
personally know and with whom you interact. We are going to ask you to describe your social
networks at NJIT, including your research network, advice network, and personal network.
A. Research Background Information
What would you describe as your major
research fields and topics?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
62
B. NJIT Colleagues Multiple Networks
In this section, we are going to ask you to list the people you know at NJIT and characterize the
ways you interact with them. Please choose names from the list of NJIT tenure-track faculty and
Research Professors provided. For each person, please place a check in the appropriate cell(s) to
indicate the ways in which you interact. Check as many columns as appropriate.
Here is more detailed information about each type of interaction you can choose below:
a. Co-author papers: Papers can be academic or non-academic; published, accepted, or under
review.
b. Collaborate on projects or grant writing: Projects can be funded or non-funded; grants can
be accepted, rejected, under review, or in preparation.
c. Discuss research: Such discussions can be specific or broad; formal or informal; involve
focused problem solving or brainstorming; take place with a collaborator or non-collaborator;
involve knowledge exchange (e.g., "How do I reduce a large number of variables to a smaller
number in this type of data modeling?”) or validation (e.g. "I want to solve problem A using
method B--how does that sound? Would you review my paper and make suggestions?")
d. Serve on the same committee(s): Types of committees might include graduate student thesis
committees, departmental committees, university committees, professional society committees,
etc.
e./f. Give/Receive career advice: Such discussions might include promotion and tenure issues,
information about organizational climate and informal networks, past career experiences,
referrals, etc.
g. Socialize with or share personal matters: Socializing might include having lunch or coffee
together, doing social activities outside of work; discussing family issues, etc.
a.
NJIT
Colleagues Co-author
papers



63
b.
Collaborate
on projects or
grant writing
c.
Discuss
research
d.
Serve on the
same
committee(s)
e.
Receive
career
advice
from
f.
Give
career
advice to















g.
Socialize
with or
discuss
personal
matters



64














































































































































































































































C. Perception of Network Connections
Your ability to accurately assess your own career progress depends, in part, on the accuracy of
your perception of the faculty network as a whole. Below is a matrix of all the tenure-track
faculty members in your department / college. Please place a check in the appropriate
intersecting cell to indicate that two faculty members have a research-related relationship.
e.g. You believe that Mary and Joan have a research-related relationship, so you mark
the matrix in the following manner:
FRED
MARY
FRED
RITA
LARRY
RITA
 
NABIL
JOE
LARRY

JOAN
NABIL
JOE
 
NANCY
MING
JOAN
X
PERRY
NANCY

JERRY
MING

SALLY
PERRY

RITA
MARY
FRED
     

     
RITA
     

     
LARRY
     

     
NABIL
     

     
JOE
     

     
JOAN
     

     
NANCY
     

     
MING
     

     
PERRY
     

     
JERRY
     

     
SALLY
     

     
RITA
     

     
MARY
     

     
65
D. Research Colleagues Outside of NJIT
The left column of the matrix below lists non-NJIT faculty with whom you have co-authored
research papers. Place a check in the boxes that best describe the way you established each
external contact. (If the choices in columns a-e do not apply, please use column f to describe the
way you established the relationship.) If you have additional co-authors or research partners who
are not listed below, please add their names and indicate how you met them.
Coauthors
outside of
NJIT
66
a. Attend
b.
conference Attend
together
school
together
c. Former
student –
advisor
relationship













































d.
Recommended
by professional
social network
site ( e.g.
e.
Referred
by other
people






























LinkedIn)
f.
Other
(please
specify)
E. Communication tools to maintain network ties
Different social ties are maintained by different means. For example, you may often socialize
with your NJIT colleagues face-to-face but contact your research collaborators outside of
NJIT by emails and Skype; or maybe not. In this section, we would like to know through
what means you maintain your various social ties.
E. 1 & 2 In the matrix below, please indicate how you maintained contact during the last
year with your PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH COLLEAGUES, first at NJIT and then
outside of NJIT.
Frequency of Using Corresponding Communication Tool
Type of Interaction
Several
times a day
Several
times a week
Several
times a
month
Several
times a year
Never
1. RESEARCH COLLABORATORS WITHIN NJIT
Face-to-Face
(Scheduled)





Face-to-Face
(Unscheduled)
(e.g. hallway
encounters, office
visits)





Phone
(office or cell phone)





Video/Tele-conferencing
(e.g. Skype, IM)





Email















Social networking or
social media sites
(e.g. LinkedIn, Facebook,
blogs, wiki)
Other web 2.0 tools
(e.g. Google docs,
Dropbox, Delicious or
Connotea)
67
Other (please specify)
-------------------------Other (please specify)
--------------------------










