Faculty Work Climate Survey
University of Illinois at Chicago
June 2006
FINAL REPORT
www.uic.edu/depts/oaa/faculty/climatesurvey.html
Manorama M. Khare, PhD
Center for Research on Women and Gender
Linda Owens, PhD
Survey Research Laboratory
For more information, please contact Manorama Khare at mkhare1@uic.edu
Women in Science and Engineering System Transformation
Leading the WISE Way to Better Science & Engineering
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................... v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................................................................................................................vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... 4
1. History ............................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Women In Science and Engineering System Transformation (WISEST) ................................. 4
3. Faculty Climate Survey ................................................................................................................... 4
4. Previous Studies............................................................................................................................... 5
5. Climate Survey Project Goals ......................................................................................................... 5
CLIMATE SURVEY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 6
1. Survey Design................................................................................................................................... 6
2. Pilot Testing ...................................................................................................................................... 6
3. IRB Approval.................................................................................................................................... 6
4. Survey Implementation................................................................................................................... 6
5. Data Management............................................................................................................................ 7
6. Response Rate................................................................................................................................... 7
7. Data Analysis.................................................................................................................................... 8
a. Analysis of Variance ................................................................................................................. 8
b. Exploratory Factor Analysis .................................................................................................... 8
c. Multiple Regression Analysis .................................................................................................. 9
d. Path Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 9
8. Structure of the Report .................................................................................................................. 10
RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 11
SECTION I............................................................................................................................................ 11
1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents........................................................................... 11
2. Satisfaction with UIC..................................................................................................................... 13
a. Satisfaction with Position at UIC .......................................................................................... 13
b. Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC ....................................................................... 15
c. Overall Satisfaction Measure ................................................................................................. 16
d. Consideration to Leave UIC................................................................................................... 16
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 18
3. The Hiring Process at UIC ............................................................................................................ 19
a. Faculty Rank............................................................................................................................. 19
b. Satisfaction with the Hiring Process ..................................................................................... 19
c. Renegotiation ........................................................................................................................... 20
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 20
4. Professional Activities ................................................................................................................... 21
a. Objective Measures of Productivity...................................................................................... 21
b. Subjective Measures of Productivity .................................................................................... 22
c. Resources Available to Faculty.............................................................................................. 23
d. Departmental Committees ..................................................................................................... 24
Campus Climate Survey
i
5.
6.
7.
8.
e. Workplace Safety..................................................................................................................... 24
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 25
Work Climate.................................................................................................................................. 25
a. Interactions with Colleagues ................................................................................................. 25
b. Climate for Men and Women Faculty .................................................................................. 26
c. Climate for Minority Faculty ................................................................................................. 27
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 28
The Tenure Process at UIC ........................................................................................................... 29
a. The Tenure Process Scale ....................................................................................................... 29
b. Tenure Clock ............................................................................................................................ 30
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 31
UIC Programs and Resources ...................................................................................................... 31
a. Use and Value of Existing UIC Programs............................................................................ 31
b. Perceived Value of Programs................................................................................................. 32
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 33
Balancing Personal and Professional Life................................................................................... 33
a. Care of Dependents................................................................................................................. 34
b. Departmental Support of Family Obligations..................................................................... 35
c. Household Tasks ..................................................................................................................... 36
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 37
SECTION II .......................................................................................................................................... 38
1. Multiple Regression Analysis ...................................................................................................... 38
a. Factors Predicting Satisfaction with Current Position at UIC........................................... 39
b. Factors Predicting Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC ...................................... 40
c. Factors Predicting Consideration to Leave UIC.................................................................. 41
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 42
2. Path Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 42
a. Path Model Predicting Consideration to Leave UIC.......................................................... 43
b. Predictors of Overall Satisfaction.......................................................................................... 44
c. Predictors of Negative Departmental Climate .................................................................... 44
d. Predictors of Departmental Lack of Resources ................................................................... 45
e. Predictors of Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues ................................................................... 46
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 48
CO NCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 49
1. Differences by Discipline (STEM vs. Non-STEM) ..................................................................... 49
2. Differences by Gender................................................................................................................... 49
NEXT STEPS .................................................................................................................................................. 51
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 52
APPENDICES
A. University of Illinois at Chicago Faculty Work Climate Questionnaire
B. Pilot Test Questions
C. Return Postcard
D. Coding Categories for Open-Ended Responses
Campus Climate Survey
ii
TABLES
Page
1. Response Rates, by College................................................................................................................... 7
2. Response Rates, by Discipline .............................................................................................................. 8
3. Response Rates, by Gender................................................................................................................... 8
4. Scales Developed from Survey Items ................................................................................................ 10
5. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents ................................................................................. 12
6. Factors That Most Contribute to Satisfaction at UIC....................................................................... 14
7. Factors That Most Detract from Satisfaction at UIC........................................................................ 14
8. Mean Scale Scores for Level of Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC, by Discipline
and Rank................................................................................................................................................ 16
9. Mean Scale Scores for Consideration to Leave UIC, by Gender and Discipline ......................... 17
10. Factors Contributing to Consideration to Leave UIC ..................................................................... 18
11. The Hiring Process Scale ..................................................................................................................... 20
12. Mean Scores for the Hiring Process Scale, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank ... 20
13. Mean Number of Undergraduate Courses Taught, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling
for Rank ................................................................................................................................................. 21
14. Mean Number of Graduate Courses Taught, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for
Rank........................................................................................................................................................ 21
15. Mean Number of Papers Accepted for Publication, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling
for Rank ................................................................................................................................................. 22
16. Mean Number of Books Accepted for Publication, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling
for Rank ................................................................................................................................................. 22
17. Self-Rated Research Productivity as Compared to Other Researchers in the Field, by
Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank .................................................................................. 23
18. Department View of Research Productivity as Compared to the Departmental Average, by
Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank .................................................................................. 23
19. The Lack of Resources Scale ............................................................................................................... 23
20. The Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues Scale...................................................................................... 24
21. The Negative Departmental Climate Scale....................................................................................... 26
22. Mean Scores for the Negative Departmental Climate Scale, by Gender and Discipline,
Controlling for Rank ............................................................................................................................ 26
23. The Positive Climate for Women Scale ............................................................................................. 27
24. Mean Scores for the Positive Climate for Women Scale, by Gender and Discipline,
Controlling for Rank ............................................................................................................................ 27
25. The Positive Climate for Minorities Scale ......................................................................................... 28
Campus Climate Survey
iii
26. Mean Scores for the Positive Climate for Minorities Scale, by Gender and Discipline,
Controlling for Rank ............................................................................................................................ 28
27. The Tenure Process Scale .................................................................................................................... 30
28. Mean Scores for the Tenure Process Scale, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank .. 30
29. Utilization and Value of UIC Programs ............................................................................................ 32
30. The Balance Between Personal and Professional Life Scale ........................................................... 33
31. Mean Scores for Balance Between Personal and Professional Life Scale, by Gender and
Whether Faculty Cared for Children, Controlling for Rank .......................................................... 34
32. Departmental Support for Family Obligations ................................................................................ 36
33. Who Performs More Than 50% of Child/Dependent Care, by Gender and Discipline ............ 36
34. Predictors of Satisfaction with Current Position at UIC ................................................................. 39
35. Predictors of Satisfaction with Current Position at UIC, by Gender ............................................ 40
36. Predictors of Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC............................................................. 40
37. Predictors of Satisfaction with Career Progression with UIC, by Gender ................................... 41
38. Predictors of Consideration to Leave UIC ........................................................................................ 41
39. Predictors of Consideration to Leave UIC, by Gender ................................................................... 41
40. Predictors of How Seriously Faculty Have Considered Leaving UIC.......................................... 43
41. Predictors of Overall Satisfaction....................................................................................................... 44
42. Predictors of Negative Departmental Climate (as Perceived by Respondents) .......................... 45
43. Predictors of Departmental Lack of Resources (as Perceived by Respondents) ......................... 46
44. Predictors of Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues ................................................................................ 46
Campus Climate Survey
iv
FIGURES
Page
1. Degree of Satisfaction with Position at UIC............................................................................................ 13
2. Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC .......................................................................................... 15
3. Distribution of Overall Satisfaction.......................................................................................................... 16
4. Consideration to Leave UIC...................................................................................................................... 17
5. Number of Years in Current Faculty Position ........................................................................................ 19
6. Assumed Causal Ordering of Variables in Path Model ........................................................................ 43
7. Path Model for Complete Sample ............................................................................................................ 47
Campus Climate Survey
v
Campus Climate Survey
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Final Report Authors
This report was prepared by Manorama M. Khare from the Center for Research on Women and Gender
and Linda Owens from the Survey Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Chicago. They were
assisted at various stages of the report by several faculty and staff as listed below.
Internal Review Board Protocol Application
Principal Investigator — Bette L. Bottoms, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychology
Co-Principal Investigator — Peter C. Nelson, PhD, Professor and Head, Department of Computer Science
Survey Development
Bette L. Bottoms, PhD
Professor, Department of Psychology
Judith K. Gardiner, PhD
Professor, Department of English; Professor and Director,
Department of Gender & Women’s Studies
Manorama M. Khare, PhD,
Senior Research Specialist, Center for Research on Women & Gender
Claudia S. Morrissey, MD, MPH
Director, WISEST Initiative; Deputy Director, Center for Research on
Women & Gender
Mrinalini C. Rao, PhD
Professor, Department of Physiology & Biophysics; Vice-Provost for
Faculty Affairs
Judith A. Richman, PhD
Professor of Epidemiology, Department of Psychiatry
Stephanie Riger, PhD
Professor, Department of Psychology; Professor, Department of
Gender & Women’s Studies
Brenda Russell, PhD
Professor, Department of Physiology & Biophysics;
Executive Associate Vice Chancellor for Research
Lisa Kelly-Wilson, MA
Senior Coordinator of Survey Research Information Services, Survey
Research Laboratory
We gratefully acknowledge the eight faculty members from the School of Public Health who participated
in the pilot testing and provided feedback for the development of the survey.
Data Entry & Analysis
Sarah H. Bickerton, BSc, MA (Dist.) Graduate Assistant, WISEST Initiative; PhD Candidate, Department
of Sociology
Andrew J. Cooper, MPH
Project Manager, Research Data Management Group, Center for
Advancement of Distance Education
Timothy P. Johnson, PhD
Professor, Public Administration; Director, Survey Research
Laboratory
Manorama M. Khare, PhD
Senior Research Specialist, Center for Research on Women & Gender
Linda Owens, PhD
Assistant Director for Sampling & Statistics, Survey Research
Laboratory
Rifat Rahman, BA
Department of Psychology
Aaron Rudnicki, MA
MA Student, Department of Psychology
Maggie C. Stevenson, MA
PhD Student, Department of Psychology
Campus Climate Survey
vii
Final Report Reviewers
Stacie E. Geller, PhD
Associate Professor, College of Medicine; Director, Center for
Research on Women & Gender; Director, Center for Excellence in
Women’s Health
Timothy P. Johnson, PhD
Professor, Public Administration; Director, Survey Research
Laboratory
Manorama M. Khare, PhD
Senior Research Specialist, Center for Research on Women & Gender
Linda Owens, PhD
Assistant Director for Sampling & Statistics, Survey Research
Laboratory
Claudia S. Morrissey, MD, MPH
Director, WISEST Initiative; Deputy Director, Center for Research on
Women & Gender
Mrinalini C. Rao, PhD
Professor, Department of Physiology & Biophysics; Vice Provost for
Faculty Affairs
Linda Skitka, PhD
Professor, Department of Psychology
Administrative Support
Patricia Newton
Center for Research on Women & Gender
Kimberly Barba
Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs (now Administrative
Assistant, External Education Administration)
Laura Stempel, PhD
Assistant to the Vice Provost, Office of Faculty Affairs
Campus Climate Survey
viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The UIC Faculty Work Climate Survey was designed to capture the perceptions of all College of
Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS) and College of Engineering (COE) faculty members regarding their
workplace: what they like, what they dislike, what is important to their daily life, and what enhances
or impedes productivity. Recognizing the existing strengths and limitations of the workplace
environment (climate) will help the campus develop a cohesive plan to benefit all faculty members.
Methods
Questionnaires were mailed to all tenured and tenure-track faculty in the Colleges of LAS and
Engineering.
•
The initial mailing to 521 faculty members was sent in April 2004.
•
A second mailing was sent to 308 nonrespondents four weeks later.
•
Faculty respondents returned a separate postcard to indicate they had completed the survey.
The survey deadline was June 15, 2004.
•
Surveys were categorized by discipline into science, technology, engineering, and math
(STEM), which included the College of Engineering, LAS Natural Sciences, and
Mathematics; and non-STEM, which included LAS Humanities and LAS Social Sciences.
•
The overall response rate was 67%. The STEM response rate was 69%; the non-STEM
response rate was 64%.
•
Data were analyzed by faculty gender, rank, and STEM/non-STEM status.
•
The primary outcomes of interest were satisfaction with current position, satisfaction with
career progression, and consideration to leave UIC.
Characteristics of Faculty Respondents
•
74% of respondents were men and 26% were women.
•
The female:male ratio was 38:62 in the non-STEM fields and was 14:86 in the STEM fields.
•
80% were non-Hispanic Caucasian.
•
The ratio of non-Hispanic Caucasian:Underrepresented Minority:Other was 83:4:13 for men
and 72:20:8 for women. This was a significant gender-based difference.
•
Half of all respondents were from a STEM discipline. Twenty-seven percent of women
respondents were from the STEM fields as compared to 73% from the non-STEM fields.
•
85% of the men faculty respondents and 68% of the women faculty respondents were
tenured.
•
The ratio of Professor:Associate Professor:Assistant Professor among women faculty was
33:36:31, as compared to 56:29:15 among men faculty.
•
85% of the men faculty were married or partnered, as compared to 66% of women faculty
who were married or partnered.
•
Of these faculty, all women reported having a spouse/partner who worked as compared to
81% of men who reported having an employed spouse/partner.
•
84% of women and 53% of men reported spouses/partners employed full-time.
Campus Climate Survey
1
•
Approximately three quarters of the faculty reported having children. Women faculty were
twice as likely as men faculty to be childless.
•
Overall, 21% (68) of the respondents reported that their job prevented them from having the
number of children they wanted. Women were more likely to indicate that this was the case:
35% did so, compared to 16% of men.
Overall Satisfaction and Considerations to Leave
In general, faculty members were more satisfied than dissatisfied.
•
67.5% of faculty were moderately satisfied or very satisfied with their position at UIC.
•
62.7% were moderately satisfied or very satisfied with their career progression.
•
Colleagues, students, research, and teaching were factors that contributed to satisfaction.
•
However, 61% had seriously considered leaving UIC.
•
General resources, administration, and salary were factors that detracted from satisfaction.
Differences in Outcome by Respondent Characteristics
Differences in the outcome variables were evident by discipline, rank, and gender.
