Fall 2014 the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) Faculty Survey was administered online to AUB faculty. 134 faculty members completed the survey form and submitted their
responses (75 full-time; 59 part-time). The HERI survey focuses on how faculty members spend
their time, how they interact with students, their preferred methods of teaching students, their
perceptions of institutional climate and their primary sources of stress and satisfaction. In
addition, this year’s survey had specific modules on advising and campus climate.
Faculty responses have been aggregated in the following report by theme and construct.
Theme reports combine relevant items together for easy access. By examining these items together, these
reports illustrate what contributes to specific areas of interest on campus and can be used to facilitate
discussion. Constructs are designed to capture the experiences and outcomes institutions are often
interested in understanding, but that present a measurement challenge because of their complex
and multifaceted nature. To measure these broad underlying areas more precisely, HERI used
Item Response Theory (IRT) to combine individual survey items into global measures that
capture these areas. IRT uses response patterns to derive construct score estimates while
simultaneously giving greater weight in the estimation process to survey items that tap into the
construct more directly. This results in more accurate construct scores. Constructs are
particularly useful for benchmarking as they allow determining if the experiences and outcomes
differ from the comparison groups. AUB faculty responses have been compared with all
universities and with private universities and with 2011 results.
Item responses have been aggregated by the following themes and constructs:
I.
Professional Practice:
a. Teaching (student-centered pedagogy, habit of mind)
b. Scholarship (scholarly productivity)
c. Service (civic minded values and practice)
II.
Job Satisfaction:
a. Workplace (relationship with administration)
b. Compensation
c. Career related stress, health & wellness
III.
Institutional Priorities
a. Commitment to diversity
b. Civic engagement
c. Increased prestige
IV.
Institutional Support and Resources
V.
Goals for Undergraduate Education: Personal development
1
Demographics of Sample
Sample of 139 respondents’ breakdown by gender and academic department are reported in
Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Table 1 reports breakdown by rank and principal activity.
Figure 1. Breakdown by Gender
Sex
41.3%
Male
58.7%
Female
Table 1. Breakdown by Rank and Principal Activity
Rank
Professor
Associate professor
Assistant professor
Lecturer
Instructor
%
16%
11%
33%
Principal Activity
Administration
Teaching
Research
Services to clients
and patients
Other
12%
28%
%
5%
68%
17%
9%
1%
Figure 2. Breakdown by Rank Compared to Norms
Instructor
Lecturer
Private Universities
Assistant professor
AUB
Associate professor
Professor
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%
2
Figure 3. Breakdown by Academic Department and Gender
Figure 4. Average Number of courses taught by faculty
10
8
6
4
2.37
2.15
2.39
2.15
2.35
2.15
2
0
All Faculty
Men
3
Women
Results
I.
Professional Practice
1. Teaching
9. Personally, how important to you is:
Research
AUB
Private
2011
Essential/Very
86
83
85
important
Teaching %
AUB
Private
2011
94
During the past two years, have you engaged in any of the
following activities?
Taught an honors course
Taught an interdisciplinary course
Taught an area studies course (e.g., women’s studies, ethnic
studies, LGBTQ studies)
Taught a service learning course
Taught an exclusively web-based course at this institution
Participated in organized activities around enhancing pedagogy
and student learning
Taught a seminar for first-year students
Taught a capstone course
Taught in a learning community (e.g., FIG, linked courses)
Taught a course that meets general education requirements
97
94
AUB
Service
Private
2011
58
67
62
2011
AUB
Private
universities
13
49
9%
36%
24%
45%
1
23
7
4%
17%
3%
14%
16%
9%
63
29
20
4
41%
14%
17%
4%
47%
59%
25%
31%
6%
50%
19. In how many of the courses that you teach do you use each of the following Methods?
2011 Most/All Private Priv/Pub
40
53
49
51
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.6
31-57
36-68
45-66
42-61
19
25
27
24
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.0
11-33
23-26
20-35
21-36
22
27
27
29
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
29-10
36-26
30-23
29-22
50*
51*
40
2.3
2.5
2.5
32-47
41-62
45-62
84
80
69
63
3.4
3.3
3.5
3.4
78-93
45-67
63-78
58-71
48
57**
58***
43
2.5
2.3
2.7
2.8
36-69
31-56
48-71
51-70
Student presentations %
Mean
Gender difference M<F
Student evaluations of each others’ work
Mean
Gender difference M<F
Grading on a curve %
Mean
Gender difference M>F
Rubric-based grading:
Mean
Gender difference M<F
Class discussions %
Mean
Gender difference M<F
Cooperative Learning %
Mean
Gender difference M<F
4
Experiential learning/Field studies
Mean
Gender difference M<F
Group projects %
Mean
Gender difference M<F
Extensive lecturing %
Mean
Gender difference M>F
Multiple drafts of written work %
Mean
Gender difference M<F
Student-selected topics for course content %
Mean
Gender difference M<F
Reflective writing/journaling %
Mean
Gender difference M<F
Community service as part of coursework %
Mean
Gender difference M<F, except for AUB
Electronic quizzes with immediate feedback in class
Mean
Gender difference M slightly higher than F
Using real-life problems %
Mean
Gender difference M<F
Using student inquiry to drive learning %
Mean
Gender difference M<F
2.0
24-43
42
2.3
36-52
46
2.4
56-29
21
2.0
13-36
15
1.8
10-24
14
1.2
3-33
4
1.2
1-10
3
1.3
3-2
55
2.6
53-60
44
2.4
42-19
28
2.1
22-36
48
2.5
41-56
57
2.7
65-56
36
2.3
23-51
24
1.8
17-33
26
1.9
19-36
15
1.6
20-8
14
1.6
15-13
82
3.3
78-87
69
3.1
67-72
31
2.1
29-34
41
2.4
36-50
53
2.6
62-38
35
2.3
30-44
28**
2.1
23-36
25
1.9
21-32
10
1.4
8-13
11*
1.4
11-11
66**
2.97
64-70
58**
2.8
54-63
31
2.0
29-32
43
2.4
37-52
53
2.6
61-42
32
2.2
28-38
26*
2.1
22-31
21
1.8
16-28
7**
1.35
5-10
15
1.5
14-16
65***
2.94
61-71
53***
2.7
49-60
Conclusion
 Importance of teaching and research are relatively stable as compared with 2011, while
importance of service has gone slightly down.
 A good number of items (11/16) showed improvement from 2011 and were becoming
comparable to the norms or significantly higher (n=4; highlighted green).
 Three items were significantly lower than norms (use of rubrics, cooperative learning,
and student selected topics).
 Most of the items showed higher use of these approaches by females than by males,
except on use of grading on the curve and extensive lecturing.