2. RESEARCH COLLABORATORS OUTSIDE OF NJIT
Face-to-Face
(Scheduled)
Face-to-Face
(Unscheduled)
(e.g. hallway
encounters, office
visits)
Phone
(office or cell phone)
Video/Tele-conferencing
(e.g. Skype, IM)
Email
Social networking or
social media sites
(e.g. LinkedIn,
Facebook,
blogs, wiki)
Other web 2.0 tools
(e.g. Google docs,
Dropbox, Delicious or
Connotea)
Other (please specify)
-------------------------Other (please specify)
--------------------------
68













































E.3 In the matrix below, please indicate how you maintained contact during the last year
with your PERSONAL FRIENDS & FAMILY--i.e. people with whom you often socialize
otherwise discuss personal matters.
Frequency of Using Corresponding Communication Tool
Type of Interaction
Several
times a day
Several times
a week
Several
times a
month
Several
times a year
Never
3. PERSONAL FRIENDS & FAMILY
Face-to-Face
(Scheduled)





Face-to-Face
(Unscheduled)
(e.g. hallway
encounters, office
visits)





Phone
(office or cell phone)





Video/Tele-conferencing
(e.g. Skype, IM)










Social networking or
social media sites
(e.g. LinkedIn,
Facebook,
blogs, wiki)





Other web 2.0 tools
(e.g. Google docs,
Dropbox, Delicious or
Connotea)