•
Faculty in the non-STEM disciplines were more satisfied with the way their career
progressed than faculty in the STEM disciplines.
•
The higher the rank of the faculty, the more satisfied they were with the way their career
progressed.
•
Male faculty considered leaving UIC more seriously than female faculty.
•
Although those in the non-STEM fields reported being more satisfied, they were also more
likely to have considered leaving UIC.
Factors Influencing Satisfaction and Thoughts of Leaving
•
Faculty who perceived their departmental climate as negative were less satisfied and
thought more seriously about leaving UIC.
•
A lack of resources led to less satisfaction and more serious thoughts of leaving.
•
Faculty who lacked like-minded colleagues were less satisfied with their position and career
progression.
•
Tenured faculty were more satisfied with their position than faculty without tenure.
•
Faculty who had been a principal investigator on a funded grant, or who perceived
themselves as productive, were more satisfied with their career progress.
•
Faculty who most seriously considered leaving UIC were not tenured, were from the nonSTEM disciplines, were not married or living with a partner, had not successfully
renegotiated their current position, had few resources, and worked in a more negative
departmental climate.
Campus Climate Survey
2
Gender Differences
One limitation of this analysis is the relatively small number of women respondents, limiting
our ability to detect gender differences. The problem is not one of proportional response of women
but rather the small numbers of women faculty. Despite these small numbers, some significant gender
differences were evident.
•
The only factor associated with dissatisfaction with current position for women was working
in a negative departmental climate.
•
For men, in addition to a negative working climate, working with fewer resources, not
having tenure, and caring for dependent children were associated with less satisfaction with
their current position.
•
When examining negative effects on career progression, both men and women identified a
negative departmental climate and having fewer resources as important.
•
Women also reported being less satisfied with their career progression if they were not well
published and grant funded.
•
Men were less satisfied with their career progression if they had fewer like-minded
colleagues and worked in a climate perceived as positive for women.
•
Of the predictors of considerations to leave, the two factors that cut across gender lines were
working in a negative departmental climate and the discipline. For both men and women,
working in a department they perceived as negative resulted in them thinking more
seriously of leaving. Faculty members in a STEM discipline were less likely to think of
leaving.
Next Steps
•
The results of this survey have provided the campus with a framework for addressing issues
of climate and resources that will affect all faculty at UIC.
•
The survey findings have been presented to the faculty of the Colleges of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and Engineering and to the WISEST Executive Committee.
•
A group consisting of senior campus leadership will be tasked by the Provost with
developing a blueprint for policy and program recommendations based on the survey data.
The Provost will be requesting an initial report by December 2006.
•
Implementation of the recommendations should occur in conjunction with the Strategic Plan
to create a more robust and supportive climate.
•
Practical steps include workshops with Department Heads and faculty in a dialogue across
campus (workshops/town hall meetings) to address these issues.
•
Future research to examine gender differences should include qualitative methodologies,
such as one-on-one interviews or focus groups.
Campus Climate Survey
3
INTRODUCTION
1.
History
The University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) Program
is charged with enhancing the educational experience of women students in the science, technology,
engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines and elevating the number and profile of women STEM
faculty. WISE focuses on women academics through its Women in Science and Engineering System
Transformation (WISEST) Initiative, a project jointly funded by NSF and UIC. The goal of WISEST is
to increase the number, participation, and leadership status of women in academic science and
engineering through institutional transformation at UIC.
2.
Women in Science and Engineering System Transformation (WISEST)
The WISEST Initiative was created to assess and redress barriers to women’s advancement.
Although the initiative is tailored to address the conditions of women STEM faculty, the lessons
learned are applicable to the entire campus. Over the last several years, numerous complementary
activities were undertaken to guide system transformation: department self-studies, leadership
development seminars, policy analysis, and data gathering. A key data gathering effort was the
development and fielding of a faculty climate survey in the Colleges of Engineering (Engineering)
and Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS).
3.
Faculty Climate Survey
In the fall of 2003, under the aegis of the WISEST Executive Committee, a climate survey team
was formed to realize this component of the WISEST Initiative. As discussion of the intent and scope
of the survey ensued, the importance of understanding the perceptions of all faculty—women, men,
minorities, non-minorities, STEM faculty, and non-STEM faculty—became increasingly evident. The
broader UIC academic community would need to be engaged to heighten the likelihood that program
and policy changes would result from the survey findings and to ensure that reform efforts could
benefit all faculty. This reframing of the climate survey was in keeping with three fundamental
premises of WISEST:
•
•
•
Increasing the number and improving the status of underrepresented groups (women and
minorities) will require that system norms and practices be assessed and altered;
Implementing policies and programs that contribute to greater employment satisfaction and
productivity for women will result in the same for men; and
Policies and programs that enhance work satisfaction for STEM disciplines can be applied
with success to non-STEM disciplines as well.
Thus, what began as a WISEST survey to assess the perspectives of women faculty in STEM was
broadened to capture all Engineering and LAS faculty members’ perceptions of their workplace: what
they like, what they dislike, what is important to their daily life, what enhances or impedes
productivity. Recognizing the existing strengths and limitations of the workplace environment
(climate) helps the campus develop a cohesive plan to benefit all faculty members, rather than a
piecemeal approach benefiting only a few.
Campus Climate Survey
4
4.
Previous Studies
A review of available research has documented greater perceptions of negative departmental
climates among female and minority faculty in college and university settings. A convenience sample
of faculty from 69 North American institutions of higher education reported that female faculty
overall viewed their work environments as “chillier” than did their male colleagues (Riger, Stokes,
Raja, & Sullivan, 1997). Similar conclusions were reached from a survey of academic climate and
activities of faculty at the University of Michigan (Stewart, Stubbs, & Malley, 2002). Researchers there
developed a general index of departmental climate and found that female faculty in science and
engineering departments reported the most negative climates. Perceptions of a negative departmental
climate, in turn, were strongly correlated with low levels of job satisfaction among faculty. Additional
analyses of the University of Michigan survey data also revealed greater perceptions of negative
departmental climate among faculty of color, compared to white faculty, in science and engineering
departments (Stewart, Malley, & Stubbs, 2004). A survey of faculty conducted at the University of
Minnesota in 2004 found that faculty of color perceived that university’s climate for persons of color
to be less favorable than did white faculty (Glomb, Lluis, & McCall, 2005). Similar findings were
reported with regards to differences in perceptions of female and male faculty regarding the climate
for women at that university: female faculty perceived the climate for women to be less favorable than
did their male peers. These findings confirm the importance of investigating faculty perceptions of
work and departmental climate at UIC.
5.
Climate Survey Project Goals
The UIC Faculty Work Climate Survey had six specific goals:
1.
Create a survey instrument that could accurately assess faculty perceptions of the working
climate in the Colleges of Engineering and Liberal Arts and Sciences.
2.
Achieve a response rate equal to or higher than typical response rates for similar surveys.
3.
Analyze the results by discipline (STEM versus non-STEM) and gender, controlling for
factors that might be associated with those factors, such as rank.
4.
Make the findings widely available to faculty.
5.
Make the findings available to UIC upper administration, who have committed to using
the results to inform policy and program development aimed at improving faculty
satisfaction, productivity, and equity.
6.
Disseminate the findings to a wider audience outside of the university.
Campus Climate Survey
5
CLIMATE SURVEY DEVELOPMENT
1.
Survey Design
The questionnaire for the UIC Faculty Work Climate survey (Appendix A) was crafted after
reviewing climate survey instruments developed at several other universities (Stewart, Stubbs, &
Malley, 2002; The University of Wisconsin-Madison Campus Climate, n.d.) and was tailored to
address issues specific to UIC. The final instrument was a ten-page questionnaire that addressed
overall satisfaction with UIC, the hiring process, professional activities, interactions with colleagues,
work climate within the department, the tenure process, UIC programs and resources, balance of
professional and personal life, and diversity issues.
The survey was developed by a team of researchers with expertise in either survey development
or work climate issues.
2.
Pilot Testing
The questionnaire was pilot tested via phone interviews with a sample of eight faculty from the
School of Public Health (four men and four women). Two of these were members of
underrepresented minority groups. The purpose of the pilot test was to identify questions that were
ambiguous, that were perceived as difficult to answer, that did not have appropriate response
categories, or that faculty would refuse to answer. Respondents also were asked to identify areas
related to work climate that were not included in the questionnaire.
Each faculty member was sent the questionnaire the morning of the interview with a one-page
instruction sheet (Appendix B). The interview time ranged from 15–39 minutes, depending on the
extent of comments from testers. Based on these interviews, minor changes were made to response
categories, skip patterns, 1 and wording of some of the questions. Final formatting of the questionnaire
was done by the Survey Research Laboratory at UIC.
3.
IRB Approval
The finalized questionnaire was submitted to and approved by the UIC Institutional Review
Board (IRB approval #2004-0120).
4.
Survey Implementation
A list of all full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
and the College of Engineering was obtained from the respective colleges just prior to mailing. A
survey packet was sent to all faculty on these lists using campus mail.
Each mailed packet included the following:
•
•
The climate questionnaire;
A cover letter addressed to the faculty from the Provost of UIC stressing the importance of
the survey;
1 A skip pattern refers to the fact that the specific questions a respondent answers may vary with responses to previous
questions. For example, Question 32 in this survey asked if the respondent has tenure. If the answer was yes, the respondent
answered two additional questions that were only relevant for tenured faculty. If the respondent answered no, those two
questions were skipped.
Campus Climate Survey
6
•
•
A self-addressed return postcard (Appendix C) with the name of the faculty and their school
affiliation; and
A self-addressed envelope in which to return the questionnaire.
Questionnaires were sent out in two waves. The initial wave was sent in the first week of April
2004 to all qualified faculty (521) in the two schools: LAS and COE. A second wave was sent to 308
faculty who did not respond to the first mailing. The return postcard was used as a way to track
returns. Faculty were asked to return the postcard separately from the questionnaire to maintain
anonymity of the responses. Those who did not return the postcard received the second mailing of the
questionnaire. There was a small possibility that a number of faculty who had already responded to
the survey also received a second mailing, but to our knowledge none filled it out a second time.
5.
Data Management
Data from all the questionnaires were entered using the SPSS data entry software. Double data
entry was done for 32.5% (n=114) of the questionnaires. Nine data points were found to be in error,
which corresponds to an error rate of 0.05%. 2 The open-ended responses were entered into a
Microsoft Word file. The coding categories used are presented in Appendix D. On completion of data
entry and checking, all the questionnaires and postcards were shredded in keeping with the IRB
protocol.
6.
Response Rate
The overall response rate 3 for the survey was 67%. The response rate was 54.7% (285/521) for
the first wave of the questionnaire mailing and 21.4% (66/308) for the second wave.
Table 1 presents the response rates for the survey by college as well as the percent of total
responses contributed by each college.
Table 1. Response Rates, by College
COLLEGE
TOTAL
College of Engineering
LAS - Natural Sciences
LAS - Humanities
LAS - Social Sciences
TOTAL
Number of
responses
521
107
144
153
114
351
71
103
108
73
Response rate
67.0%
66.4%
71.5%
70.6%
64.0%
Percent of total
responses
100.0%
20.0%
29.0%
30.4%
20.6%
We received 351 completed questionnaires. However, when we stratified by department, we
had a total of 355. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that although faculty were asked to
list their primary department, six respondents listed more than one department and two did not list
any department.
Table 2 presents the response rates for the survey by STEM disciplines. The data on college
affiliation were collected using four categories, as presented in Table 1. Since the subgroup of interest
was STEM disciplines, the categories were collapsed into STEM, which included the College of
Error rate: The questionnaire had 164 variables. The error rate was computed as 9/(114 x 164).
Response rate was calculated using a formula recommended by the American Association of Public Opinion Research
(2004).
2
3
Campus Climate Survey
7
Engineering, LAS Natural Sciences, and Mathematics, and non-STEM, which included LAS
Humanities and LAS Social Sciences. Henceforth, all data will be presented using these two categories
of discipline. There was no significant difference in the percent of survey responses received from
each of the disciplines.
Table 3 presents the response rates by gender. The percent of responses within each gender
group is comparable; however, overall, males represented 72% of the total responses and females
represented 25% of the total responses. These percentages are proportional to the percent of male and
female faculty in the overall sample.
Table 2. Response Rates, by Discipline
Discipline
Total sample size
Number of responses
Response rate
Percent of total
responses
521
251
267
n/a
351
173
172
6
67.4%
68.9%
64.4%
n/a
100.0%
49.3%
49.0%
1.7%
TOTAL
STEM
Non-STEM
Discipline missing
Table 3. Response Rates, by Gender
Gender
Total sample size
Number of responses
521
381
140
n/a
351
253
89
9
TOTAL
Men
Women
Gender missing
7.
Response rate
67.4%
66.4%
63.6%
n/a
Percent of total
responses
100.0%
72.1%
25.4%
2.6%
Data Analysis
Analyses of these data proceeded in several stages.
(a)
Analysis of Variance
After preliminary univariate and bivariate analyses, the data were further examined using the
Analysis of Variance procedure (ANOVA). ANOVA is designed to establish whether a significant
nonrandom difference exists among several sample means. Statistically, it is the ratio of the variance
occurring between the sample groups to the variance occurring within the sample groups. It is
assessed using the F-test. A large F value—that is, when the variance between is larger than the
variance within—usually indicates a nonrandom significant difference (a difference created by the
introduction of the independent variable).
The independent variables included in all the analyses were gender, discipline (STEM vs. nonSTEM), and rank. We also included all three possible interactions between the independent variables.
ANOVAs were first run with all these variables and interaction terms; if the interactions were not
significant, then the most parsimonious model is presented. Race was not used as an independent
variable in the bivariate analyses because of small numbers in some race categories.
(b) Exploratory Factor Analysis
Several sections of the questionnaire contained multiple items pertaining to a particular aspect
of respondents’ work experience. For example, Question 12 included six items related to satisfaction
with the hiring process. Question 21 included seven items related to resource availability. Rather than
Campus Climate Survey
8
include each of these individual items in the analyses, we created a set of scales incorporating the
individual measures. Exploratory factor analysis techniques were used to develop the scales.
Prior to scale construction, some items had to be reverse coded so that all scale items measured
responses in the same direction. For example, Question 28 contains 17 items related to interactions
with people in one’s primary department. For all items, a score of 1 means the respondent strongly
agrees with the statement, while a score of 6 means strong disagreement. However, some are worded
such that strongly agreeing indicates negative feelings about the department, while in other items,
strongly agreeing indicates positive feelings. For example, item a states “I am treated with respect by
colleagues,” and item b states “I feel isolated at UIC overall.” A score of 1 on item a indicates the
respondent feels respected, while a score of 1 on item b means the respondent feels isolated.
Negatively worded questions (e.g., “I feel isolated,” “I feel excluded”) were reverse coded so that a
score of 1 means strong disagreement with the statement. After recoding, the closer the score is to 1,
the more favorably respondents evaluate interactions with people in their department. In Table 4 on
the following page, items that were reverse coded prior to the scale construction are indicated by the
letter r after the item name.