5
Habits of the Mind
In your interactions with undergraduates, how often do
you encourage them to
Ask questions in class
Mean
Gender difference
Support their opinions with a logical argument
Mean
Gender difference
Seek solutions to problems and explain them to others
Mean
Gender difference
Revise their papers to improve their writing
Mean
Gender difference
Evaluate the quality or reliability of information they receive
Mean
Gender difference
Take risks for potential gains
Mean
Gender difference
Seek alternative solutions to a problem
Mean
Gender difference
Look up scientific research articles and resources
Mean
Gender difference
Explore topics on their own, even though not required for a class
Mean
Gender difference
Accept mistakes as part of the learning process
Mean
Gender difference
Seek feedback on their academic work
Mean
Gender difference
Work with other students on group projects
Mean
Gender difference
Integrate skills and knowledge from different sources and
experiences
Mean
Gender difference
How often in the past year have you encouraged students to
Use different points of view to make an argument
Mean
Gender difference
6
Most/All
Freq/occ
96
2.9
94-98
97
2.9
94-100
94
2.6
91-98
82
2.3
77-87
92
2.5
85-100
76
2
77-75
94
2.4
91-98
89
2.4
83-96
89
2.3
87-91
96
2.5
92-100
94
2.6
89-100
82
2.3
71-93
93
2.5
89-98
Private
Priv/Pub
99
2.9
98-100
97**
2.7
96-99
96
2.6
95-97
85
2.3
82-91
95
2.6
93-98
73
2
72-76
93
2.4
93-93
82
2.3
82-82
94
2.4
94-96
95
2.6
94-97
95
2.6
95-96
87
2.4
83-94
96
2.6*
95-99
98
2.9
98-99
97***
2.7
97-98
84
2.6
95-96
84
2.3
81-87
93
2.5
92-95
72
2
70-75
92
2.4
92-92
83
2.3
83-84
93
2.3
92-94
95
2.6
95-95
94
2.5
93-95
85
2.4
82-89
95
2.6
94-97
Most/All
Freq/occ
97
2.6
98-96
Private
Priv/Pub
91
2.5*
89-94
90
2.4**
89-93
Make connections between ideas from different courses
Mean
Gender difference
Critically evaluate their position on an issue
Mean
Gender difference
Recognize the biases that affect their thinking
Mean
Gender difference
Think more broadly about an issue
Mean
Gender difference
How frequently in the courses you taught in the past year
have you given at least one assignment that required students
to:
Engage deeply with a significant challenge or question within
your discipline
Mean
Gender difference
Write in the specific style or format of your discipline
Mean
Gender difference
Use research methods from your discipline in field or applied
settings
Mean
Gender difference
Apply learning from both academic and field settings
Mean
Gender difference
Describe how different perspectives would affect the
interpretation of a question or issue in your discipline
Mean
Gender difference
Weigh the meaning and significance of evidence
Mean
Gender difference
Discuss the ethical or moral implications of a course of action
Mean
Gender difference
Work with classmates outside of class
Mean
Gender difference
Lead a discussion, activity, or lab
Mean
Gender difference
Provide and/or receive feedback to classmates about a draft or
work still in progress
Mean
Gender difference
7
96
2.6
96-96
98
2.6
97-99
97
2.6
96-98
94
2.6
94-94
94
2.5
93-96
97
2.7
94-100
Most/All
Freq/occ
92
2.6
91-95
90
2.4
87-94
96
2.7
95-98
Private
91
2.5
90-92
88
2.4
85-91
96
2.7
95-97
Priv/Pub
89
93
91
2.4
88-91
88
2.4
83-93
82
2.6**
92-94
87
2.4
85-91
84
2.5
90-92
85
2.4
83-89
81
2.3
79-86
83
2.3
75-93
84
2.4
84-83
82
2.3
82-81
85
2.3
81-82
78
2.2
76-81
82
2.2
78-90
91
2.5
85-98
82
2.3
77-88
72
2.1
69-76
77
2.2
71-83
2.3
82-90
90
2.5
89-91
84
2.3
81-89
83
2.3**
80-88
81
2.2
78-86
2.3
80-86
90
2.5
89-91
80
2.2
78-92
82
2.3*
81-85
79
2.2
76-85
63
1.9
53-74
72
2
70-76
70.4
2
68-75
Analyze and interpret data
Mean
Gender difference
92
2.5
94-90
88
2.5
89-86
87
2.4
87-85
Apply mathematical concepts and computational thinking
Mean
Gender difference
63
2
66-60
56
1.9
62-46
62
2
66-54
Conclusion
 Most of the items were comparable to the norms, except for
o 3 which were lower and these involved working with classmates outside of class,
deep engagement and integration of skills and knowledge, and
o 2 which were higher than norms and they involved supporting their opinions and
making arguments.
8
Use of Technology in classrooms
YouTube or other
Videos
Simulations/animations
Podcasts
Online homework
or virtual labs
Online
discussion boards
Conclusion
 YouTube/videos and simulations/animations are most used frequently used by AUB
faculty, while Podcasts are least used.
 AUB faculty use more simulations/animations than norms but less on other tools.
9
Student-Centered Pedagogy
Measures the extent to which faculty use student-centered teaching and evaluation
American University of Beirut
Total (n)
Mean
Standard Deviation
Significance
Effect Size
M<F
2011
2014
115
47.3
8.66
45*-52
56
47.2
9.62
-
Total
Private Priv/pub
2,036
4,500
48.5
48.1
9.21
9.38
-
44-51
47-52
47-51
 Comparable averages to 2011 and to the norms. No significant differences this year.
 Males have lower percentages than females on this construct.
Men
Total
100%
100%
100%
80%
Women
25.0%
27.7%
25.8%
17.6%
21.2%
19.7%
80%
80%
38.1%
34.5%
41.9%
41.5%
27.3%
20.0%
24.0%
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
36.4%
23.5%
60%
28.6%
41.6%
39.9%
41.4%
38.8%
40%
40%
20%
60%
46.4%
40%
58.8%
30.7%
34.3%
0%
20%
37.4%
41.6%
0%
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
60%
20%
36.4%
0%
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
High Student-Centered Pedagogy
Average Student-Centered Pedagogy
Low Student-Centered Pedagogy
Survey items and estimation 'weights':
In how many of the courses that you teach do you use each of the following?
* Cooperative learning (small groups) (2.30)
* Class discussions (1.70)
* Student presentations (1.85)
* Student evaluations of each others’ work (1.53)
* Group projects (1.82)
10
1. Scholarly Productivity
During the past two years have you engaged in any of the following activities?
