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