In constructing the scales for the analyses, we first ran a factor analysis to determine the
underlying factor structure. Scales consisted of items that were associated with the same factor.
Reliability analysis determined which of the items identified in the factor analysis detracted from the
overall reliability of the scale. These items were eliminated from the scales. Table 4 provides a brief
description of each scale included in the analysis, the items included in each scale, whether the items
were reverse coded, and the reliability of each scale. Additional details about each scale are included
in the individual sections.
(c) Multiple Regression Analysis
The bivariate and ANOVA analysis laid the groundwork for a multivariate analysis that
deepens the understanding of faculty members’ overall experience. Multiple regression analysis
techniques were used to identify the factors associated with job satisfaction, career progression, and
the decision to remain at UIC. Three separate single-path regression models were run using the
above-mentioned measures as the dependent variables. The results are assessed using the R2 value,
which represents the proportion of variance explained by the independent variables in the model. The
Beta coefficients assessed by the t-test explain the relationship of each independent variable with the
dependent variable. The overall F-test is used to assess the significance of the model.
(d) Path Analysis
While individual regressions can show the influence of independent variables on each outcome
variable separately, a path analysis provides an overall assessment of the pathways through which
the independent and intervening variables influence the outcome measures, controlling for all other
factors. Path analysis assumes a causal order and explains variation in the dependent and intervening
variables (see Figure 7) using the variables assumed to precede them. The path analysis consists of a
series of least squares regressions, which are interpreted statistically in much the same way as the
multiple regressions.
Campus Climate Survey
9
Table 4. Scales Developed from Survey Items
SURVEY ITEMS
Scale Title
Description
Alpha for
Scale
1(r), 2(r)
Satisfaction with Current Position and
Career Progression
See page 13, 15
Scale combines 2 satisfaction measures.
Higher values indicate greater satisfaction.
.84
12a–12f
The Hiring Process
See page 20
Satisfaction with resources, interactions,
salary negotiations, etc. Value of 1
indicates highest satisfaction.
.86
21a–21d
Lack of Resources
See page 23
Lack of computing equipment and office
and lab space. High value indicates
inadequate resources.
.78
21e, 21f
Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues
See page 24
Lack of colleagues who do similar research
or provide career advice. High value
indicates lack of colleagues.
.68
28a, 28b(r), 28c, 28e(r), Negative Departmental Climate
28f, 28g(r), 28h, 28i,
See page 26
28k(r), 28(l), 28m(r), 28n,
28o, 28p, 28q
Includes feelings of integration, respect,
recognition, and participation. High values
indicate negative feelings about or
experiences in the department.
.89
29a(r), 29b(r), 29c, 29d,
29e, 29f, 29g, 29h, 59a,
59b(r), 59c, 59d(r),
59e(r), 59f, 59g(r)
Positive Climate for Women
See page 27
Equal treatment of men and women,
harassment and discrimination not
tolerated, etc. High value indicates positive
climate for women.
.90
30a(r), 30b(r), 30c, 30d,
30e, 30f, 30g, 30h, 60a,
60b(r), 60c, 60d(r),
60e(r), 60f, 60g(r)
Positive Climate for Minorities
See page 28
Equal treatment of minority and nonminority faculty, harassment and
discrimination not tolerated, etc. High value
indicates positive climate for minorities.
.91
37a–37f
The Tenure Process
See page 30
47a, 47c
Balance Between Personal and
Professional Life
See page 33
8.
.81
Lower values indicate difficulty integrating
personal/professional life.
.74
Structure of the Report
The remaining sections of the report are presented in two parts: Section I (pp. 11–37) presents
results of the univariate, bivariate, and ANOVA analyses for each subsection in the survey. Results of
the exploratory factor analyses conducted to create scales for the questions with multiple items also
are presented where appropriate. All bivariate analyses are presented stratified by gender (male vs.
female) and discipline (STEM vs. non-STEM). The analyses also controlled for rank (assistant,
associate, or full professor). Exceptions are where the stratification resulted in such small cell sizes
that there was a possibility of faculty anonymity being compromised.
Section II (pp. 38–48) presents results of the regression analyses for three outcome variables:
satisfaction with UIC, satisfaction with career progression at UIC, and consideration to leave UIC. We
conclude the analysis section with a path model in which we attempt to place all significant predictors
and correlates of how seriously respondents have considered leaving UIC into one context.
Campus Climate Survey
10
RESULTS: SECTION I
1.
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Demographic information—including gender, citizenship, race, marital status, years from
terminal degree, current rank at the university, and current tenure status—is presented in Table 5.
The percentages are the valid percentages; they do not include the nonresponse cases.
The survey was sent to a total of 521 faculty, 26% of whom were women. The proportion of
women respondents was reflective of the total sample. Overall, 26% of the respondents were women
and 74% were men.
Most of the faculty (98%) were U.S. citizens. The respondent sample consisted primarily of
Caucasian non-Hispanic males. The ratio of non-Hispanic Caucasian:Underrepresented Minority:
Other was 83:4:13 for men and 72:20:8 for women.
Respondents were equally divided between STEM and non-STEM faculty. The female-to-male
ratio in the STEM fields was 14:86 as compared to 38:62 for the non-STEM fields.
A majority of respondents (99%) reported a PhD as their terminal degree, and all were full-time
faculty. The mean number of years since receiving their terminal degree was 20.3 ± 11.35, and the
median was 19. At the time of the survey, 79% were tenured, with 31% being associate professors and
48% being full professors. Nineteen percent of the faculty were tenure-track assistant professors.
Campus Climate Survey
11
Table 5. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
CHARACTERISTIC
Gender
Male
Female
No response
Citizenship
US citizen
Not US citizen
Total
No response
Race
Caucasian, non-Hispanic
(a)
Underrepresented minority
Other
Total
No response
Discipline
STEM
Non-STEM
Total
No response
Current Rank/Title
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Professor
Total
No response
Current Tenure Status
Tenured
Not tenured
Total
No response
Full-Time Status
Full-time
Part-time
No response
Marital Status
Married living with spouse/Unmarried living with partner
Married/Partnered living in different locations
Single, widowed, other
Total
No response
Spousal Employment Status
Employed full-time
Employed part-time
Not employed
Retired
Total
No response
Number of Children
None
1–3
>4
Total
No response
(a)
Male
N=253
Female
N=89
332 (98%)
8 (2%)
340
11
247 (98%)
4 (2%)
251
85 (96%)
4 (2%)
89
263 (80%)
28 (9%)
38 (11%)
329
22
199 (83%)
10 (4%)
31 (13%)
240
64 (72%)
18 (20%)
7 (8%)
89
169 (50%)
169 (50%)
338
13
145 (58%)
105 (42%)
250
24 (27%)
64 (73%)
88
64 (19%)
105 (31%)
167 (50%)
336
15
37 (15%)
73 (29%)
138 (56%)
248
27 (31%)
32 (36%)
29 (33%)
88
275 (80%)
65 (20%)
340
11
214 (85%)
37 (15%)
251
61 (68%)
28 (32%)
89
338 (100%)
—
13
250
—
88
—
268 (80%)
18 (5%)
49 (15%)
335
16
204 (82%)
9 (4%)
29 (12%)
249
48 (56%)
9 (11%)
20 (23%)
86
174 (60%)
52 (18%)
43 (15%)
20 (7%)
289
62
118 (53%)
46 (21%)
43 (19%)
15 (7%)
222
56 (84%)
6 (9%)
—
5 (2%)
67
76 (24%)
230 (73%)
11 (4%)
317
34
45 (19%)
182 (77%)
11 (5%)
238
31 (39%)
48 (61%)
—
79
Frequency (%)
Total N=351
253 (74%)
89 (26%)
9
Includes African American, Hispanic, and Native American/Alaskan Native.
Campus Climate Survey
12
2.
Satisfaction with UIC
This section of the survey instrument contained three global satisfaction questions: (1)
satisfaction with current position at UIC, (2) satisfaction with career progression at UIC, and (3)
consideration to leave UIC. To get more information on factors that may contribute to faculty
members’ satisfaction with UIC, we also asked three open-ended questions related to each of the
global satisfaction questions. Appendix D provides the details on the coding scheme used to code the
open-ended responses for Question 3 (factors contributing to satisfaction), Question 4 (factors
detracting from satisfaction), and Question 6 (factors contributing to considerations to leave).
(a)
Satisfaction with Position at UIC
The first survey question read, “How satisfied are you, in general, with your position at UIC?
Please circle the number that best corresponds to your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.”
Response categories ranged from 1–6, with 1 being “very satisfied” and 6 being “very dissatisfied.”
The variable was reverse coded so that higher values were associated with greater satisfaction.
As shown in Figure 1, 15.5% were very satisfied and 42% were moderately satisfied with their
position at UIC. However, 15.2% of the faculty were moderately dissatisfied and 7.5% were very
dissatisfied with their position at UIC.
Figure 1. Degree of Satisfaction with Position at UIC
100
90
80
Percent
70
60
50
40
42.0%
30
20
10
0
7.5%
Very
dissatisfied
15.2%
15.5%
12.0%
7.8%
Moderately
dissatisfied
Slightly
dissatisfied
Slightly
satisfied
Moderately
satisfied
Very
satisfied
Degree of satisfaction
In the ANOVA procedure, the dependent variable was satisfaction with position at UIC, and the
three independent variables were gender, discipline, and rank, none of which had a significant effect
on mean level of satisfaction. None of the interactions between the three independent variables were
significant. The overall mean score for satisfaction was 4.16 ± 1.53, a value indicating that most faculty
rated themselves as moderately to slightly satisfied with their position at UIC.
Campus Climate Survey
13
Table 6 summarizes the
responses to Question 3, the openended question on satisfaction. The
percentage of faculty who responded
under each of the categories is
presented in the table. Only 295 of the
351 respondents provided answers to
this question.
As can be seen in the table, 51%
of respondents said that colleagues
were the top factor contributing to
satisfaction at UIC. This was followed
by students (30%), research (26%),
teaching (20%), and location (15%).
All other categories were mentioned
by less than 10% of respondents.
Some written responses for
factors contributing most to
satisfaction included the following:
•
•
•
Table 6. Factors That Most Contribute to Satisfaction at UIC
Response Category
Colleagues
Students
Research
Teaching
Location
Administration
Resources in general
UIC reputation & potential
Staff & staff support
Recognition & respect for work
UIC urban identity & mission
Salary
Service duties/responsibilities
Miscellaneous
Count (N=295)
151
88
78
59
43
22
20
16
16
13
12
11
7
30
% of
Respondents*
51%
30%
26%
20%
15%
8%
7%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
2%
10%
*Because multiple responses were accepted, the % does not sum to
100.
“Student population is diverse, excellent faculty/colleagues, great department head.”
“Freedom to pursue my research and teaching interests.”
“Colleagues, department head, reasonable teaching load.”
Faculty also were asked to list the factors that most detracted from their satisfaction at UIC in an
open-ended format (Question 4). Two
hundred and ninety five faculty
Table 7. Factors That Most Detract from Satisfaction at UIC
responded to this question. Table 7
% of
Response Category
Count (N=295)
Respondents*
presents the percentage of faculty that
Resources in general
148
47%
responded under each of the coding
Administration
109
35%
categories (see Appendix D for the
Salary
108
35%
coding scheme).
Of those who responded to this
question, 47% listed resources in
general as the primary factor detracting
from satisfaction at UIC. The other
responses were administration (35%),
salary (35%), colleagues (23%), and
students (18%). Although salary had
little impact on making people feel
satisfied at UIC (4%), it did have an
impact on making them feel dissatisfied
(35%).
Colleagues
Students
Research
Staff & staff support
Teaching
Recognition & respect for work
UIC reputation & potential
Service duties/responsibilities
Location
UIC urban identity & mission
Miscellaneous
71
57
35
27
22
21
14
12
7
2
35
23%
18%
11%
9%
7%
7%
5%
4%
2%
1%
11%
*Because multiple responses were accepted, the % does not sum to
100.
Below are some representative
written responses for factors detracting from satisfaction:
•
•
“Lack of dedication to building of research excellence, lack of proper facilities for research,
lack of institutional stability, inability to compete during recruitment.”
“The lack of resources, the slow and inefficient bureaucracy. The difficulties of hiring new
faculty members; the lack of time for my own research and writing; the staff issues.”
Campus Climate Survey
14
•
•
“Failure of administration to provide adequate resources to do my job.”
“Low salary, politics, poor teaching facilities.”
(b) Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC
This question asked “How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with the way your career
has progressed at UIC? Please circle the number that best corresponds to your level of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction.” The response categories ranged from 1–6, with 1 being “very satisfied” and 6 being
“very dissatisfied.” The variable was reverse coded to make intuitive sense so that higher values
represented greater satisfaction.
Satisfaction with career progression at UIC showed a similar trend to satisfaction with position
at UIC. As shown in Figure 2, 18.5% of respondents were very satisfied and 44.2% were moderately
satisfied with the way their careers have progressed at UIC. On the other hand, 5.4% of the faculty
were very dissatisfied and 11.7% were moderately dissatisfied with their career progression.
Figure 2. Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC
100
90
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
44.2%
30
20
18.5%
10
13.4%
5.4%
0
Very
dissatisfied
11.7%
5.7%
Moderately
dissatisfied
Slightly
dissatisfied
Slightly
satisfied
Moderately
satisfied
Very
satisfied
Degree of satisfaction
The ANOVA used satisfaction with career progression at UIC as the dependent variable and
gender, discipline, and rank as the independent variables. The analysis also included the three
possible interactions between the independent variables, none of which was significant.
While mean levels of satisfaction did not vary significantly by gender, they did vary by
discipline and rank. Table 8 presents the mean scale scores by rank and discipline for satisfaction with
career progression at UIC. The overall mean score for satisfaction was 4.40 ± 1.41, a value that
indicates that most faculty were moderately satisfied to slightly satisfied with the way their careers
have progressed at UIC.
The mean scores also indicate that faculty in non-STEM disciplines were more satisfied with the
way their careers have progressed than STEM faculty. When stratified by rank, the higher the rank of
the faculty, the greater the satisfaction with career progression. That is, full professors were more
satisfied than associate professors, who were more satisfied than assistant professors.
Campus Climate Survey
15
Table 8. Mean Scale Scores for Level of Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC, by Discipline and
Rank
STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
Rank
Assistant Professor (n=63)
Associate Professor (n=101)
Professor (n=165)
TOTAL by Discipline (n=329)
4.19
4.10
4.34
4.25
1.42
1.55
1.39
1.43
Non-STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
32
40
92
164
4.10
4.44
4.85
4.56
1.70
1.41
1.14
1.38
31
61
73
165
Total by Rank*
Mean
SD
n
4.14
4.31
4.57
4.40
1.55
1.47
1.31
1.41
63
101
165
329
*p<.05.