Advised student groups involved in service/volunteer work
Collaborated with the local community in research/teaching
Conducted research or writing focused on International Global
issues
Conducted research or writing focused on Racial or ethnic
minorities
Conducted research or writing focused on Women and gender
Engaged undergraduates on your research project
Worked with undergraduates on a research project
Engaged in academic research that spans multiple disciplines
Received funding for your work from foundations
Received funding for your work from state or federal government
Received funding for your work from Business or industry
2011 Yes
Private
Pr/Pub
43
47%
44%
44
48
43
52
44
39
50
46
37
8.0%
9
27
27
11%
54%
56%
67%
37%
24%
15%
13
47
61
63
36
21
15
30
56
68
77
30
25
12
25
58
71
77
27
41
14
How many of the following have you published?
Articles in academic or professional journals 5 or more
Mean
Gender differences M>F
2011
58***
3.9
70-37
AUB
49
3.6
60-45
Private
68
4.0
63-50
Priv/Pub
62*
4.1
66-54
Chapters in edited volumes1 or more
Mean
Gender differences M>F
54***
2.0
56-49
50
1.9
53-50
68***
2.4
71-62
64***
2.4
66-60
Books, manuals, or monographs 1 or more
Mean
Gender differences F>M for AUB only
Other, such as patents, or computer software products
1 or more
Mean
Gender differences M>F
35***
1.5
38-29
28
1.36
26-30
49***
1.81
51-44
43**
1.68
45-29
How many exhibitions or performances in the fine or
applied arts have you presented in the last two years?
1 or more
Mean
Gender differences M>F for AUB only
How many of your professional writings have been
published or accepted for publication in the last two years?
3 or more
Mean
Gender differences M>F
11
15*
1.2
18-10
11
1.24
18-9
19
1.39
23-11
18
1.35
23-13
12
1.2
15-5
10
1.18
14-4
16
1.38
16-15
12
1.30
12-11
51*
2.7
58-39
53
2.53
57-42
53
2.71
58-45
54
2.77
57-48
During the present term, how many hours per week on
average do you actually spend on each of the following
activities?
AUB
Private
Priv/Pub
Research and scholarly writing
5 or more hours
Mean
Gender differences M>F
62***
3.7
74-42
57
3.2
60-55
65*
3.6
69-58
63*
3.6
67-57
Other creative products/performances
1 or more hours
Mean
Gender differences M=F AUB only
62**
1.9
66-54
36
1.5
36-35
30
1.5
32-26
26
1.5
28-22
 On publication of books chapters, books, manuals and monographs, AUB 2011 mean is
significantly lower than norms.
 Similarly, on most of the items, male averages are higher than females, except on
publication of monographs and manuals where AUB females are higher.
How many articles in academic journals have you
published?
Private Universities
51+
11.2%
8.4%
5-10
3-4
14.4%
13.8%
14.0%
12.4%
21-50
11-20
AUB
15.0%
10.6%
1-2
17.5%
15.0%
15.3%
16.8%
15.9%
12
19.6%
How many chapters in edited books have you
published?
Private Universities
51+
0.1%
0.0%
21-50
3.0%
1.9%
11-20
1.9%
5-10
3-4
AUB
6.9%
7.6%
12.1%
10.5%
15.4%
1-2
30.3%
27.6%
32.1%
None
50.5%
Scholarly Productivity Index. A unified measure of the scholarly activity of faculty that
includes:
• Articles in academic and professional journals
• Chapters in edited volumes
• Professional writings published or accepted for publication in the last two years
American University of Beirut
Total (n)
Mean
Standard Deviation
Significance
Effect Size
2011
2014
114
53.7
9.04
-
62
53.5
8.77
-
Total
Private Priv/pub
2,153
4,800
54.2
54.7
9.41
9.20
-0.07
-0.13
 Stability in averages between 2011 and 2014.
 No significant differnces between AUB means and norms on average of the index.
13
Total
Men
100%
80%
50.0%
45.3%
48.8%
33.9%
38.5%
36.8%
20%
0%
100%
100%
60%
40%
Women
80%
57.9%
52.2%
54.9%
60%
60%
40%
40%
23.7%
34.3%
33.0%
18.4%
13.5%
12.1%
Comp 1
Comp 2
20%
16.1%
Your Inst
16.2%
Comp 1
14.4%
80%
50.0%
33.7%
39.9%
45.4%
42.3%
20%
0%
Comp 2
37.5%
Your Inst
0%
12.5%
Your Inst
20.8%
17.8%
Comp 1
Comp 2
High Scholarly Productivity
Average Scholarly Productivity
Low Scholarly Productivity
Scholarly Productivity By Gender
Following Graphs highlight the following with respect to AUB faculty research focus and
collaboration with graduates:
 Research AUB faculty engages in is mostly academic spanning multiple disciplines and
research that focuses on global international issues, and this is the trend in the norms.
 They conduct significantly less research on racial/ethnic or gender issues than the norms.
 Similar percentages of AUB faculty work with undergraduates on research projects as the
norms, however slightly lower percentages engage undergraduates on faculty research
projects or supervise an undergraduate thesis.
14
Foci of Research
Faculty Collaboration with Undergraduates on Research
15
2. Service
Personally, how important to you is:
Service
AUB Private Pr/Pub
Essential/Very imp.
58
67
64
Men
AUB Private Pr/Pub
56
65
63
Women
AUB Private Pr/Pub
61
71
67
During the past two years have you engaged in any of the following activities?
Advised student groups involved in service/volunteer work
2011
43
AUB
44
Private
Pr/Pub
52
50
During the present term, how many hours per week on average
do you actually spend on each of the following activities?
Advising and counseling of students 5 or more hours
Mean
Gender differences M>F
2011
AUB
Private
Pr/Pub
33
2.4
27-41
30
2.3
31-29
42
2.6**
41-43
38
2.5*
38-38
Committee work and meetings 5 or more hours
Mean
Gender differences M<F
Other administration 5 or more hours
Mean
Gender differences M=F
33
2.5
33-32
33
2.6
33-32
29
2.3
25-34
24
2.2
24-23
35
2.4
34-38
31
2.3
31-30
38
2.5
35-39
32
2.4
32-33
36
1.6
34-38
31
1.5
34-24
25
1.4***
28-22
45
1.7
45-46
55
1.8
57-53
53
1.7
54-52
Outside consulting/freelance work
Mean
Gender differences M=F
Community or public service 1 or more hours
Mean
Gender differences M=F
46
1.7
45-48
 A decrease in importance of service to AUB faculty, with males perceiving it less
important than females.
 Lower percentage of AUB faculty advise students to engage in volunteer work.
 Significant differences between AUB and norms on number of hours spent advising
students which is lower than norms, and on number of hours spent on outside consulting
which is higher.