Other (please specify)
--------------------------










Email
Other (please specify)
--------------------------
69
APPENDIX D
Sunbelt XXXI Presentation
70
71
72
73
Problems encountered in
self-reported data collection
 The climate study made the questionnaire too long and invasive
 About 50% of female faculty completed it.
 About 15% of male faculty completed it.
 The social network questions were too time-consuming
 About 80% of female faculty completed it.
 About 20% of male faculty completed it.
 The “Friends” network question turned out to be problematic
 Incomplete data
 Respondents dropping out
74
A Brief overview of Network Data Collection (II):
Self-reported Network Data
Do’s & Don’ts
•Well-constructed questions are questions
that respondents will interpret in the same
way, will be able to answer accurately and will
be willing to answer. (Dillman, 2000)
•Questions with MOST missing data are “talk
about important private problems”, “people
whom one has a row with”. (De Lange et al.,
2004)
•Short time frames, behavioral specificity,
high salience, and small network size may be
useful goals from the point of view of
minimizing forgetting. (Bell et al., 2007)
•Single generators failed to provide reliable
estimates across a broad spectrum of network
measures. (Marin and Hampton, 2006)
•Ordering the name interpreters by question
(instead of by alter), having items with
labeled categories, and using graphical
elements increase the reliability and validity
of the network data. (Coromina and
Coenders, 2006)
75
•In the online group the dropout and the
proportion of respondents with missing
values in the inter-alter response matrix, are
both higher than in the face-to-face group,
while the size of network size collected from
online group is smaller than the ones in the
face-to-face group. (Matzat, 2010)
76
77
78
79
APPENDIX E
E-Copy of New NJIT ADVANCE Brochure
80
APPENDIX F
Screenshot of New NJIT ADVANCE Homepage
http://advance.njit.edu
81
APPENDIX G
April 20 Innovation & Collaboration Research Showcase
Program
Panelists' Bios
82
83
84
APPENDIX H
Screenshot of Research Map Camtasia Demo
Available at http://advance,edu/
85
APPENDIX I
15 December 2010 NJIT Press Release on ADVANCE
Mapping Faculty Social Networks Helps Female Faculty Move Ahead at
NJIT: Research Reveals Hidden Gender Patterns and Ways To
Overcome Them
NEWARK, Dec 15 2010
Long before Facebook introduced its hot new
Social Graph app, researchers in the
ADVANCE project at NJIT were pioneering
the use of social network mapping to help
women scientists and engineers supercharge
their careers. The National Science
Foundation (NSF) recently recognized the
significance of this work by awarding NJIT
ADVANCE a two-year $500,000 Institutional
Transformation Grant, one of only eight such
grants given nationally in 2010.
“Universities are more than buildings and balance sheets. They're webs of human
interaction," said Nancy Steffen-Fluhr, director of NJIT’s Murray Center for Women in
Technology and the ADVANCE project leader. "The complex structure of those webs is
largely invisible to the people embedded in them, however -- especially women
scientists and engineers. Because they're still relatively few in number, women faculty in
science, technology, engineering and math can easily get disconnected from the
information flow without even realizing it. That's where we come in: we make the
invisible visible.”
Beginning in 2006 with an NSF "proof of concept" Institutional Transformation grant, the
project mined the Internet for information about who at NJIT collaborates with whom,
constructing an interactive database containing over 7,200 publications produced
between 2000 and 2008 by NJIT faculty. Statistical modeling and visual mapping of this
data established a strong correlation between collaboration and career advancement. It
also revealed hidden gender patterns, some of them predictable, others surprising.
Predictably, male faculty tended to collaborate with other male faculty far more than with
female faculty. Surprisingly, for women faculty, network structure --in particular, being
connected to well-connected colleagues -- was a more reliable predictor of career
success than number of publications.
Building on this previous work, NJIT ADVANCE researchers will introduce network
mapping tools over the next two years to make it easier for faculty to locate potential
86
interdisciplinary research collaborators and to take snapshots of their professional
networks as they develop over time.
"When new faculty arrive they often can't see the forest for the trees. We want to create
a kind of GPS for career management that will give them an aerial view of the
organizational landscape so they can find the most efficient path to the information and
support they need to reach their goals," Steffen-Fluhr explained. These new network
mapping tools will also help university administrators spot blockages in information flow,
identify emerging leaders, and assess mentoring programs, she added.
In addition to studying interdisciplinary collaboration, NJIT ADVANCE encourages
interdisciplinary collaboration in a variety of ways, including hosting cross-sector
research showcases with industry. The interdisciplinary approach is reflected in the
composition of the ADVANCE team: In addition to Steffen-Fluhr, who is an associate
professor in NJIT’s Humanities Department, the team includes Katia Passerini, Hurlburt
Professor of Management of Information Systems, School of Management; Yi-Fang
(Brook) Wu, associate professor, Information Systems Department; and Robert
Friedman, associate professor and chair of the Humanities Department.
The NJIT ADVANCE project arrives at a time when U.S. leaders are stressing that
greater participation of women in U.S. science and technology leadership is essential if
the nation is to maintain its global edge in innovation, Steffen-Fluhr explained. "A new
NSF-funded study shows that the ability of groups to come up with innovative solutions
to problems increases with the proportion of women in the group. The purpose of the
NSF ADVANCE program is to bring about institutional change so that women scientists
and engineers will be in the room when the crucial decisions are made,” she said. “The
new network mapping tools we are developing at NJIT make an important contribution
to that process, allowing researchers across the country to actually see institutional
transformation as it occurs.”
87
APPENDIX J
April 20 Showcase Surveys
Women Faculty Presenters
88
April 20 Showcase Surveys
NJIT Non-Presenters
89
April 20 Showcase Surveys
External Participants
90
APPENDIX K
Report on Current Faculty Mentoring Practices: CSLA
CSLA FACULTY MENTORING IN CSLA BY DEPARTMENTS
CHEMISTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
1. We assign a formal mentor to each new faculty, who meet periodically.
2. We help in initial proposal writing, and give advice on teaching/research etc.
3. Review by P&T committee is quite extensive. In the last 3rd year review, each faculty made
two presentations, one to the department and one to the P&T committee.
HISTORY
In History, we have only had two junior faculty over the past four years. As a result, I have been
able to mentor both of them personally. One of them received tenure and promotion after five
years on the faculty, and the other will be considered for that distinction next year. I speak with