Overall F-value: 2.51; p=0.04.
(c)
Overall Satisfaction Measure
Because of the high correlation between the two satisfaction measures (r=.729, p<.001), we
created a variable measuring the respondents’ overall satisfaction. It is the mean of the two individual
satisfaction scores presented above and also ranges from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 6 (very satisfied). As a
mean, it may also have a mid-point value (e.g., 1.5 between Moderately dissatisfied and Slightly
dissatisfied). In the ANOVA model, the combined satisfaction score is the dependent variable, and
gender, discipline, and rank are the independent variables. The analysis also included the three
possible interaction terms, which were not significant. The mean levels of overall satisfaction did not
differ significantly by gender, discipline, or rank. The overall level of satisfaction is 4.27 ± 1.37. Figure
3 shows the distribution of overall satisfaction.
Figure 3. Distribution of Overall Satisfaction
30.0%
Percent
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Very
dissatisfied
Moderately
dissatisfied
Slightly
dissatisfied
Slightly
satisfied
Moderately Very satisfied
satisfied
(d) Consideration to Leave UIC
As another way of assessing satisfaction, we looked at how seriously faculty considered leaving
UIC. The question was phrased as “How seriously have you considered leaving UIC?” The response
categories ranged from 1–4, with 1 being never considered leaving and 4 being very seriously
considered leaving. The higher the value, the more seriously the faculty member considered leaving.
A total of 345 faculty responded to the question. Over a third (120, 35%) very seriously
considered leaving UIC, and 90 (26%) were moderately serious about leaving UIC. Ninety-three (27%)
Campus Climate Survey
16
were slightly serious about leaving UIC, and a relatively small number—42 (12%)—had never
considered leaving UIC. These results are graphically represented in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Consideration to Leave UIC
100
90
80
Percent
70
60
50
40
30
35%
20
26%
10
0
27%
12%
Very
seriously
Moderately
seriously
Slightly
seriously
Have not
considered it
How seriously respondent has considered leaving UIC
The dependent variable in the ANOVA was consideration to leave UIC, and the three
independent variables were gender, discipline, and rank. The analysis also included the three possible
interactions between the independent variables, none of which was significant. While mean levels of
consideration to leave UIC did not vary significantly by rank, they did vary by discipline and gender.
The mean scale scores show that male faculty considered leaving UIC more seriously than
female faculty. Faculty in the non-STEM fields considered leaving more seriously than their STEM
counterparts. Those in STEM fields tend to be less mobile due to infrastructure issues such as labs,
equipment, etc., and previous research has shown that women often bear the overwhelming burden
of family and child-rearing responsibilities, making it more difficult to consider a move as compared
to men (Preston, 2004; Sullivan, Hollenshead, & Smith, 2004; Williams, 2000). Table 9 presents the
mean scale scores for consideration to leave UIC by gender and discipline.
Table 9. Mean Scale Scores for Consideration to Leave UIC, by Gender and Discipline
Gender
STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
Non-STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
Total by Gender*
Mean
SD
n
Male faculty (n=244)
2.74
1.03
141
3.00
0.97
103
2.85
1.01
244
Female faculty (n=85)
2.35
1.13
24
2.82
1.04
61
2.69
1.08
85
TOTAL by Discipline** (n=329)
2.69
1.05
165
2.94
0.99
164
2.81
1.03
329
*p=0.04, **p=0.01.
Overall F value: 2.27; p=0.06.
Campus Climate Survey
17
An open-ended question was used
to capture other factors contributing to
the consideration to leave UIC. As can be
seen in Table 10, 43% of respondents said
that salary was the top factor contributing
to their consideration to leave UIC. This
was followed by resources in general
(31%), colleagues (21%), administration
(17%), and research (14%). All other
categories were mentioned by less than
12% of respondents. In previous
questions, salary appeared not to play a
significant role in satisfaction with UIC,
but for those who considered leaving
UIC, salary was the most important
contributor.
Table 10. Factors Contributing to Consideration to
Leave UIC
Response Category
Count (N=282)
% of
Respondents*
Salary
121
43%
Resources in general
87
31%
Colleagues
60
21%
Administration
47
17%
Research
39
14%
Students
35
12%
Recognition & respect for work
30
11%
Teaching
23
8%
Location
22
8%
UIC reputation & potential
21
7%
Staff & staff support
14
5%
Service duties/responsibilities
6
2%
UIC urban identity & mission
2
1%
62
22%
Respondents were asked to
Miscellaneous
comment on factors that contributed to
the consideration to leave UIC. The following comments are representative:
•
•
•
•
“Salary, resources, physical campus environment.”
“Lack of resources; climate in my department which has become lukewarm/cool at best
towards those who are not part of the ‘old guard.’”
“Lack of money to: attract good graduate students, hire new faculty, and give raises to
existing faculty. Also the attitude of higher administration. Also personal reasons.”
“Atrocious services, poor accounting, diabolically bad physical plant, too many
administrations—vice chancellors, etc.—all-in-all extremely inefficient and wasteful.”
Summary
In general, faculty were more satisfied than dissatisfied (two-thirds versus one-third) with their
current positions at UIC. Male and female faculty from STEM and non-STEM disciplines and
assistant, associate, and full professors did not differ significantly in their satisfaction levels.
When asked about satisfaction with career progression at UIC, there were differences by
discipline and rank but not gender. The results show that faculty in the non-STEM disciplines were
more satisfied with the way their careers have progressed than those in the STEM disciplines.
Additionally, the higher the rank of the faculty, the more satisfied they were with their career
progression. That is, full professors were more satisfied with the way their careers have progressed
than associate professors, who were more satisfied with their career progression than assistant
professors.
When asked about consideration to leave UIC, 61% of respondents had considered leaving UIC,
and the predominant reason was salary. While consideration to leave UIC did not vary significantly
by rank, it did vary by discipline and gender. The results show that male faculty considered leaving
UIC more seriously than female faculty. While those in the non-STEM fields reported being more
satisfied, they were more likely to consider leaving UIC. In contrast, faculty from the STEM fields
report being less satisfied but were less likely to consider leaving. This difference could be due to the
nature of the scholarship, in that faculty in the STEM fields have many more infrastructure issues to
consider before moving, making the decision a harder one. Alternatively, it may be that the more
Campus Climate Survey
18
satisfied faculty are, the more confident they are of their abilities, making them want to consider
moving to other places.
Figure 5. Number of Years in Current Faculty Position
Current title/rank at UIC
60
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
Respondents
50
40
30
20
10
* Non-overlapping 5-year
categories were used (i.e., "5–
10" consists of the range from 5
up to but not including 10)
0
0–5
5–10
10–15
15–20
20–25
25–30
30–35
35–40
40–45
Years held current position*
3.
The Hiring Process at UIC
This section contained questions about respondents’ first faculty position at UIC, their full-time
status, current title, and number of years they have held this title. An additional series of questions
identified factors that make UIC attractive to faculty and probed for aspects of the hiring process that
were experienced either positively or negatively. A final question in this section referred to any
renegotiation that the faculty member may have done with regards to his or her position.
(a)
Faculty Rank
Of the faculty that responded to the survey, 67% (234) were hired as assistant professors, 16%
(55) as associate professors, and 15% (52) as full professors. Two percent (6) were hired as instructors.
All had a full-time status with the university. At the time of the survey, 19% (67) were assistant
professors, 31% (109) were associate professors, and 48% (168) were full professors. Faculty
respondents have held their positions for periods ranging from 6 months to 41 years. Figure 5 shows
the distribution for the number of years faculty have held their current positions.
(b) Satisfaction with the Hiring Process
The next question in this section was a series of items about satisfaction with the hiring process.
The items were measured on a six-point scale, 1 being “strongly agree” and 6 being “strongly
disagree.” All six items were combined into the Hiring Process Scale. The scale had an alpha of 0.86
Campus Climate Survey
19
and a mean inter-item correlation of 0.51 (Table 11). In general, faculty were more satisfied with the
hiring process than with their negotiated salary and resources.
Table 11. The Hiring Process Scale
Mean
SD
Item Total
Correlation
12a. I was satisfied with the hiring process overall.
2.12
1.19
.62
Items
12b. The department did its best to obtain resources for me.
2.79
1.69
.74
12c. Faculty in the department made an effort to meet me.
2.04
1.29
.47
12d. My interactions with the search committee were positive.
1.82
.98
.59
12e. I negotiated successfully for what I needed.
2.81
1.53
.79
12f. I was satisfied with my start-up package at the time.
2.65
1.62
.75
Reliability Coefficient Alpha = .86.
An analysis of variance was run to look for differences by gender and discipline on the hiring
process scale. There were no significant differences by either gender or discipline on the scale scores.
This implies that male and female faculty from both disciplines experienced the hiring process
similarly. The overall mean score of 2.33 ± 1.06 indicates that the faculty were moderately satisfied to
slightly satisfied with the hiring process. The mean scale scores are presented in Table 12.
Table 12. Mean Scores for the Hiring Process Scale, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank
STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
Gender
Male (n=241)
Female (n=84)
TOTAL by Discipline (n=325)
2.36
2.14
2.33
1.07
1.02
1.07
140
23
163
Non-STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
2.27
2.44
2.34
1.07
1.03
1.05
101
61
162
Total by Gender
Mean
SD
n
2.33
2.36
2.33
1.07
1.03
1.06
241
84
325
No significant differences.
(c)
Renegotiation
The final question in this section was about successful renegotiation of salary, summer support,
lab resources, or reduction of teaching load. Of the faculty who responded to the question, 101 (31%)
said they had successfully renegotiated, as compared to 69% who said they had not. Of the 101 faculty
who said they successfully renegotiated, 74 were men (30.6% of all men) and 27 were women (31.4%
of all women). Further analysis showed that all faculty, irrespective of gender or discipline, had the
same success in renegotiating their salary, summer support, lab resources, or reduction in teaching
load. It is important to note, however, that the question asked whether faculty had successfully
renegotiated. It is not clear whether the 69% who responded negatively were faculty who had not
renegotiated, faculty who had not successfully renegotiated, or a combination of the two.
Summary
A majority of the respondents were first hired as assistant professors. At the time of the survey,
20% were assistant professors, 31% were associate professors, and 48% were full professors. The
analysis of the Hiring Process Scale showed that all faculty experienced the hiring process similarly
irrespective of gender or discipline. Respondents were moderately satisfied with the hiring process
but somewhat less satisfied with their starting package. Renegotiation of salary was experienced
similarly by male and female faculty. It is important to consider that these analyses only considered
faculty who attempted to renegotiate. The way the question was worded, it is hard to determine
Campus Climate Survey
20
whether the faculty who responded negatively were faculty who had not renegotiated, faculty who
had not successfully renegotiated, or a combination of the two. Future research might explore whether
there are differences in the degree to which men and women faculty attempt to renegotiate.
4.
Professional Activities
This section explores various dimensions of work environment and UIC faculty, including
teaching load, productivity, work allocation, and resources for teaching, research, and service
responsibilities. Although the survey includes interactions with colleagues and work climate in this
section, for the purposes of the report we have addressed them in the subsequent section on work
climate.
(a)
Objective Measures of Productivity
i.
Teaching load.
On average, faculty taught 2.11 ± 1.04 undergraduate courses and 1.15 ± 0.83 graduate courses
per year. The data were analyzed using the ANOVA procedure, and there were no significant
differences by gender. There was a significant difference by discipline, however. As seen in Tables 13
and 14, faculty in the non-STEM fields taught more courses—both graduate and undergraduate—
than faculty in the STEM fields. The difference was statistically significant for the undergraduate
courses but only marginally significant for the graduate courses. It is possible that there are more
courses to teach in the non-STEM fields and fewer faculty to meet this demand, causing this
difference in the number of courses taught.
Table 13. Mean Number of Undergraduate Courses Taught, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for
Rank
STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
Gender
Male (n=239)
1.79
0.80
Female (n=84)
1.60
TOTAL by Discipline* (n=323)
1.76
Non-STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
140
2.50
1.12
0.69
23
2.40
0.79
163
2.46
Total by Gender
Mean
SD
n
102
2.09
1.01
239
1.18
60
2.17
1.12
84
1.14
162
2.11
1.04
323
*p=0.00.
Overall F value: 13.18; p=0.00.
Table 14. Mean Number of Graduate Courses Taught, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank
STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
Gender
Non-STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
Total by Gender
Mean
SD
n
Male (n=238)
1.09
0.67
137
1.23
0.96
101
1.15
0.80
238
Female (n=83)
0.97
0.56
23
1.23
0.99
60
1.16
0.90
83
TOTAL by Discipline* (n=321)
1.08
0.66
160
1.23
0.97
161
1.15
0.83
321
*p=0.08.
Overall F value: 1.81; p=0.12.
ii.
Publications.
Subsequent questions asked about funded grants and papers and books that were accepted for
publication. Of the faculty who responded, 59% had been principal investigators (PIs) on funded
research in the past two years. The ANOVA procedure was done to look for differences by discipline
Campus Climate Survey
21
and gender, controlling for rank. There were no significant differences by gender; however, there
were significant differences by discipline. Faculty from the STEM fields were more likely to report
being PIs on grants than faculty in the non-STEM fields.
On average, 88.5% of all manuscripts submitted by respondents were accepted for publication.
There were no significant differences in the percent of publications accepted by either gender or
discipline. In the past two years, faculty on average had 6.04 ± 5.33 papers accepted. There were no
significant differences by gender but significant differences by discipline. Faculty from the STEM
fields had significantly more papers accepted than faculty in the non-STEM fields. However, those in
non-STEM fields were more likely to have books accepted for publication (0.79 for non-STEM vs. 0.38
for STEM).
The difference in the number of funded grants and papers and books accepted for publication
may be a reflection of the disciplines; the STEM disciplines focus more on publishing articles, whereas
the non-STEM disciplines focus more on publishing books. Faculty in the STEM fields are also
dependent on grant money to support their research, making it more imperative that they publish
their findings and hence the focus on publishing articles. The mean number of papers and books
accepted are presented in Tables 15 and 16.
Table 15. Mean Number of Papers Accepted for Publication, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for
Rank
STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
Gender
Male (n=239)
Female (n=82)
TOTAL by Discipline* (n=321)
8.37
6.65
8.12
6.43
4.83
6.27
138
23
161
Non-STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
4.08
3.71
3.94
3.10
2.96
3.04
101
59
160
Total by Gender
Mean
SD
n
6.56
4.54
6.04
5.69
3.79
5.33
239
82
321
*p=0.00.
Overall F value: 15.99; p=0.00.
Table 16. Mean Number of Books Accepted for Publication, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for
Rank
STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
Gender
Male (n=239)
Female (n=83)
TOTAL by Discipline* (n=321)
0.39
0.32
0.38
1.03
0.65
0.99
136
22
158
Non-STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
0.91
0.59
0.79
1.28
0.74
1.12
103
61
164
Total by Gender
Mean
SD
n
0.62
0.52
0.59
1.18
0.72
1.08
239
83
322
*p=0.00.