 No significant differences on civic minded practice with previous years and with the
norms.
16

Civic Minded Practice. A unified measure of faculty involvement in civic activities that
includes:
 Collaborated with the local community in research/teaching
 Using scholarship to address local community needs
 Community service as part of coursework
 Engaged in public service/professional consulting without pay
 Community or public service
 student groups involved in service/volunteer work
2011
115
49
7.5
American University of Beirut
Total (n)
Mean
Standard Deviation
Significance
Effect Size
33.3%
29.5%
28.1%
36.4%
39.1%
38.6%
100%
30.3%
31.7%
28.1%
26.7%
36.6%
40.3%
39.6%
60%
40%
40%
20%
80%
31.4%
33.4%
0%
20%
Comp 1
Comp 2
80%
31.7%
31.6%
33.7%
36.0%
31.7%
30.0%
36.0%
37.2%
37.1%
28.0%
31.1%
32.9%
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
60%
40%
0%
Your Inst
0.11
Women
100%
100%
60%
0.09
Men
Total
80%
Total
Private Priv/Pub
2,195
4,872
49.4
49.2
8.28
8.27
2014
66
50.1
7.61
-
20%
0%
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
High Civic Minded Practice
Average Civic Minded Practice
Low Civic Minded Practice

Civic Minded Values. A unified measure of the extent to which faculty believes civic
engagement is a central part of the college mission and includes:
 Encourage students to become agents of social change
 Instill in students a commitment to community service
 Colleges have a responsibility to work with their surrounding communities to address
local issues.
17
2011
115
53
8.9
**
0.5
American University of Beirut
Total (n)
Mean
Standard Deviation
Significance
Effect Size
2014
48
52.8
7.66
-
Men
Total
Women
100%
100%
100%
37.5%
80%
26.3%
60%
44.2%
40%
23.5%
42.2%
14.6%
0%
Your Inst
80%
29.5%
34.3%
21.3%
32.1%
18.5%
80%
60%
40%
47.9%
20%
44.2%
41.1%
50.0%
20%
34.5%
17.9%
40.3%
Comp 2
Comp 1
Comp 2
34.4%
30.4%
44.2%
43.7%
45.0%
20%
0%
Your Inst
45.0%
60%
40%
0%
Comp 1
Total
Private Priv/Pub
1,968
4,310
48.7
47.7
8.90
9.13
**
***
0.46
0.56
10.0%
Your Inst
21.3%
25.9%
Comp 1
Comp 2
High Civic Minded Values
Average Civic Minded Values
Low Civic Minded Values

AUB faculty have significantly higher averages on civic mindedness, especially female
faculty. They believe that civic engagement is a central part of the college mission.
II.
Job Satisfaction
Workplace – A unified measure of the extent to which faculty are satisfied with their working
environment.
Compensation – A unified measure of the extent to which faculty is satisfied with their compensation
packages.
Career Related Stress - Measures the amount of stress faculty experience related to their career.
2011
Total (n)
115
Mean
45
St. Dev.
7.9
Significance ***
Effect Size
-.69
Workplace
2014 Priv.
41
1855
47.7 49.9
7.1
9.33
ns
All 2011
4082 115
49.6
45
9.1
6.4
ns
***
-1.1
Compensation
2014 Priv.
41
1856
47.5 53.9
6.2
9.0
***
-0.70
Note. Ns Not significant; *** p<.001
18
Career Related Stress
All 2011 2014 Priv. All
4083 114
41
1844 4056
53
50
50.3 50.3 50.7
8.63 9.3
7.59
7.8
7.72
***
ns
ns
ns
-0.6
Survey items and estimation 'weights'
Workplace Satisfaction
How satisfied are you with the following aspects of your job?
* Professional relationships with other faculty (3.1)
* Departmental leadership (1.4)
* Competency of colleagues (2.4)
* Course assignments (1.27)
* Autonomy and independence (1.55)
Compensation Satisfaction
How satisfied are you with the following aspects of your job?
* Opportunity for scholarly pursuits (2.38)
* Teaching load (1.22)
* Retirement benefits (1.68)
* Job security (1.39)
* Prospects for career advancement (1.53)
* Salary (1.39)
Career Related Stress
: Please indicate the extent to which each of the following has been a source of stress for you during the last two
years:
* Lack of personal time (1.96)
* Colleagues (1.16)
* Teaching load (1.51)
* Research or publishing demands (1.06)
* Committee work (1.38)
* Self-imposed high expectations (1.03)
* Institutional procedures/red tape (1.08)
* Students (1.08)
Weights in green have shown an increase, while in red a drop.
Job Satisfaction: Workplace
Total
Men
100%
19.5%
80%
60%
33.0%
29.0%
40.2%
41.7%
41.5%
40%
20%
Women
100%
100%
80%
60%
30.4%
30.4%
40%
39.0%
26.8%
29.3%
0%
20%
39.1%
33.8%
30.3%
41.6%
26.4%
28.1%
Comp 1
Comp 2
Comp 1
Comp 2
20%
27.3%
55.6%
40.8%
40%
0%
Your Inst
31.8%
80%
60%
39.8%
5.6%
38.9%
41.8%
27.4%
30.9%
Comp 1
Comp 2
0%
Your Inst
Your Inst
Job Satisfaction: Compensation
Men
Total
100%
100%
7.3%
80%
41.6%
36.0%
39.1%
47.5%
41.0%
60%
60%
40%
20%
100%
8.7%
80%
46.3%
Women
42.5%
46.0%
46.3%
20%
15.9%
0%
Your Inst
Comp 1
52.2%
18.0%
0%
Comp 2
80%
60%
40%
Your Inst
38.8%
43.1%
15.9%
Comp 1
Comp 2
19
32.3%
29.1%
48.5%
49.9%
19.2%
21.0%
Comp 1
Comp 2
55.6%
40%
20%
13.8%
5.6%
38.9%
0%
Your Inst
Career Related Stress
Men
Total
29.3%
30.1%
29.6%
48.8%
47.5%
47.8%
22.0%
22.4%
22.6%
80%
30.4%
27.2%
26.1%
48.2%
47.7%
60%
60%
40%
100%
100%
100%
80%
Women
40%
60%
56.5%
20%
20%
0%
0%
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
80%
13.0%
Your Inst
27.8%
26.1%
20%
34.3%
46.4%
48.0%
18.9%
17.7%
Comp 1
Comp 2
38.9%
40%
24.6%
34.7%
33.3%
0%
Comp 1
Comp 2
Your Inst
Faculty Satisfaction by Gender
Faculty Satisfaction with Pay Equity and Family
Flexibility
Faculty Satisfaction with Pay Equity and
Family Flexibility
100%
90%
80%
70%
23.7%
41.0%
60%
50%
5.0%
33.8%
18.6%
40%
30%
20%
0.0%
32.5%
62.5%
55.3%
46.0%
43.6%
37.6%
10%
0%
Relative equity of salary and job benefits
Flexibility in relation to family
matters or emergencies
Your Institution
■ Very Satisfied
■ Satisfied
Overall job satisfaction
Comparison Group
■ Very Satisfied
■ Satisfied
2014 HERI Faculty Survey
Return to Table of Contents
20
22
Causes of Stress
Stress Due to Subtle Discrimination, by Gender
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
12.5%
40%
30%
15.4%
8.4%
8.8%
20%
10%
23.8%
17.6%
4.8%
5.7%
14.3%
14.8%
37.4%
23.1%
0%
All Faculty
Men Faculty
Women Faculty
AUB
■ Extensive
■ Somewhat
Comparison Group
Additional Sources of Faculty Stress
■ Extensive
■ Somewhat “Please indicate the extent to which each of the following has been a source of stress for you
during the last two years:”
Additional Sources of Faculty Stress
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
22.5%
17.5%
50%
24.0%
16.1%
21.2%
23.1%
10.0%
30%
47.5%
45.3%
55.0%
14.5%
45.8%
50.0%
43.6%
Personal Finances
Lack of personal time
Job security
Your Institution
■ Extensive
■ Somewhat
51.5%
46.5%
33.3%
25.5%
10%
0%
12.9%
20.5%
40%
20%
8.6%
6.3%
Working with
underprepared students
Change in work
responsibilities
54.3%
38.9%
Institutional budget
cuts
Comparison Group
■ Extensive
■ Somewhat
2014 HERI Faculty Survey
Return to Table of Contents
Conclusion
21
28

AUB faculty have lower overall job satisfaction 68% than norms (80%). Difference is not
related to flexibility issues but more to relative equity of salary and job benefits (33% vs.