them often about their scholarly work and their teaching and provide a great deal of guidance in
both areas. I also consult with them frequently about department policy and involve them in the
decision-making process to a degree that probably would not be possible in a large
department.
HUMANITIES
The mentoring process in the Department of Humanities is one that for the most part has had a
proven success record in terms of its recruitment and retention of talented faculty. The process
has included a commitment to mentoring that extends beyond the junior ranks into the associate
and professor level.
Central to the Department’s success is the process of collegiality. This process begins with clear
and honest expectations of the role that the tenure-track assistant professor must play in the
profession. Both internally and possibly externally, the process of collegiality has usually meant
that a new faculty member has research reviewed by colleagues before journal submission.
During this process, external contacts for the faculty member are also fostered—often through
conferences and grant proposals.
This sense of community is continued after researchers achieve tenure.
Within the department, senior researchers continue to review each other’s work before
publication and to advise each other on promising research directions. When funded
opportunities arise—or collaborative work is possible—such mutually beneficial activities are
embraced. Thus, in many ways, a kind of model pattern of behavior is always on view for the
department.
Overall, an assistant professor’s progress is assessed annually, with a more thorough analysis
of it taking place at the end of the third year, at which time a more elaborate presentation is
made and, as occurs every year, the opportunity to provide criticism of one’s progress is taken.
At the time of candidacy for tenure and/or promotion, full professors may collaborate on guiding
a candidate and in forging accompanying documentation. Moreover, should the University P
91
and T Committee reject a candidacy, the chair of the department will make an effort to find out
why precisely there has been a rejection, and, along with the department P and T committee,
will advise a candidate as the next steps to be taken.
MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES
The Department of Mathematical Sciences (DMS) and Center for Applied Mathematics and
Statistics (CAMS) provide significant mentoring of junior faculty research, teaching, and service.
Specific mentoring activities include the following:
•
There is significant mentoring of faculty teaching. This includes yearly classroom visits
by senior faculty to evaluate the teaching of junior faculty. The evaluators work with the
junior faculty on ways to improve classroom instruction. Junior faculty start teaching
coordinated courses and are also mentored by course coordinators.
•
Senior faculty actively seek out and initiate research collaborations with junior faculty.
The list of publications in the CAMS Annual Report illustrates the significant percentage
of junior faculty who are currently involved in collaborations with senior faculty. The
junior faculty are included on dissertation committees; this gives them exposure to the
mentoring of graduate students.
•
The Director and Associate Director of CAMS routinely meet with junior faculty to
disseminate information on funding opportunities and to provide instruction and
individualized help in proposal writing. The Center is also involved with the organization
and coordination of group grant proposals, many of which involve junior faculty. In
addition, CAMS has a biannual meeting to discuss research and grant opportunities.
•
CAMS hosts a daily tea time which provides a forum for interaction between junior and
senior faculty.
•
Junior faculty organize the weekly Applied Mathematics Colloquium and the weekly
Seminar Series in fluid dynamics, mathematical biology, wave propagation, and
statistics, with close supervision from senior faculty. This service activity provides a good
opportunity to meet with leading researchers in applied mathematics, engineering, and
the sciences.
•
Junior faculty are exposed to the paper refereeing process when asked to participate by
DMS faculty who are Journal Editors and Associate Editors.
PHYSICS
In Physics, generally, a faculty member is hired in some area in which we have a tenured
professor with particular interest, e.g. optics, solar, materials. That tenured professor acts as
chair of the search committee, and also as mentor for the new hire. The tenured faculty
member (the mentor) is in charge of making sure the new hire succeeds with preparing their lab,
helps with startup issues, helps them get their teaching off to a good start, and ensures that they
have access to at least one graduate student. They act as advocate for the new hire.
They also help with initial proposal writing by working with the new hire on where to apply and
how to write the proposals. The mentor is also in charge of helping the new faculty member
92
prepare for his or her third-year review, and later, helping them prepare for the tenure process,
including initial selection the department-selected recommendation letter writers. On occasion,
other faculty members also help in mentoring the new faculty member, especially if some
deficiency is noted at any point in their early career. The relative rank of non-tenured professors
is compared by the P&T committee during the merit review process, and certain actions can be
decided by the committee if they see a need to step in.
93
APPENDIX L
Results from post-April 20 Showcase Survey
We asked faculty participants (a sub-group of all participants who also included PhD students
and industry professionals) whether they had received any type of formal or informal mentoring
at NJIT. The majority of the respondents reported having received mentoring (7 yes and 1 no).
However, 5 respondents only selected informal mentoring, and two selected that they had
received both formal and informal mentoring.
Have you received any type of formal or informal mentoring during your
time at NJIT?
Yes, INFORMAL, 5
Yes, FORMAL, 2
Other, 7
No, 1
Yes, Both Formal
& Informal, 2
The results about the existence of “informal mentoring” are not surprising based on the data
collected in CSLA which highlighted that a process for mentoring junior faculty did exist,
although it was ad hoc and managed by individual departments.
For this reason, we also asked whether respondents felt that an official mentoring program at
NJIT would prove useful for career advancement. Respondents strongly agreed with this
statement (75%); one respondent somewhat agreed; and one somewhat disagreed.
The respondents also offered brief comments that are useful to the planning of the Mentoring
Academy-MAC (emphasis added in italics).
Comments
“NJIT did have a program LONG ago that matched up senior faculty with new hires. My mentor
was Hindy Schachter. She was a great help.”
“Mentors would need to be carefully chosen.”
“The mentoring relationship would work out only if it is a good match.”
“Probably two mentors should be assigned to any incoming faculty, like with dissertation
readers, because one will usually not be active.”
94
APPENDIX M
95
APPENDIX N
ADVANCE Featured in Murray Center E-Newsletter
96