Overall F value: 4.07; p=0.00.
(b) Subjective Measures of Productivity
Faculty were asked to respond to two self-rated productivity measures: (1) to rate their overall
research productivity as compared to researchers in their field and rank nationwide and (2) to rate
their department’s view of their research productivity as compared to the departmental average. Both
questions were measured on a ten-point scale, with 1 being “much less productive” and 10 being
“much more productive.”
i.
Self-rated overall research productivity.
The overall mean self-rated research productivity as compared to researchers in the field
nationwide was 7.25 ± 1.81. An ANOVA procedure was conducted to test for differences by gender
Campus Climate Survey
22
and discipline. There were no significant differences by discipline, but there were significant
differences by gender. Table 17 presents the mean scale rating for faculty stratified by gender and
discipline. Women faculty rated themselves lower on the productivity scale than did males (p<.05).
Table 17. Self-Rated Research Productivity as Compared to Other Researchers in the Field, by Gender
and Discipline, Controlling for Rank
STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
Gender
Male (n=244)
Female (n=86)
TOTAL by Discipline (n=322)
7.32
6.58
7.21
1.91
2.19
1.96
140
24
164
Non-STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
7.49
6.95
7.29
1.67
1.59
1.66
104
62
166
Total by Gender*
Mean
SD
n
7.39
6.85
7.25
1.81
1.77
1.81
244
86
330
*p=0.04.
Overall F value: 3.40; p=0.01.
ii.
Department’s view of research productivity as compared to the departmental average.
When faculty were asked to rate their productivity as compared to the departmental average,
there were no significant differences by gender, but there were significant differences by discipline.
Faculty in the STEM fields rated themselves lower than the faculty in the non-STEM fields. Table 18
presents the mean scale rating for men and women faculty within the two disciplines.
Table 18. Department View of Research Productivity as Compared to the Departmental Average, by
Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank
Gender
Male (n=240)
Female (n=84)
TOTAL by Discipline* (n=324)
STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
6.70
6.00
6.59
2.11
2.62
2.20
137
24
161
Non-STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
7.06
7.00
7.04
2.14
1.86
2.04
103
60
163
Total by Gender
Mean
SD
n
6.85
6.71
6.82
2.13
2.14
2.13
240
84
324
*p=0.02.
Overall F value: 1.93; p=0.10.
(c)
Resources Available to Faculty
A series of seven questions addressed several aspects of resources available to the faculty. The
questions were measured using a six-point scale, 1 being “strongly agree” and 6 being “strongly
disagree.” A factor analysis was done, and items a, b, c, and d were combined into the Lack of
Resources Scale. The mean scale scores and the item total correlations are reported in Table 19. The
other three items were analyzed separately.
Table 19. The Lack of Resources Scale
Question
21a. I have the equipment I need to adequately conduct my research.
21b. I receive regular maintenance/upgrades of my equipment.
21c. I have sufficient office space in terms of quantity and quality.
21d. I have sufficient laboratory space in terms of quantity and quality.
Mean
SD
Item Total
Correlation
2.70
3.95
2.78
3.04
1.53
1.77
1.76
1.72
.62
.50
.56
.69
Reliability Coefficient Alpha = .78.
Campus Climate Survey
23
The ANOVA procedure was used on the resource scale to assess differences by gender and
discipline, controlling for rank. There were no significant differences by gender or discipline in the
resources available to faculty. There were three other items in the question that were not included in
the Lack of Resources Scale since they did not meet the reliability criteria. Two of these three items
formed another scale called the Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues Scale. The third item did not meet
the reliability criteria for either scale. The mean scale scores are presented in Table 20. ANOVAs were
done to test for differences by gender and discipline. There were no significant differences either by
gender or discipline for any of three items.
Overall, resource availability was viewed as acceptable to slightly below acceptable. Thus, in the
future, resources need to be focused on physical infrastructure as well as career support and
mentoring for the faculty.
Table 20. The Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues Scale
Question
Mean
SD
Item Total
Correlation
21e. I have colleagues on campus who do similar research.
3.00
2.61
0.52
21f. I have colleagues or peers at UIC who give me career advice or guidance
when I need it.
2.81
2.71
0.52
Reliability Coefficient Alpha = .68.
(d) Departmental Committees
To assess participation in departmental committees, questions were asked about whether
faculty had ever participated in a particular committee, had ever chaired that committee, or would
like to participate in any of these committees.
We ran a series of chi-square tests to examine differences in participation based on gender and
discipline.
There were significant gender differences (p<0.05) in whether faculty served on the
departmental advisory/executive committees (a higher-level committee to which members are
elected), with men more likely to serve on this committee. There were no significant differences by
gender for any of the other committees.
There were significant differences by discipline in whether faculty served on the departmental
advisory/executive committee (p<0.01) and the faculty search committee (p<0.05). For both of these
committees, faculty in the non-STEM fields reported serving on these committees more than the
faculty in the STEM fields. There were no significant differences by discipline for any of the other
committees. This could be a reflection of how shared governance is implemented in STEM vs. nonSTEM disciplines and the mechanism by which advisory committees are elected or appointed. The
question of shared governance was not addressed by this survey.
(e)
Workplace Safety
The last question in this section asked about whether faculty felt physically safe and secure at
their workplace. Of the 82 women who responded to the question, 80% (66) said they felt safe in their
workplace; 20% (16) said they did not. In comparison, 91% (204) of the 225 men who responded to the
question said they felt safe in their workplace and 9% (21) said they did not. A chi-square test found a
significant difference between genders (p<.05) but no difference by disciplines.
Campus Climate Survey
24
Summary
In summary, there were no faculty gender differences in (a) teaching load, (b) grant funding as
principal investigators, (c) the percentage of papers and books submitted and accepted for
publication, and (d) the degree to which faculty perceived resources to be available.
There were significant gender differences in perceived productivity, such that women faculty
rated themselves lower in productivity than male faculty.
More men than women participated in departmental advisory committees, and faculty from the
non-STEM fields reported serving on such a committee more than faculty in the STEM fields. More
faculty from the non-STEM fields also reported serving on the faculty search committee than faculty
in the STEM fields. This could be a reflection of how shared governance is implemented in STEM vs.
non-STEM disciplines and the mechanism by which advisory committees are elected or appointed.
There was also a gender difference in perceived safety in the workplace, such that women
perceived the workplace to be less safe than men. This gender difference in feelings of safety at the
workplace is not theoretically unexpected or surprising.
5.
Work Climate
The section on work climate includes opinions about interactions with colleagues, the work
environment within departments for men and women faculty, and the work climate for minority
faculty.
(a)
Interactions with Colleagues
This question had a series of 17 items, all measured on a six-point scale, with 1 being “strongly
agree” and 6 being “strongly disagree.” Specific items in the scale were reverse coded so that across
the scale a high value indicates a negative perception of departmental climate and a low value
indicates a positive perception of departmental climate. A single scale called the Negative
Departmental Climate Scale, which includes all the items in the question except 28d and 28j, was
created. The details of the scale are presented in Table 21.
Overall, the findings indicate that faculty tended to report a slightly more positive than negative
perception of the departmental climate, although they were more negative about resource allocation
and recognition of service. ANOVAs were done to assess differences in mean scale scores by gender
and discipline, controlling for rank. The mean score values stratified by gender and discipline are
reported in Table 22. There were no significant statistical differences between the mean scale values
by either gender or discipline.
Campus Climate Survey
25
Table 21. The Negative Departmental Climate Scale
Question
28a.
I am treated with respect by colleagues.
Mean
1.96
SD
1.15
Item Total
Correlation
0.67
28b(r). I feel isolated at UIC overall.
3.06
1.68
0.54
2.86
1.68
0.71
2.79
1.53
0.58
2.59
1.35
0.52
28c.
I feel like a full and equal participant in the problem-solving and decision-making
in my department.
28e(r). I feel excluded from informal networks in my department.
28f.
Colleagues regularly solicit my opinion about work-related matters (such as
teaching, research, and service).
28g(r). I feel isolated in my department.
2.67
1.63
0.65
28h.
I feel that colleagues value my research.
2.51
1.25
0.49
28i.
I do a great deal of research that is not formally recognized by my department.
2.94
1.67
0.47
28k(r). I do a great deal of teaching that is not formally recognized by my department.
2.96
1.78
0.49
28l.
I have a voice in how resources are allocated within my department.
3.67
1.69
0.58
28m(r). I do a great deal of service that is not formally recognized by my department.
3.54
1.68
0.40
28n.
I am treated with respect by my department head or chair.
1.84
1.31
0.53
28o.
Faculty meetings allow for all participants to share their views.
2.13
1.41
0.54
28p.
I feel I can voice my opinions openly in my department.
2.12
1.37
0.63
28q.
Committee assignments are rotated fairly to allow for participation of all faculty.
2.80
1.58
0.55
Reliability Coefficient Alpha=.89.
(r) indicates reverse coded items.
Table 22. Mean Scores for the Negative Departmental Climate Scale, by Gender and Discipline,
Controlling for Rank
Gender
STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
Male (n=244)
2.75
0.90
Female (n=86)
2.78
TOTAL by Discipline (n=330)
2.76
Non-STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
140
2.59
0.97
0.99
24
2.77
0.91
164
2.65
Total by Gender
Mean
SD
n
104
2.68
0.93
244
1.12
62
2.77
1.08
137
1.03
166
2.71
0.97
330
(b) Climate for Men and Women Faculty
To assess the climate for men and women faculty, a factor analysis was done combining the
items in questions 29 and 59. The items from Question 29 in the scale relate to work climate within the
department, and the items from Question 59 relate to recruitment of, climate for, and leadership of
women faculty. Both sets of questions were measured on a six-point scale, with 1 being “strongly
agree” and 6 being “strongly disagree.” Specific items in the scale were reverse coded so that the
higher the score, the more positive the climate. The analysis resulted in a single scale: the Positive
Climate for Women Scale. Table 23 presents the mean item scores along with the inter-item
correlations and the overall reliability coefficient for the scale.
When we tested for differences by gender and discipline, there was a significant difference in
the mean scale scores by gender (p<.001) but not by discipline. Table 24 presents the mean scores. This
finding indicates that women faculty, irrespective of discipline, rated the climate for women less
positively than did their male peers.
Campus Climate Survey
26
Table 23. The Positive Climate for Women Scale
Item Total
Correlation
Question
Mean
SD
29a(r). Faculty are serious about treating men and women faculty equally.
5.18
1.21
0.69
29b(r). Most faculty would be as comfortable with a woman department head as a man
department head.
5.05
1.42
0.65
29c.
Women faculty are less likely than their male counterparts to have influence in
departmental politics and administration.
4.61
1.66
0.71
29d.
It is not uncommon for a woman faculty member to present an idea and get no
response, and then for a man faculty member to present the same idea and be
acknowledged.
4.88
1.55
0.71
29e.
Women faculty tend to get more feedback about their performance than men
faculty do.
4.64
1.39
0.34
29f.
Sex discrimination or harassment is a problem in my department.
5.40
1.12
0.58
29g.
Faculty don’t often speak up when they see an instance of sex discrimination for
fear that it will jeopardize their careers.
5.05
1.37
0.56
Men faculty are more likely than women faculty to be involved in informal social
networks within the department.
4.28
1.78
0.67
There are too few women faculty in my department.
3.04
1.89
0.43
29h.
59a.
59b(r). My department has actively recruited women faculty.
4.87
1.40
0.44
59c.
4.07
1.70
0.53
My department has difficulty retaining women faculty.
59d(r). The climate for women in my department is good.
4.79
1.35
0.74
59e(r). My department has taken steps to enhance the climate for women.
4.24
1.47
0.63
59f.
3.41
1.81
0.51
4.33
1.49
0.56
My department has too few women faculty in leadership positions.
59g(r). My department has made an effort to promote women faculty into leadership
positions.
Reliability Coefficient Alpha = .90.
(r) indicates reverse coded items.
Table 24. Mean Scores for the Positive Climate for Women Scale, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling
for Rank
STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
Gender
Non-STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
Total by Gender*
Mean
SD
n
Male (n=242)
4.59
0.79
138
4.81
0.82
104
4.68
0.81
242
Female (n=86)
4.13
1.14
24
4.19
1.30
62
4.18
1.25
86
TOTAL by Discipline (n=328)
4.52
0.86
162
4.58
1.06
166
4.55
0.97
328
*p=0.00.
Overall F value: 5.69; p=0.00.
(c)
Climate for Minority Faculty
To assess the climate for minority faculty, a factor analysis was done combining the items in
Questions 30 and 60. Scale items from Question 30 relate to work climate within the department; the
Question 60 items relate to recruitment of, climate for, and leadership of minority faculty. Both sets of
items were measured on a six-point scale, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 6 being “strongly
disagree.” Some items were reverse coded so that the higher the score, the more positive the climate
for minorities in the departments. The analysis resulted in a single scale: the Positive Climate for
Minorities Scale. Table 25 presents the mean item scores along with the item total correlations and the
overall reliability coefficient for the scale.
Campus Climate Survey
27
Table 25. The Positive Climate for Minorities Scale
Question
30a(r). Faculty are serious about treating minority and non-minority faculty equally.
Inter-item
Correlation
0.70
Mean
5.24
SD
1.19
5.04
1.39
0.71
4.65
1.59
0.66
5.05
1.42
0.75
4.71
1.39
0.40
5.31
1.24
0.75
30b(r). Most faculty would be as comfortable with a minority department head as a
non-minority department head.
30c. Minority faculty are less likely than their non-minority counterparts to have
influence in departmental politics and administration.
30d. It is not uncommon for a minority faculty member to present an idea and get
no response, and then for a non-minority faculty member to present the same
idea and be acknowledged.
30e. Minority faculty tend to get more feedback about their performance than nonminority faculty do.
30f.
Discrimination against or non-minority harassment of minorities is a problem in
my department.
30g. Faculty don’t often speak up when they see an instance of discrimination
against minorities for fear that it will jeopardize their careers.
30h. Non-minority faculty are more likely than minority faculty to be involved in
informal social networks within the department.
60a. There are too few faculty of color in my department.
5.08
1.39
0.68
4.42
2.09
1.65
1.53
0.62
0.39
60b(r). My department has actively recruited faculty of color.
60c. My department has difficulty retaining faculty of color.
4.24
3.26
1.82
1.83
0.53
0.39
60d(r). The climate for faculty of color in my department is good.
60e(r). My department has taken steps to enhance the climate for faculty of color.
4.43
4.12
1.56
1.45
0.70
0.68
60f.
My department has too few faculty of color in leadership positions.
60g(r). My department has made an effort to promote faculty of color into leadership
positions.
2.54
1.65
0.48
3.95
1.63
0.63
Reliability Coefficient Alpha = .91.