56%).
Of the 3 dimensions of job satisfaction, AUB have significantly lower satisfaction on
compensation dimension only.
Workplace satisfaction of AUB faculty is higher and is comparable to norms. In 2011 it
was significantly lower than the norms.
There are gender differences with females less satisfied with workplace, while they are
more satisfied with compensation.
With respect to stress faculty face, it is not caused from gender discrimination but mostly
from lack of personal time (78%), job security (67%), personal finances (65%),
institutional budget cuts (63%), and underprepared students (60%).




III.
Institutional Priorities
Commitment to Diversity: Measures the extent to which faculty believe their institution is
committed to creating a diverse multicultural campus environment.
Civic Engagement – Measures the extents to which faculty believe their institution is committed
to facilitating civic engagement among students and faculty.
Increase Prestige – Measures the extents to which faculty believe their institution is committed
to increasing its prestige.
Diversity
Total (n)
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Significance
Effect Size
2011
112
49
10.7
-
Civic Engagement
AUB
43
47.8
Priv.
1,873
48.5
All
4,105
49.1
9.93
-
9.59
9.39
-0.07
-0.13
2011
112
50
9.5
*
0.24
AUB
42
50.9
Priv.
1,873
48.8
All
4,101
47.1
9.82
-
9.21
8.97
**
0.41
0.23
Increase Prestige
2011
112
53
7.5
***
-.45
AUB
43
54.6
Priv.
1,868
55.9
All
4,089
54.0
6.90
-
8.79
8.91
-0.15
0.07
Survey items and estimation 'weights'
Indicate how important you believe each priority listed below is at your college or university:
Diversity
* To promote racial and ethnic diversity in the faculty and administration (5.72)
* To recruit more minority students (1.77)
* To promote gender diversity in the faculty and administration (3.34)
22
Men
Total
20.9%
21.1%
80%
60%
37.2%
44.2%
24.3%
45.0%
20.0%
20.4%
80%
60%
32.0%
45.3%
25.3%
41.9%
34.8%
30.7%
0%
20%
60%
Comp 1
Comp 2
22.2%
22.8%
44.4%
42.3%
43.5%
33.3%
35.5%
33.7%
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
40%
48.0%
34.3%
28.6%
0%
Your Inst
22.2%
80%
46.0%
40%
40%
20%
Women
100%
100%
100%
20%
0%
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
High Institutional Priority
Average Institutional Priority
Low Institutional Priority
Faculty Perspectives on Diversity by Gender
■ AUB ■ Comparison Group
Conclusion
 No significant differences on any of the dimensions of institutional priorities with the
norms except on civic engagement where AUB faculty have significantly higher averages
on the fact that their institution is committed to facilitating civic engagement among
students and faculty.
 With respect to diversity, female faculty had higher averages than male faculty, and there
was difference with the norms on ‘faculty preparedness to deal with diversity in the
classrooms’.
 Also, with respect to civic engagement, higher percentage of female faculty considered it
as a high institutional priority than male faculty.
23
Faculty Perspectives on campus Climate for Diversity
Civic Engagement
* To provide resources for faculty to engage in community-based teaching or research (2.08)
* To create and sustain partnerships with surrounding communities (2.84)
* To facilitate student involvement in community service (1.56)
Men
Total
100%
100%
100%
80%
Women
28.6%
26.3%
42.9%
43.8%
60%
16.0%
21.3%
44.2%
60%
40%
20%
20%
29.8%
19.8%
80%
40%
28.6%
22.7%
34.6%
0%
80%
52.0%
45.6%
44.3%
31.7%
35.9%
0%
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
High IP: Civic Engagement
32.0%
60%
40%
32.0%
47.1%
41.1%
23.2%
44.0%
29.4%
20%
23.5%
26.9%
32.7%
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
0%
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
Average IP: Civic Engagement
24
Low IP: Civic Engagement
Civic Engagement by Gender
Increase Prestige
* To increase or maintain institutional prestige (3.54)
* To enhance the institution's national image (3.43)
* To hire faculty "stars" (1.47)
Men
Total
41.9%
42.8%
42.9%
51.2%
41.5%
40.7%
36.0%
40.1%
40.5%
7.0%
Your Inst
15.7%
Comp 1
16.4%
40%
64.0%
Comp 2
High IP: Increse Prestige
0%
80%
50.0%
47.1%
46.3%
33.3%
36.8%
37.8%
16.7%
16.1%
15.9%
Your Inst
Comp 1
Comp 2
60%
44.4%
42.8%
20%
20%
0%
80%
60%
60%
40%
100%
100%
100%
80%
Women
40%
20%
0.0%
Your Inst
15.5%
16.7%
Comp 1
Comp 2
0%
Average IP: Increase Prestige
Increased Prestige by Gender
■ AUB ■ Comparison Group
25
Low IP: Increase Prestige
IV Administration
A. Administration
Indicate how well each of the following describes your
college or university
The faculty are typically at odds with campus administration
Very descriptive / somewhat descriptive
Mean
Gender difference M>F only in AUB
Administrators consider faculty concerns when making policy
Very descriptive / somewhat descriptive
Mean
Gender difference M<F in AUB 2011 but higher 2014
The administration is open about its policies
Very descriptive / somewhat descriptive
Mean
Gender difference M>F
Please indicate the extent to which each of the following has
been a source of stress during the last two years
Colleagues
Extensive/somewhat
Mean
Gender difference
Institutional procedures and “red tape”
Extensive / somewhat
Mean
Gender difference M>F
Below are some statements about your college or university.
Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each
of the following
Student Affairs staff have the support and respect of faculty
Agree strongly / Agree somewhat
Mean
Gender Differences
Faculty are sufficiently involved in campus decision making
Agree strongly / agree somewhat
Mean
Gender difference M<F
The criteria for advancement and promotion decision are clear
Agree strongly / agree somewhat
Mean
Gender difference M>F only except AUB
26
2011
AUB
Private Priv/pub
78***
2
82-73
80
2.2
86-71
65
1.9*
64-66
67
1.9*
66-69
70**
1.7
64-80
56
1.6
59-53
59
4.7
62-57
62
1.7
64-59
66
1.8
65-68
2011
51%
1.5
59-41
53%
1.7
54-51
59%
1.7
59-58
AUB
Private Priv/pub
54
1.7
53-56
56
1.6
55-59
55
1.7
51-61
56
1.7
59-59
73**
2
77-66
2004
78
2
90-65
75
2
78-72
78
2
80-76
AUB
Private Priv/pub
84
3
81-88
89
3.25
81-100
73
3.0*
75-70
75
2.9**
75-76
88***
3.3
81-100
44
2.2
39-50
46
2.3
48-43
49
2.4
50-46
58***
2.5
58-59
60
2.6
50-74
65
2.8
66-63
71
2.9
73-67
B. Institutional Support & Resources
2011
AUB
Private
Priv/pub
During the past two years, have you engaged in any of the
following activities?
Participated in organized activities around enhancing pedagogy
and student learning
66%
41%
59%
59%
Paid workshops outside institution focused on teaching: Yes
13%
8%
18%
16%
Paid sabbatical leave: Yes
32%
22%
23%
16%
Travel funds paid by the institution: Yes
71%
66%
74%
68%
Internal grants for research: Yes
60%
59%
41%
39%
Training for administrative leadership: Yes
6%
8%
14%
13%
Received incentives to develop new courses: Yes
24%
16%
22%
21%
Received incentives to integrate new technology into your
classroom: Yes
38%
38%
26%
26%
53***
1.6
49-59
62%
1.8
55-71
68%
1.9
71-64
67%
1.9
69-64
85**
2.2
82
2.2
80
2.1
84
2.1
86-83
82-82
81-77
85-82
50***
1.6
47-54
69
1.9
68-71
73
1.9
74-70
69
1.9
70-69
68***
2.7
72-60
80
3.0
88-68
77
3.1
80-73
79
3.1
81-76
79***
3
81-76
82
3.0
81-84
88
3.4**
90-86
86
3.3*
86-86
Faculty are rewarded for being good teachers
Very descriptive / somewhat descriptive
Mean
Gender Differences M<F only for AUB
There is respect for the expression of diverse values and beliefs
Very descriptive / somewhat descriptive
Mean
Gender Differences M=F only for AUB
Faculty are rewarded for their efforts to use instructional
technology
Very descriptive / somewhat descriptive
Mean
Gender difference M<F only in AUB
Below are some statements about your college or university.
Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each
of the following
My research is valued by faculty in my department
Agree strongly / agree somewhat
Mean
Gender difference M>F
My teaching is valued by faculty in my department
Agree strongly / agree somewhat
Mean
Gender difference M>F
27
My service is valued in my department
Agree strongly/agree somewhat
Mean
Gender Differences
There is adequate support for faculty development
Agree strongly / agree somewhat
Mean
Gender difference M<F only in AUB
68*
2.6
63-76
Faculty’s Perspectives on Campus and Departmental Climate
Faculty Perspectives on Shared Governance
28
78
3.0
73-84
83
3.2
84-81
82
3.2
82-81
65
2.8
58-74
61
2.7
66-54
60
2.6
63-54
Conclusion
 With respect to Administration, faculty perceptions were lower than 2011 on several
items like openness of administration about its policies, taking faculty perspective,
however this lowering did not result in significant differences from the norms.
 There were significant differences on ‘faculty are at odds with campus
administration’ which was higher at AUB, and ‘student affairs’ has support and
respect of faculty’ which was lower.
 With respect to institutional support, there was, in general, a drop this year in many of
activities faculty engage in. However, there was an increase in ‘faculty being
rewarded for being good teachers’ and ‘for their efforts to use technology’.
 Although ‘my teaching is valued in my department’ has gone up yet is still
significantly lower than the norm.
V.
Goals for Undergraduate Education
A. Personal Development: Measures the extent to which faculty believe that personal development
is a central goal for undergraduate education.