(r) indicates reverse coded items.
Table 26. Mean Scores for the Positive Climate for Minorities Scale, by Gender and Discipline,
Controlling for Rank
Gender
Male (n=235)
Female (n=84)
TOTAL by Discipline (n=319)
STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
4.24
4.21
4.23
1.07
0.96
1.06
133
24
157
Non-STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
4.45
4.05
4.31
0.84
1.30
1.05
102
60
162
Total by Gender
Mean
SD
n
4.33
4.10
4.27
0.98
1.21
1.05
235
84
319
No significant differences.
Overall, there seemed to be a general perception of a positive work climate for minorities in the
departments, irrespective of gender and discipline. The results of the ANOVA are presented in Table
26.
Running a stratified analysis by minority status would have been more informative, but the
sample had only 28 faculty who were underrepresented minorities, which was too small to enable us
to run such an analysis.
Summary
The findings indicate that faculty reported a more positive than negative perception of the
overall departmental climate. There were no significant statistical differences between the mean scale
values by either gender or discipline for the Negative Departmental Scale.
The analysis of the positive climate for women scale indicates that women faculty, irrespective
of discipline, felt the climate for women to be less positive than did their male peers.
Campus Climate Survey
28
The analysis of the Positive Climate for Minorities Scale indicates that all faculty, regardless of
gender and discipline, reported that the climate for minority faculty at UIC was a positive one. There
were a small number of underrepresented minorities in the sample, and so we were unable to do the
analysis stratifying by minority status.
6.
The Tenure Process at UIC
Of 351 faculty, 281 (80%) were currently tenured and 68 (19%) were tenure-track; two did not
answer the question. When analyzed by gender, only 61 (69%) women as compared to 214 (85%) men
reported currently having tenure. Additionally, a comparable percentage of STEM faculty (80%) and
non-STEM faculty (81%) reported currently having tenure.
Of the 265 faculty who responded to the question of whether they had tenure prior to coming to
UIC, 65 (24.5%) reported that they did. Two hundred respondents (75.5%) did not have tenure when
hired at UIC. Twenty-seven of the 133 STEM faculty (20.3%) and 37 of the 127 non-STEM faculty
(29.1%) reported having tenure prior to coming to UIC. When stratified by gender, 17 of the 57
women (29.8%) and 48 of the 203 men (23.6%) reported having tenure before coming to UIC. There
were no statistical differences in the proportion of men and women faculty that were tenured when
they joined UIC.
Sixty-two faculty reported that they were either currently going through the tenure process or
planning to go through the tenure process. When stratified by gender, there were 26 women and 33
men, and when stratified by discipline there were 33 STEM faculty and 29 non-STEM faculty.
(a)
The Tenure Process Scale
We assessed the tenure process by asking a series of six questions pertaining to faculty
satisfaction and understanding of the tenure process as it related to the faculty member’s primary
department. Faculty rated the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each item on a scale of 1
(strongly agree) to 6 (strongly disagree). We used factor analysis to create a scale to combine all the
items: the Tenure Process Scale. Table 27 presents the items that were included in the scale, the item
total correlations, and the overall alpha. All six items were included in the scale with an overall alpha
of 0.81 and a mean item total correlation of 0.42.
Overall, faculty reported satisfaction with their ability to understand the process and to receive
feedback; however, they were dissatisfied with mentoring, assistance, and reduced workload related
to trying to achieve tenure.
We used the ANOVA procedure to test for differences in the mean scale scores by gender and
discipline. We did not detect any statistically significant differences. However, it is important to note
that the small sample cell sizes (smaller number of women in the sample) may have limited our
ability to detect a difference.
Campus Climate Survey
29
Table 27. The Tenure Process Scale
Question
37a. I was satisfied with the tenure/promotion process overall.
37b. I understood the criteria for achieving tenure/promotion.
37c. I received feedback on my progress toward tenure/promotion.
37d. I received reduced teaching or service responsibilities so that I could build my
research program.
37e. I was told about assistance available to pre-tenure/promotion faculty (e.g.,
workshops, mentoring).
37f. A senior colleague was very helpful to me as I worked towards tenure/promotion.
Reliability Coefficient Alpha = .81.
Mean
SD
Inter-item
Correlation
2.40
2.03
2.40
4.23
1.60
1.33
1.48
1.86
.60
.47
.67
.57
3.81
1.94
.60
3.01
1.90
.55
Table 28. Mean Scores for Tenure Process Scale, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank
Gender
Male (n=149)
Female (n=37)
TOTAL by Discipline (n=186)
STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
2.82
1.17
93
3.48
1.41
9
2.87
1.20
102
Non-STEM Discipline
Mean
SD
n
2.81
1.05
56
2.77
1.11
28
2.80
1.06
84
Total by Gender
Mean
SD
n
2.81
1.12
149
2.94
1.21
37
2.84
1.14
186
No significant differences.
(b) Tenure Clock
Faculty at UIC have the option to roll back the tenure clock. There were three questions related
to tenure rollback: whether faculty had ever stopped the clock, whether such a request had ever been
denied, and whether they had chosen not to stop the clock even though they wanted to do so.
i.
Rolling back the tenure clock.
Of 267 faculty who responded to the question, 35 (13%) reported stopping or rolling back their
tenure clock, and 231 (87%) reported not stopping or rolling back their tenure clock. When stratified
by gender, 22 of the 69 women (32%) and 13 of the 198 men (7%) reported stopping or rolling back
their tenure clock. There was a significant effect of gender (p<.001) and discipline (p<.001). Seven of
the 144 STEM faculty (5%) and 28 of the 127 non-STEM faculty (22%) reported stopping or rolling
back their tenure clock. This suggests that women and faculty from the non-STEM disciplines were
more likely to roll back or stop the tenure clock. However, it must be noted that since the percent of
women utilizing the tenure rollback is greater, the discipline difference may be a reflection of the
lower percent of women in the STEM disciplines.
ii.
Reasons for rolling back the tenure clock.
Of the 35 faculty who stopped the tenure clock or had a tenure rollback, 27 faculty responded to
the questions giving the main reasons for doing so. The main reasons given by 12 faculty (44%) were
pregnancy, child rearing, and family. An additional 10 faculty members (37%) said they needed to
complete publications, dissertations, or fellowships. Other reasons given included the 1999
suspension of all research involving human subjects at UIC, the need to compensate for a large
teaching load, change of institution, and being hired without a completed dissertation (ABD).
Campus Climate Survey
30
iii.
Consequences of rolling back the tenure clock.
Only 22 faculty responded to the questions on consequences of taking a tenure rollback or
stopping the tenure clock. Of these 22 faculty, 13 (59%) said they faced no negative consequences.
Three faculty said that it took longer to get tenure as a consequence. One faculty member perceived
that a negative tenure decision was partly because of the rollback. Two other faculty members
reported being regarded as inadequate by colleagues and were considered as having received special
treatment. Finally, two faculty members reported being allowed to come up for early promotion.
Thus, while a majority of respondents reported no untoward consequences from using this policy, a
small number felt there were some negative ramifications.
iv.
Denial of request to roll back the tenure clock.
Only one of the 35 faculty who reported requesting a tenure rollback or stopping the tenure
clock was denied the request to stop the tenure clock.
v.
Chose not to roll back the tenure clock despite a desire to do so.
Of 258 faculty who responded to this question, 13 (5%) reported choosing not to stop/roll back
the tenure clock even though they might have wanted to, and 245 (95%) reported not wanting to do
so. Stratifying by gender showed that of the 13 faculty, 6 were women and 7 were men faculty.
However, as a percentage, 6 of 68 women (9%) and 7 of 190 men (4%) reported choosing not to
stop/roll back the tenure clock even though they wanted to. When a similar stratification was done
by discipline, 6 of 139 STEM faculty (4%) and 7 of 122 non-STEM faculty (6%) reported choosing not
to stop/roll back the tenure clock. The cell sizes were too small to run any statistical tests.
Summary
In summary, far more women than men have used tenure rollback, although we observed few
differences between men and women faculty on (a) their level of satisfaction with the tenure process,
(b) whether they had ever been denied the request, and (c) whether they had chosen not to stop the
clock even though they wanted to. It is important to note that the small number of women may have
limited our ability to detect any differences.
Other research has suggested that the number of children faculty have and having a spouse who
works full-time or part-time are important factors influencing the tenure process. An analysis was run
to test whether these factors made a difference in our sample. There were no significant differences,
which again may be due to the fact that there were small sample sizes limiting our ability to detect
any differences.
7.
UIC Programs and Resources
This section assessed opinions about several existing UIC policies and programs designed to
improve the working environment for faculty.
(a)
Use and Value of Existing UIC Programs
For the list of programs, faculty were asked to rate whether they had ever used the program,
how valuable they found the program to be, and whether they had ever heard of the program.
Respondents were then asked to rate how valuable the program was on a scale of 1 (not at all
valuable) to 4 (very valuable). The results are summarized in Table 29.
Campus Climate Survey
31
Table 29. Utilization and Value of UIC Programs
UIC Programs/Resources
Tenure Rollback
Dual-Career Hiring Program
Family Medical Leave
New Faculty Workshops
Faculty Mentoring Program
Campus Childcare
Used the program
(%)
9%
5%
4%
27%
17%
3%
Not heard of the
program (%)
23%
44%
18%
22%
14%
24%
Anticipate using the
program (%)
1%
7%
20%
4%
11%
14%
Mean score for
value of program
3.4
3.6
3.7
2.9
2.9
3.7
There was a significant difference in the use of the programs by gender for tenure rollback
(p<0.001), family medical leave (p<0.005), new faculty workshops (p<0.005), and faculty mentoring
(p<0.001). Women consistently used these programs more than men.
(b) Perceived Value of Programs
We ran a series of ANOVAs for each of the programs listed in the table above to assess if there
were differences in the value of a specific program by gender or discipline. There were significant
differences by gender for the following programs: tenure rollback (p<0.01), dual-career hiring
program (p<0.05), family medical leave (p<0.05), and campus childcare (p<0.05). Women consistently
rated these programs as having more value than men. There was a significant difference by discipline
only for the tenure rollback program (p=0.09). Faculty in the non-STEM disciplines found more value
in this program than the faculty in the STEM fields.
i.
Utilization and value of programs as it relates to spousal employment status.
We ran chi-square tests to look for differences in the use of the various programs by spousal
status. Faculty who had spouses who were employed full-time or part-time used the tenure rollback
(p<0.05), dual-career hiring (p<0.05), and new faculty workshop (p<0.05) programs more than faculty
who had spouses who were either unemployed or retired.
A series of ANOVAs allowed us to look for differences in the rated value of the programs with
spousal employment status and gender. There was a significant difference by gender: women faculty
with spouses employed either full-time or part-time rating the tenure rollback (p<0.05), new faculty
workshops (p<0.05), and the faculty mentoring programs (p<0.05) as more valuable than male faculty
with employed spouses.
ii.
Utilization and value of programs as it relates to faculty who cared for children.
We ran chi-square tests to look for differences in the use of various programs based on whether
faculty cared for dependent children. There were no significant differences in the use of any of the
programs except campus childcare. Faculty who cared for children reported using the campus
childcare program more (p<0.05).
We examined another series of ANOVAs to test for differences in the rated value of these
programs based on gender and whether faculty had and cared for children.
Overall, faculty who cared for children rated the tenure rollback program as being more
valuable than faculty who did not care for children (p<0.05). When stratified by gender, female faculty
felt the program was of more value than male faculty (p<0.01). The family medical leave program was
found to be of more value by female faculty than by male faculty, irrespective of whether they cared
Campus Climate Survey
32
for children (p<0.05). Campus childcare was found to be of more value to female faculty than male
faculty (p<0.01), irrespective of whether they cared for children.
Summary
Overall, women were more likely to have used and rated as more valuable the tenure rollback,
family medical leave, new faculty workshops, and faculty mentoring programs than men.
When stratified by spousal employment status and gender, women faculty with spouses
employed either full-time or part-time rated the tenure rollback, new faculty workshops, and the
faculty mentoring programs as more valuable than the male faculty with employed spouses.
Overall, faculty who cared for children rated the tenure rollback program to be more valuable
than faculty who did not care for children. When stratified by gender, females felt that the tenure
rollback, family medical leave, and campus childcare programs were more valuable irrespective of
whether they cared for children. Women respondents clearly value campus support programs more
than men. Previous research suggests that achieving a life/livelihood balance requires more
institutional supports for women than men because women continue to carry a heavier load of
caretaking responsibilities (Preston, 2004; Sullivan et al., 2004; Williams, 2000). Given the societal
responsibilities of women related to nuclear and extended families, these programs appear to be
critical for the ongoing success of women in academia.
8.
Balancing Personal and Professional Life
We assessed attitudes toward the ease with which faculty are able to balance personal and
professional lives by assessing (a) the degree to which one forgoes professional activities because of
personal responsibilities, (b) the degree to which one forgoes personal activities because of
professional responsibilities, and (c) the degree to which personal responsibilities and commitments
have slowed down one’s career progression. Respondents answered these three questions on a scale
ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 6 (strongly disagree). A factor analysis resulted in the Balance
Between Personal and Professional Life Scale combining item (a) and item (c), the results of which are
presented in Table 30.
To assess if there were differences by gender and discipline, a two-way ANOVA was
conducted, controlling for rank. There were no significant differences by gender or discipline.
ANOVAs also were conducted to look for differences based on whether faculty had a spouse who
worked and whether faculty cared for children. While there were no significant differences in any of
the items based on spousal employment, there was a significant finding based on whether faculty
cared for children. The results of the ANOVA are presented in Table 31.
Table 30. The Balance Between Personal and Professional Life Scale
Question
47a. I often have to forgo professional activities (e.g., meetings, sabbaticals, conferences)
because of personal responsibilities.
47c. Personal responsibilities and commitments have slowed down my career progression.
Mean
SD
Item total
Correlation
4.18
4.00
1.77
1.70
0.58
0.58
Reliability Coefficient Alpha = 0.74.
Campus Climate Survey
33
Table 31. Mean Scores for Balance Between Personal and Professional Life Scale, by Gender and
Whether Faculty Cared for Children, Controlling for Rank
Faculty Cared for Children
Mean
Male
SD
Yes (n=215)
No (n=111)
TOTAL by Gender (n=326)
3.77
4.86
4.10
1.59
1.18
1.56
n
167
73
240
Mean
Female
SD
n
3.13
4.93
3.93
1.39
1.08
1.54
48
38
86
TOTAL by Whether Faculty
Cared for Children*
Mean
SD
n
3.62
4.89
4.06
1.57
1.14
1.56
215
111
326
*p=0.00.
Overall F value: 17.23; p=0.00.
As the table shows, faculty who did not care for children reported that they did not forgo
professional activities because of personal commitments and those personal commitments did not
slow down their careers, while those who cared for children reported that they had to forgo
professional commitments because of personal commitments and those personal commitments did
slow down their career progression. This was a statistically significant difference. However, there
were no significant differences found by gender. It is important to note that most of the respondents
were men and that women were twice as likely as men to be childless.