Total
American University of Beirut
Total (n)
Mean
Standard Deviation
Significance
Effect Size
M<F
43.8%
36.3%
60%
38.4%
27.8%
52-55
8.3%
Your Inst
25.4%
38.3%
35.7%
80%
39.5%
40%
33.9%
Comp 2
33.5%
60%
Women
25.4%
38.5%
20%
27.0%
36.1%
7.1%
Your Inst
80%
55.0%
36.7%
Comp 2
31.1%
38.2%
35.0%
20%
10.0%
0%
Comp 1
40.6%
60%
40%
57.1%
0%
Comp 1
Private Priv/pub
1,964
4,301
49.6
47.6
9.1
9.5
**
***
0.44
0.62
49-51
47-49
100%
47.9%
20%
0%
51-56
100%
100%
40%
AUB
48
53.5
7.9
Men
Total
80%
2011
114
52.5
7.36
Your Inst
22.7%
Comp 1
30.8%
Comp 2
High UG institutional goal: Personal development
Average institutional goal: Personal development
Low institutional goal: Personal development
Survey items and estimation 'weights':
Indicate the importance to you of each of the following education goals for undergraduate students:
* Help students develop personal values (4.28)
*Develop moral character (3.42)
* Provide for students' emotional development (2.15)
29
Indicate the importance to you of each of the following
education goals for undergraduate students:
Develop ability to think critically
Essential / very important
Mean
Gender difference M=F
Prepare students for employment after college
Essential / very important
Mean
Gender difference M>F in AUB
Prepare students for graduate or advanced education
Essential / very important
Mean
Significance
Effect size
Gender difference M<F
Develop moral character
Essential / very important
Mean
Significance
Effect size
Gender difference M<F
Provide for students’ emotional development
Essential / very important
Mean
Significance
Effect size
Gender difference M<F
Teach students the classic works of western civilization
Essential / very important
Mean
Gender difference M<F only in AUB
Help students develop personal values
Essential / very important
Mean
Significance
Effect size
Gender difference M<F
2011
AUB
Private Priv/pub
100
3.87
100-100
100
3.8
100-100
99
3.9
99-100
99
3.9
98-100
88
3.2
84-83
85
3.3
89-50
77
3.2
74-82
79
3.2
77-83
90
3.3
90
3.4
86-98
86-95
78
3.1
**
0.45
79-75
72
3.0
***
0.57
72-70
89
3.5
92
3.4
85-98
89-95
71
3.0
**
0.44
69-73
64
2.9
***
0.62
62-67
68
2.9
77
3.0
59-85
75-80
51
2.6
**
0.42
48-56
47
2.5
***
0.52
44-52
40
2.2
39-42
35
2.3
43-25
34
2.2
37-30
28
2.0
31-22
88
3.3
85
2.3
81-100
86-85
69
2.2
**
0.38
68-71
60
2.0
***
0.59
59-63
73
3
73
3.0
50
2.5
**
0.45
44
2.4
***
0.59
Instill in students a commitment to community service
Essential / very important
Mean
Significance
Effect size
30
Gender difference M<F
64-88
71-75
47-54
41-49
Enhance students’ knowledge of and appreciation for other
Essential / very important
Mean
Gender difference M<F
77
3.1
69-93
67
2.9
64-73
64
2.8
56-77
60
2.8
51-73
Promote ability to write effectively
Essential / very important
Mean
Gender difference M<F
87
3.3
79-100
92
3.4
93-90
91
3.5
88-95
91
3.5
88-94
Help students evaluate the quality and reliability of
information
Essential / very important
Mean
Gender difference M<F
92
3.4
88-100
67
2.8
68-68
70
3.0
63-80
68
2.9
62-76
Teach students tolerance and respect for different beliefs
Essential / very important
Mean
Gender difference M<F
89
3.5
85-98
83
3.3
82-85
79
3.2
82-91
76
3.2
70-86
Encourage students to become agents of social change
Essential / very important
76
77
54
49
Mean
3
2.6
2.6
3.0
Significance
**
***
Effect size
0.4
0.48
Gender difference M<F
70-88
75-80
49-63
44-58
Below are some statements about your college or university. Indicate the extent to which you agree
or disagree with each of the following
This institution takes responsibility for educating
underprepared students
Agree strongly / agree somewhat
55
50
54
58
Mean
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.6
Gender difference M>F
62-44
54-45
58-48
62-52
Indicate how important you believe each priority listed below is at you college or university
To promote the intellectual development of students
Highest priority / high priority
82
79
81
81
Mean
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.2
Gender difference M<F only in AUB
78-91
54-45
58-48
62-52
To develop leadership ability among students
Highest priority / high priority
Mean
Gender difference M>F only in private
54
2.6
52-58
31
65
2.8
80-78
66
2.8
84-63
55
2.6
54-55
Conclusion
 With respect to institutional goals, AUB averages were significantly higher than norms
on several items related to developing social emotional development of students. On most
other items, AUB averages were similar to the norms on this dimension.
 Some items went up from 2011 related to developing leadership among students, while
others went down without resulting in significant differences from the norms.
Advising Module
AUB
How many undergraduates do you advise?
Mean
Have informal meetings outside your office (e.g., in the dining hall, at
campus events)
Very often/often
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Interact during scheduled office hours
Very often/often
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Exchange email
Very often/often
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Informed them of important deadlines
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Helped them understand academic policies
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Informed them of academic support options
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
32
All Inst.
14.9
19.7
30
2.7
F>M,2.9;2.6
35
3.0
67
3.8
M>F,4;3.6
52
3.4
*
0.31
**4;3.4
84
4.3
76
4.1
M>F,4.4;4.2
50
2.4
49
2.4
45
2.3
47
2.4
M>F,2.4;2.2
43
2.2
F>M 2.4;2.1
38
2.2
Provided information about courses
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Provided information about the major/minor
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Reviewed their transcript
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Discussed academic performance
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Provided information on other academic opportunities
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Discussed career and post-graduation goals
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Invited them to your home
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Listened closely to academic problems and concerns
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Listened closely to personal problems and concerns
33
53
2.4
61
2.5
M>F 2.5;2.3
48
2.3
M>F 2.4;2.2
29
2.0
63
2.5
*; ** F
-0.33; -.54
2.2; 2.6
M>F 2.2;1.9
44
2.2
** for F
-.53 for F
1.9; 2.3
47
2.4
43
2.3
40
2.2
40
2.3
56
2.4
56
2.5
M>F 2.5;2.3
6
1.2
3
1.3
F>M 1.3;1.1
51
2.5
52
2.4
F>M,2.6;2.3
35
30
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Took action to help students with academic difficulties
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Took action to help students with personal difficulties
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Provided advisees with Advice and guidance about their educational
program
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Provided advisees with An opportunity to discuss coursework outside
of class
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Provided advisees with Emotional support and encouragement
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
2.2
2.2
44
2.3
38
2.3
27
2.1
18
1.9
54
2.4
64
2.6
* only for
F
-0.48 for F
2.3; 2.6
M>F,2.5;2.3
36
2.1
45
2.3
*
-0.29
33
2.2
40
2.3
F>M,2.3;2.0
Provided advisees with Honest feedback about their skills and abilities
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Provided advisees with Encouragement to pursue
graduate/professional study
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
34
49
2.4
42
2.3
56
2.5
38
2.3
*
0.29
Gender Difference
Provided advisees with Help in achieving their professional goals
Frequently
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
55
2.4
48
2.4
M>F,2.5;2.2
Summary of Results
1. Activities with highest frequency of occurrence (average 3.8-4.3):
a. Exchange email (84%)
b. Have advisees drop by office (68%)
c. Interact during office hours (67%)
d. Schedule a Meeting (64%)
2. Highest activities done with advisees (>50%)
a. Discussed career and post-graduation goals, 56%
b. Provided advisees with Encouragement to pursue graduate/professional study 56%.
c. Provided advisees with Help in achieving their professional goals, 55%.
d. Provided advisees with Advice and guidance about their educational program, 54%.
e. Provided information about courses, 53%.
f. Listened closely to personal problems and concerns, 51%
g. Informed students of important deadlines, 50%.
h. Provided advisees with honest feedback about their skills and abilities, 49%.
3. Lowest activities (less than 30%)
a. Reviewed transcript (29%, 2.0)
b. Took action to help with personal difficulties (27%, 2.1)
c. Invited to home (6%. 1.2)
4. When compared with All Institutions participating in HERI, there are quite similar findings.
There were significant differences on the following:
a. Providing encouragement to pursue professional work (AUB higher)
b. Interaction during office hours (AUB higher, especially male faculty)
c. Have advisees drop by office (AUB higher, only male faculty)
d. Providing advice on educational programs (AUB lower, especially female faculty)
e. Reviewing transcript (AUB lower, especially Female faculty)
f. Provided information about major/minor (AUB lower, especially Female faculty)
g. Providing an opportunity to discuss work outside class (AUB lower)
5. There were gender differences in advising practices in AUB sample, with males having
35
higher means on 10/25 items, and females on 6/25 others (check table above).
Campus Climate Module
Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statements. This institution:
Has campus administrators who regularly speak about the value of
diversity
Agree strongly/Agree
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Lack strategic diversity goals and plans
Agree strongly/Agree
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Encourages students to have a public voice and share their ideas openly
Agree strongly/Agree
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Has a long-standing commitment to diversity
Agree strongly/Agree
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Respects differences in sexual orientation
Agree strongly/Agree
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Promotes the appreciation of cultural differences
Agree strongly/Agree
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Rewards staff and faculty for their participation in diversity efforts
Agree strongly/Agree
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
36
AUB
All Inst.
64%
2.74
M<F
79%
3.1
**
-.39
M Diff
42%
2.3
35%
2.2
M>F
79%
3.0
80%
3.0
M<F
75%
2.9
72%
2.9
M=F
70%
2.8
76%
3.0
M=F
84%
3.1
86
3.2
M>F
43%
2.3
M=F
56%
2.6
*
-0.31
Promotes the understanding of gender differences
Agree strongly/Agree
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Has standard reporting procedures for incidents of harassment or
discrimination
Agree strongly/Agree
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Racial and ethnic diversity should be more strongly reflected in the
curriculum
Agree strongly/Agree
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Treats faculty of color fairly
Agree strongly/Agree
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Treats women faculty fairly
Agree strongly/Agree
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Please indicate how often at this institution you have:
Had students from underrepresented groups on campus approach me for
advice
Very often/often
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Assisted a student with a problem about discrimination
Very often/often
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Witnessed discrimination
Reported an incident of discrimination to a campus authority
Reported an incident of sexual harassment to a campus authority
37
64%
2.8
71%
2.9
M=F
79%
3.0
90%
3.4
***
-0.47
M=F
55%
2.6
58%
2.7
M=F
98%
3.4
87%
3.3
M=F
85%
3.2
82%
3.2
M>F 3.5;3
16%
2.1
31%
2.9
***
-0.67
M<F1.9;2.3
2%
1.5
6%
1.8
**
-0.34
M<F
All v low
% less than
5,
No sig
differences
with all
Been discriminated or excluded from activities because of my
race/ethnicity
Been discriminated or excluded from activities because of my gender
Been discriminated or excluded from activities because of my sexual
orientation
Been discriminated or excluded from activities because of other identity
Heard insensitive or disparaging racial remarks from faculty
Heard insensitive or disparaging racial remarks from staff
Heard insensitive or disparaging racial remarks from students
Heard insensitive or disparaging remarks about women from faculty
Heard insensitive or disparaging remarks about women from staff
Heard insensitive or disparaging remarks about women from students
Please indicate how often anyone you personally know has
experienced the following forms of bias/harassment/discrimination
at this institution:
Verbal comments
Written comments
Exclusion
Offensive visual images or items
Threats of physical violence
Sexual assault or violence
Other physical assault or injury
Anonymous phone calls
Damage to personal property
How satisfied are you with the following aspects of your
Institution?
Overall sense of community among students
Very Sat/sat
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Racial/ethnic diversity of the faculty
Very Sat/sat
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Racial/ethnic diversity of the student body
Very Sat/sat
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
Racial/ethnic diversity of the staff
Very Sat/sat
Mean
Sig
Effect size
Gender Difference
38
Low
averages.
No gender
differences
institutions
on any
item.
Except
below
M<F1.4;1.7
All v low
%
Low
averages
*, -0.28
No sig
differences
with all
institutions
**, -.38
74%
3.9
68%
3.8
M>F
53%
3.6
36%
3.1
***
0.52
M>F
53%
3.6
39%
3.1
**
0.41
M>F
37%
3.6
M>F3.8;3.4
35%
3.1
***
0.47
Interactions among different racial/ethnic groups
Atmosphere for political differences
Atmosphere for religious differences
Atmosphere for differences in sexual orientation
Administrative response to incidents of discrimination
Administrative response to student concerns about exclusion or
marginality
Please rate your satisfaction with your department in each area:
Collegiality among faculty
Tolerance of different faculty opinions and beliefs
Representation of women and racial/ethnic minorities
How satisfied are you with the following aspects of your
institution?
Acceptance of differences in sexual orientation
Degree to which the curriculum addresses diversity in content or
pedagogy
Student respect for my role in the classroom
Commitment to hiring women and minorities
43%, M>F
49%, M>F
52%, M>F
37%,
34%, M>F
35%,
70%, M>F
65%, M>F
62%, M>F
46%, M>F
47%, F>M
87%,
61%, M>F
NS
differences
with All
inst.
NS
differences
with All
inst.
***, -0.52
NS
differences
with All
inst.
Summary and Conclusion
1. Highest agreement with following statements about AUB (>75%)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Treats faculty of color fairly (98%)
Treats women faculty fairly (85%)
Promotes appreciation of cultural differences (84%)
Encourages students to have a public voice and share their ideas openly (79%)
Has a long-standing commitment to diversity (75%)
2. Significant differences with ALL Institutions on following:
Significantly lower on:
a. Has campus administrators who regularly speak about the value of diversity
b. Rewards staff and faculty for their participation in diversity efforts
c. Have standard reporting procedures for incidents of harassment or discrimination.
d. Experienced damage to personal property
e. Had students from underrepresented groups on campus approach me for advice
f. Assisted a student with a problem about discrimination
g. Heard insensitive or disparaging remarks about women from students
h. Acceptance of differences in sexual orientation
Significantly higher on:
a. Satisfaction with racial/ethnic diversity of faculty
b. Satisfaction with racial/ethnic diversity of student body
c. Satisfaction with racial/ethnic diversity of staff
3. There were gender differences, with in general males having higher agreement or satisfaction than females.
4. In general, campus climate is positive with encouragement of diversity, no discrimination or harassment.
39
40