(a)
Care of Dependents
As an aspect of personal life that can greatly influence professional life, we wanted to assess
whether having dependent children and caring for them put additional strains on balancing work and
family life.
i.
Number of children.
A total of 317 faculty—238 (75%) men and 79 (25%) women—responded to the question asking
about the number of children. The number ranged from a single child to six children. Of the 317
faculty, 24% (76) reported having no children. When stratified by gender, we found that 19% of the
men (45/238) and 39% of the women (31/79) reported having no children. None of the women
reported having more than three children. A small percentage of men (5%) reported having between
four and six children.
Overall, 27% (21), 28% (22), and 6% (5) of women reported having one, two, or three children,
respectively, as compared to 18% (43), 42% (99), and 17% (40) of men. A chi-square test showed
significant differences by gender (p<0.01).
We also assessed whether faculty felt that their job prevented them from having the number of
children they wanted. Overall, 21% (68) of the respondents reported that their job prevented them
from having the number of children they wanted. There were significant effects of gender (p<0.001),
with 35% (30/85) of women as compared to 16% (38/243) of men reporting that their job prevented
them from having the number of children they wanted. There were no significant differences by
discipline.
ii.
Care of dependent children.
Overall, 66% (220) of respondents said that they had ever cared for dependent children. Of
these, 78% (172/220) were men and 22% (48/220) were women. A chi-square test examined
differences between genders. There was a significant effect of gender (p<.01): 70% (172/246) of men
and 55% of (48/88) women currently care for dependent children. These results show that a greater
Campus Climate Survey
34
percent of the faculty with dependent children were men. There were no significant differences by
discipline in the proportion of faculty who reported caring for dependent children.
iii.
Spousal employment status as it relates to children.
Overall, 60% of the 351 respondents’ partners work full-time, 18% work part-time, 16% are not
employed, and 7% are retired. While none of the female respondents reported having a spouse who
was not employed, 19% of the male faculty reported that their partners were not employed. Further,
more women (84%) than men (53%) reported having a partner who worked full-time, and more men
(21%) than women (9%) reported having a partner who worked part-time.
iv.
Need and use of childcare services.
We found that 19% of the faculty reported currently using or needing childcare services or
programs. Interestingly, more women (24%) than men (17%) reported needing childcare services,
even though more men reported having/caring for dependent children.
For women, 39% of assistant professors, 28% of associate professors, and 7% of full professors
currently use or need childcare services. For men, 27% of assistant professors, 23% of associate
professors, and 10% of professors currently use or need childcare services.
Faculty were asked about the type of childcare services they would use. Of the 33 respondents
who reported needing campus childcare, 58% were men and 42% were women. Of the 34 respondents
that reported they would use infant/toddler care, 65% were men and 35% were women. Lastly, of the
51 respondents who reported that they would use after-school care for school-age children, 67% were
men and 33% were women.
The general trend in the data reported above is that women were more likely than men to report
that they would use childcare programs even though men faculty were more likely to report having
and caring for dependent children. Perhaps it is the case that although men faculty have more
dependent children, they also are more likely than women to have a spouse as a primary caregiver for
the child and thus feel less dependent on childcare services than do women.
v.
Care of other dependent persons.
We also assessed whether faculty have ever or currently are caring for dependent persons
(elderly or disabled). Overall, 13% reported caring for a dependent person, and there were no
significant differences by gender or discipline.
vi.
Related Topic: General spousal hiring program
In addition to asking about the specific use of the Dual Career Hiring Program (Table 29), we
asked a more hypothetical question (Question 54): whether faculty would have used a spousal hiring
program if it had been available when they came to UIC. Overall, 54% reported that they would use
this service. There were no significant differences by gender.
(b) Departmental Support of Family Obligations
We assessed the degree to which one’s primary department supports family obligations by
asking a series of seven questions on a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 6 (strongly disagree). Factor
analysis was used to test if the items could be converted into a scale, but the items did not cluster
together. Hence, the items were analyzed separately using the ANOVA procedure. Table 32 reports
Campus Climate Survey
35
the mean score for each of the items by discipline and the results of stratified analyses by gender and
discipline, controlling for rank. Explanations of the findings on each item follow the table.
Table 32. Departmental Support for Family Obligations
Question
57a. Most faculty in my department are supportive of
colleagues who want to balance their personal
and career lives.
57b. It is difficult for faculty in my department to adjust
their work schedules to care for children or other
dependents.
57c. Departmental meetings frequently occur outside
of the 9–5 workday.
57d. My department is supportive of family leave.
57e.
57f.
57g.
The head of my department understands the
existing policies regarding family leave.
Men faculty who have children are considered by
department members to be less committed to
their careers than men who do not have children.
Women faculty who have children are
considered by department members to be less
committed to their careers than women who do
not have children.
Mean Score
STEM
2.52 ± 1.31
(n=153)
Mean Score
Non-STEM
2.29 ± 1.21
(n=162)
Comments
No significant differences.
4.07 ± 1.37
(n=150)
3.91 ± 1.46
(n=159)
Significant differences by
discipline (p=0.04).
5.63 ± 0.89
(n=156)
2.46 ± 1.31
(n=119)
2.05 ± 1.23
(n=121)
5.00 ± 1.33
(n=142)
5.71 ± 0.75
(n=163)
2.15 ± 1.20
(n=149)
1.90 ± 1.18
(n=139)
5.14 ± 1.19
(n=155)
No significant differences.
4.66 ± 1.48
(n=142)
4.54 ± 1.57
(n=154)
No significant differences.
No significant differences.
No significant differences.
No significant differences by
discipline. However, significant
differences by gender (p=0.03).
Mean scale scores:
Men 4.76 ± 1.41 (n=216)
Women 4.16 ± 1.75 (n=80)
In the table above, the lower the mean score, the more agreement with the statement. For the
item “It is difficult for faculty to adjust their work schedules to care for children,” the mean score of
3.91 for the non-STEM faculty implies that they were having more difficulty than the STEM faculty
adjusting their schedules to care for children. This was a statistically significant difference (p=0.04).
In response to the item “Women faculty who have children are considered by department
members to be less committed to their careers than women who do not have children,” we found a
significant effect by gender, controlling for faculty rank, in an ANOVA analysis (p=0.03). Women
agreed more with this statement than did their male peers.
(c)
Household Tasks
We assessed who performs more than 50% of specific household tasks such as childcare,
cooking and cleaning, lawn care, car care, and home repair. The response categories were respondent,
spouse/partner, shared equally by both, hired help, and other. The results are reported in Table 33.
Table 33. Who Performs More than 50% of Child/Dependent Care, by Gender and by Discipline
Gender
Male
Female
Discipline
STEM
Non-STEM
Respondent
Spouse/Partner
Shared Equally
Hired Help
Other
17 (10%)
23 (47%)
68 (39%)
0
76 (43%)
22 (45%)
7 (4%)
3 (6%)
7 (4%)
1 (2%)
8 (7%)
33 (32%)
48 (40%)
21 (20%)
58 (48%)
40 (39%)
3 (3%)
6 (6%)
4 (3%)
4 (4%)
Campus Climate Survey
36
The overall chi-square tests showed significant differences by gender as well as discipline. More
women faculty reported being responsible for over 50% of the childcare (p <0.001). When stratified by
discipline, more faculty in the non-STEM fields reported being responsible for over 50% of the
childcare (p<0.001).
Summary
For the balance between personal and professional life scale, there was a significant difference
based on whether faculty cared for children. Faculty who cared for children reported being less able
to balance their personal and professional lives and felt that their personal lives slowed their career
progression.
Overall, men faculty reported having more children than women faculty, and women were
twice as likely as men to be childless. More women than men said their jobs prevented them from
having the number of children they would have liked to have had. More men faculty also reported
caring for dependent children, in keeping with their having more children than women.
The term “caring for” was not defined, so it is possible that it may have been interpreted as
financial support rather than direct care. More women faculty reported having spouses or partners
who worked full-time or part-time. More women faculty reported using childcare services even
though more men reported having and caring for dependent children. Perhaps it is the case that
although men faculty have more dependent children, they also are more likely than women to have a
spouse as a primary caregiver for the child, and thus feel less dependent on childcare services than do
women.
Finally, when we looked at departmental support of family obligations, we observed that
faculty in the non-STEM fields found it harder to adjust their schedules to care for children and other
dependents. Women in general felt that female faculty with children are perceived to be less
committed to their jobs than female faculty with no children.
Overall, there are significant differences in the profile and perceptions of women and men
respondents in terms of balancing personal and professional lives. These differences will need to be
taken into consideration whenever program and policy decisions regarding work climate are made if
women faculty are to be recruited, retained, and advanced.
Campus Climate Survey
37
RESULTS: SECTION II
The analysis in the previous section assessed the relationships between a single dependent
variable and two or three independent variables. It is apparent there are several variables that can
simultaneously influence faculty satisfaction. In order to assess the influence of the complete set of
predictors of satisfaction and considerations to leave, multivariate techniques were used. They are:
1. Multiple Regression Analysis. Three separate linear stepwise regression equations
predicting the two satisfaction outcome variables as well as considerations of leaving are
presented. The linear regression models show the direct effects of the independent variables
on each of the three dependent variables.
2. Path Analysis. The individual regression analyses discussed above show the direct effects of
the independent variables on each of the three dependent variables. The path model shows
both the direct and indirect effects of the independent and intervening variables and shows
the causal relationship among the various factors.
1.
Multiple Regression Analysis
The bivariate analyses laid the groundwork for the multiple regression analyses that furthered
our understanding of the experience of faculty members. Three separate linear stepwise regression
models with the following three dependent variables were conducted:
Dependent variable 1: Satisfaction with current position at UIC.
Dependent variable 2: Satisfaction with career progression at UIC.
Dependent variable 3: Consideration to leave UIC.
We ran three separate models rather than a single overall model, based on the facts that:
•
•
•
The causal order between these three variables cannot be determined.
There is a strong correlation (r=0.729) between the two satisfaction variables. Collapsing
them into one variable would result in a more efficient model. However, the policy
implications for each of the satisfaction variables would be lost in that process.
Using the separate satisfaction variables resulted in some redundancy in the models but has
the advantage of identifying the specific factors affecting each of the satisfaction variables.
While the bivariate analysis focused specifically on three independent variables, the regression
and path analyses considered the following independent variables. The purpose was to ensure that
the potential influence of additional factors was considered.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Discipline (1 = STEM, 0 = non-STEM)
Gender (1 = male, 0 = female)
Tenure (1 = yes, 0 = no)
Successful renegotiation of salary, summer appointment, etc.
Race ( 1 = Caucasian, 0 = all other)
Marital/Partnered status
Children (1 = yes, 0 = no)
Attitudes towards Hiring Process Scale
Balance Between Personal and Professional Life Scale
Overall research productivity
Respondent’s beliefs about the department’s rating of his/her productivity
Negative Departmental Climate Scale
Campus Climate Survey
38
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Lack of Resources Scale
Departmental Support for Family Obligations Scale
Positive Climate for Women Scale
Positive Climate for Minorities Scale
How seriously respondent has considered leaving UIC
Whether respondent cares for dependent children
Whether respondent cares for dependent adults
Whether respondent has been a PI on a grant
Number of graduate courses taught
Number of undergraduate courses taught
Number of published articles
Number of published books
(a)
Factors Predicting Satisfaction with Current Position at UIC
The bivariate analysis allowed us to assess only the association of satisfaction with current
position at UIC with gender, rank, and discipline. The results showed that faculty satisfaction with
current position did not differ based on gender, rank, or discipline. To assess multiple other factors
that may influence satisfaction with current position, a linear regression analysis was conducted. The
dependent variable in this model was satisfaction with current position at UIC; the independent
variables were those mentioned above. The final model, with only the statistically significant
predictors of satisfaction with current position, is presented in Table 34.
Table 34. Predictors of Satisfaction with Current Position at UIC
Predictor
CONSTANT
Negative Departmental Climate Scale
Lack of Resources Scale
Tenured
Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues Scale
Balance Between Personal & Professional Life Scale
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
6.96
0.42
-0.55
0.10
-0.40
0.07
0.61
0.19
-0.16
0.06
-0.11
0.05
Standardized
Coefficients†4
Beta
-0.34
-0.33
0.16
-0.15
-0.11
t
16.49
-5.62
-5.92
3.19
-2.62
-2.05
Sig
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.04
Adjusted R2‡ : .381; F-value for the model = 30.87, p<.001.
Factors such as working in a more negative departmental climate and having fewer resources,
fewer like-minded colleagues, and less of a balance between personal and professional lives resulted
in faculty who were less satisfied with their current positions at UIC. In contrast, having tenure
resulted in more satisfaction with the current position.
To assess whether there were gender differences, we looked at factors associated with
satisfaction with current position for women and men separately (Table 35). The factors associated
with satisfaction for men and women are very different. The one factor that cut across gender was a
negative departmental climate. Both men and women were less satisfied if they worked in a negative
departmental climate. For women faculty, this was the only significant predictor of dissatisfaction.
Additional factors predicting dissatisfaction for male faculty included not having tenure, having
The Beta coefficient explains the relationship of that independent variable with the dependent variable. It is the slope of the
least squares regression line. A negative Beta implies less satisfaction.
‡ The Adjusted R2 represents the proportion of variance explained by the independent variables in the model.
†
Campus Climate Survey
39
fewer resources, and having to care for dependent children. It is important to note that the small
sample size for women (n=61) may have limited the ability to detect other differences.
Table 35. Predictors of Satisfaction with Current Position with UIC, by Gender
Predictor
Negative Departmental Climate Scale
Lack of Resources Scale
Tenured
Care for dependent children
Overall F
Adjusted R2
Beta
-0.51
Women (n=61)
p-value
0.000
Beta
-0.37
-0.37
0.19
-0.15
21.16; p=0.000
0.248
Men (n=183)
p-value
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.012
31.43; p=0.000
0.399
(b) Factors Predicting Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC
The bivariate analysis examined the association of satisfaction with career progression with
gender, rank, and discipline. The results showed that faculty from the non-STEM fields were more
satisfied than their counterparts in the STEM fields. Additionally, in the non-STEM fields, the higher
the rank, the greater the satisfaction—i.e., full professors were more satisfied than associate
professors, who were more satisfied than assistant professors.
The results of the multiple regression further examining the association of several other factors
with satisfaction with career progression are presented in Table 36.
As would be expected, faculty who felt that they worked in a negative departmental climate,
had fewer resources and fewer like-minded colleagues, were not PI’s on funded grants, and had
lower self-rated productivity were less satisfied with their career progression. Interestingly,
perceiving a more positive climate for women was associated with less satisfaction with career
progression. As shown in Table 37, this is probably driven by the large number of men in the sample.
Factors associated with satisfaction with career progression were examined separately for men
and women (Table 37).
Again, for both men and women, a negative departmental climate and fewer resources were
associated with lower satisfaction with career progression. However, the similarity ended there, in
that lower satisfaction for women was associated with productivity measures, such as fewer papers
accepted and not being a PI on a funded grant. For men, lower satisfaction was associated with work
climate issues, such as fewer like-minded colleagues and a perceived positive climate for women.
Table 36. Predictors of Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC
Constant
Negative Departmental Climate Scale
Lack of Resources Scale
Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues Scale
Positive Climate for Women Scale
PI on funded research
Self-rated research productivity
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
7.03
0.71
-0.56
0.10
-0.25
0.64
-0.19
0.06
-0.25
0.09
0.39
0.16
0.10
0.41
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
-0.38
-0.23
-0.19
-0.16
0.14
0.13
t
9.94
-5.58
-3.95
-3.26
-2.73
2.52
2.48
Sig
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
Adjusted R2 = 0.224; F-value for the model = 10.995, p <.001.
Campus Climate Survey
40
Table 37. Predictors of Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC, by Gender
Predictor
Negative Departmental Climate Scale
Papers/articles accepted for publication
PI on funded research
Lack of Resources Scale
Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues Scale
Positive Climate for Women Scale
Overall F
Adjusted R2
(c)
Women (n=61)
Beta
p-value
-0.34
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.32
0.01
-0.26
0.03
Beta
-0.37
-0.24
-0.18
-0.14
9.58; p=0.00
0.360
Men (n=182)
p-value
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.05
22.59; p=0.00
0.322
Factors Predicting Consideration to Leave UIC
The bivariate analysis of the association of the consideration to leave UIC with gender,
discipline, and rank showed that men considered leaving more seriously than women, and faculty in
non-STEM fields considered leaving more seriously than faculty in STEM fields. The multiple
regression looked at several factors that may be associated with the consideration to leave (Table 38).
Faculty who considered leaving UIC were not tenured, from the non-STEM disciplines, not
married or living with a partner, had not successfully renegotiated their current position, had fewer
resources, and worked in a more negative departmental climate. Also, contrary to what one might
expect, respondents who indicated having more departmental support for family obligations were
more likely to consider leaving.
Table 38. Predictors of Consideration to Leave UIC
PREDICTOR
CONSTANT
Lack of Resources Scale
Negative Departmental Climate Scale
Successful renegotiation
Department supports family obligations
Tenured
STEM discipline
Married/Partnered
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
1.74
0.55
0.23
0.05
0.33
0.08
-0.32
0.13
0.18
0.07
-0.32
0.15
-0.29
0.12
-0.16
0.08
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
0.29
0.30
-0.15
0.17
-0.13
-0.14
-0.12
t
3.17
4.50
4.22
-2.52
2.55
-2.22
-2.44
-1.99
Sig
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.05
Adjusted R2 = 0.351; F-value for the model = 22.844, p<.001.
Table 39. Predictors of Consideration to Leave UIC, by Gender
PREDICTOR
Negative Departmental Climate Scale
Lack of Resources Scale
STEM discipline
Successful renegotiation
Overall F
Adjusted R2
Women only (n=60)
Beta
p-value
0.34
0.01
-0.25
0.04
6.71; p=0.00
0.16
Men only (n=183)
Beta
p-value
0.17
0.02
0.322
0.00
-0.14
0.04
-0.17
0.01
12.28; p=0.00
0.20
We looked at factors associated with the consideration to leave UIC separately for men and
women. Working in a negative departmental climate and being from a non-STEM field were the two
Campus Climate Survey
41
factors that cut across gender. Additionally, men who more seriously considered leaving had fewer
resources and had not successfully renegotiated their positions. The factor related to faculty having
more departmental support for family obligations was not significant for either gender.
Summary
Overall, the multiple regression analyses showed that working in a negative departmental
climate was a significant factor across gender related to satisfaction with current position and career
progression, as well as consideration to leave UIC—i.e., the more negative the departmental climate,
the less satisfied faculty were with their current positions and career progression and the more likely
they were to consider leaving UIC.
The factors associated with satisfaction with current position were a combination of work
climate, resources, and tenure issues. The only factor associated with women being less satisfied with
current position was working in a negative departmental climate. However, for men, in addition to a
negative working climate, working with fewer resources, not having tenure, and caring for dependent
children was associated with less satisfaction.
Factors associated with satisfaction with career progression were work climate, resources, and
productivity issues. Women reported being less satisfied with their current positions if they worked
in a negative departmental climate, did not have papers accepted, were not PIs on funded grants, and
had fewer resources. On the other hand, men were less satisfied with their career progression if they
worked in a negative departmental climate, had fewer resources, had fewer like-minded colleagues,
and worked in a climate perceived as positive for women.
Consideration to leave UIC was associated with work climate, resources, tenure, discipline, and
family issues. Women were more likely to consider leaving if they worked in a negative departmental
climate and were from a non-STEM discipline. Men were more likely to consider leaving if they
worked in a negative departmental climate, were from a non-STEM field, had fewer resources, and
had not successfully renegotiated their positions.
Negative departmental climate was the only factor that cut across issues of satisfaction and
consideration of leaving. Lack of resources was the second most important factor.
2.
Path Analysis
The individual regression analyses discussed above show the direct effects of the independent
variables on each of the three dependent variables. On the other hand, the path model shows the
direct and indirect effects of the independent and intervening variables and places the data into a
causal framework. For example, while the individual regression models show that a lack of
departmental resources increases the likelihood of a faculty member thinking of leaving UIC, the path
model suggests that the impact is indirect—that resources influence thoughts of leaving through
overall dissatisfaction.
Because the data are cross-sectional, the causal order laid out in the path model is theoretical
and is based on assumptions about the temporal ordering of the variables in the model. Variables on
the far left of the model are present before all others, while those on the far right are impacted by all
variables before them. For example, the model assumes that demographic variables (race, gender) are
present before all others, that these influence perceptions about the department, that those
perceptions in turn influence satisfaction, and that satisfaction then affects considerations about
leaving UIC (see Figure 6 on p. 43 and Figure 7 on p. 47).
Campus Climate Survey
42
The path analysis consists of a series of ordinary least squares regressions, using four levels of
variables:
•
•
•
•
Exogenous variables, such as race, gender, and rank;
Climate variables, such as resource availability and climate for women and minorities;
Satisfaction with position and career progression—represented by overall satisfaction; and
How seriously the respondent ever considered leaving UIC.
Figure 6 outlines the assumed causal order of the variables. While it shows the theoretical
model, Figure 7 (p. 47) shows the results of the path analysis and includes only those variables that
were statistically significant, controlling for all other variables in the model.
Figure 6. Assumed Causal Ordering of Variables in Path Model
Exogenous
variables
(gender, race,
rank, etc.)
(a)
Climate variables
(resources, climate
for women &
minorities, etc.)
Overall
satisfaction
How seriously
faculty
considered
leaving UIC
Path Model Predicting Consideration to Leave UIC
As discussed earlier, overall, 12% of respondents said they had never considered leaving UIC.
Thirty-five percent said they had considered it very seriously, 26% had considered it moderately
seriously, and 27% had considered it slightly seriously.
To determine which factors influence considerations to leave, the variable leave was regressed on
all the scales and exogenous variables described above. This model differs from the previous
regression model predicting considerations to leave in that it includes overall satisfaction as a
predictor variable. Overall satisfaction was a variable created by combining the two satisfaction
variables. The results from this analysis are presented in Table 40.
Table 40. Predictors of How Seriously Faculty Have Considered Leaving UIC
Predictor
CONSTANT
STEM discipline
Overall satisfaction
Successful renegotiation
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
4.710
.190
-.372
.107
-.415
.040
.400
.113
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
-.182
-.548
.185
t
24.770
-3.489
-10.482
3.541
Sig
.000
.001
.000
.000
Adjusted R2=.337; F-value=41.790; p<.000.
The three factors having a significant impact on how seriously faculty members have considered
leaving UIC were discipline, overall satisfaction, and whether they have successfully renegotiated
salary, summer support, teaching load, etc.
Faculty members who were satisfied were less likely to consider leaving, as were those in STEM
disciplines. However, those who had successfully renegotiated were more likely to consider leaving.
These three factors explained about 34% of the variance in thoughts of leaving.
Campus Climate Survey
43
(b) Predictors of Overall Satisfaction
Because satisfaction has such a large impact on considerations to leave, the next step of the
analysis was to determine the factors that influence satisfaction. The same set of independent
variables was entered as in stage one, with the exception of satisfaction, which is the dependent
variable in this analysis. The output from this analysis is presented in Table 41.
Table 41. Predictors of Overall Satisfaction
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Predictor
CONSTANT
Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues
Tenured
Negative Departmental Climate
Lack of Resources
Department supports family obligations
8.368
-.165
-.343
-.547
-.350
-.177
.587
.052
.167
.094
.058
.081
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
t
Sig
-.175
-.101
-.385
-.327
-.127
14.260
-3.195
-2.051
-5.832
-6.023
-2.178
.000
.002
.041
.000
.000
.030
Adjusted R2=.398; F-value=34.219; p<.000.
Five factors in the final model predicted overall satisfaction. The biggest impact on satisfaction
was a negative climate in one’s department. Negative climate indicates a high endorsement of items
such as “I feel excluded from informal networks in my department” and “I have a voice in how
resources are allocated within my department.” Faculty who felt unvalued and unheard were much
less satisfied than those who felt they were well integrated into their departments.
A lack of departmental resources, such as equipment and supplies, had the next largest impact
on satisfaction, with those who found resources lacking less satisfied. Those lacking supportive
colleagues (those doing similar research or providing career advice) were also less satisfied with their
position and career progress.
The impact of resources, departmental climate, and colleagues on overall satisfaction was clearly
what one would expect and paralleled the findings of the regression analyses, which predicted both
satisfaction with current position and satisfaction with career progression. People who worked in a
negative environment that lacked both resources and sympathetic colleagues were neither satisfied
overall nor satisfied with their positions or careers. As in the case of the regression analysis that
predicted consideration to leave, faculty who found the department more supportive of family
obligations were more likely to leave, and in the path model, faculty who found the department more
supportive of family obligations were less satisfied overall. In contrast to the regression analyses that
predicted satisfaction with current position, in the path model we found that faculty with tenure were
less satisfied overall. These two findings are counterintuitive and at this juncture difficult to interpret.
(c)
Predictors of Negative Departmental Climate
The next three regression equations focused on the departmental climate scales that were
significant predictors of satisfaction and considerations of leaving, namely, Negative Departmental
Climate, Lack of Resources, and Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues. The independent variables in these
models include demographic variables, whether the respondent has ever cared for dependent
children, tenure status, discipline, teaching load, publication history, self-rated productivity,
respondent’s assessment of department-rated productivity, successful renegotiation, and grant
receipt.
Campus Climate Survey
44
The results of the first equation, which predicts negative departmental climate, are presented in
Table 42. Having been a PI on a grant, having a successful renegotiation, believing that the
department rates one as more productive than average, Caucasian race, and caring or having cared
for children were all significantly related to a more positive assessment of departmental climate. The
regression and path analyses included race in a collapsed form: First, we collapsed all the responses
that were not “White” into one group, thereby increasing the sample numbers in that group. The
analysis then looked at what percent of the variance in the intervening and dependent variables is
explained by being white/non-white and found it to be statistically significant. By including race in
this way, we controlled for its impact in our examination of the effects of other variables (e.g., rank,
tenure status).
Teaching load and self-rated productivity were related to negative feelings about the
department. Faculty teaching more undergraduate or graduate courses and who rated themselves as
more productive than average were more likely to find the departmental environment negative.
These relationships also are supported by some of the comments in the open-ended questions, where
respondents complained about heavy teaching loads and lack of productivity on the part of
colleagues. For example, when asked which factors detract most from their satisfaction at UIC, one
respondent replied, “Overload of teaching that interferes with research.” Another commented on
“high teaching loads, lack of communication in my department that results in isolation.”
Other comments regarding the lack of productivity by colleagues included the following:
“inactive faculty who do not take academic environment seriously. Have no research and publication
activity,” “Supposed to be merit-based university but faculty who complain but do not meet criteria
get too much of a hearing,” and “...it’s very discouraging to see weak scholars being promoted while
lowly paid, good lecturers are being taken advantage of.” It is not surprising that a productive faculty
member who shares this sentiment about colleagues would rate the departmental climate as negative.
Table 42. Predictors of Negative Departmental Climate (as Perceived by Respondents)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Predictor
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
t
Sig
CONSTANT
PI on grant
Successful renegotiation
3.611
-.286
-.235
.380
.115
.114
-.146
-.117
9.502
-2.488
-2.063
.000
.013
.040
White
-.444
.141
-.181
-3.162
.002
Ever cared for children
-.267
.114
-.133
-2.331
.021
Number of undergraduate courses taught
.191
.057
.205
3.349
.001
Number of graduate courses taught
.178
.070
.151
2.546
.011
.117
.036
.218
3.215
.001
-.174
.031
-.388
-5.679
.000
Self-rated productivity
Perception of department-rated productivity
Adjusted R2 = .193; F-value = 8.874, p<.000.
(d)
Predictors of Departmental Lack of Resources
The survey did not contain objective measures of departmental resources (e.g. computers,
graduate student support). Therefore, this analysis can only focus on factors affecting respondents’
perceptions of resources. Table 43 shows the results of the regression predicting departmental lack of
resources. The only two factors having a significant impact are the number of undergraduate courses
taught and having been a PI on a grant.
Campus Climate Survey
45
Table 43. Predictors of Departmental Lack of Resources (as Perceived by Respondents)
Predictor
CONSTANT
PI or co-PI on a grant
Number of undergraduate courses taught
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
3.160
.244
-.610
.159
.267
.076
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
-.236
.218
t
12.969
-3.828
3.521
Sig
.000
.000
.001
Adjusted R2=.068; F-value=10.629, p<.000.
Faculty who were PIs or co-PIs on a grant in the preceding two years were less likely to say their
department lacks resources, while those teaching a high number of undergraduate courses were more
likely to say it lacks resources. These two variables explain a small percentage of the variance in the
dependent variable (6.8%). The factors that have an impact on the level of resources are obviously
outside the scope of the survey and probably include budgets cuts imposed from outside the
University.
(e)
Predictors of Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues
The only predictor of lack of like-minded colleagues was perception of the department’s rating
of productivity. Respondents who feel their department rates them as above average were less likely
to feel that they have like-minded colleagues (see Table 44).
Table 44. Predictors of Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues
Predictor
CONSTANT
Perception of department-rated productivity
Unstandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
3.933
.290
-.152
.041
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
-.225
t
13.546
-3.722
Sig
.000
.000
2
Adjusted R =.047; F-value=13.855, p<.000.
Figure 7 shows the overall model predicting how seriously respondents have considered leaving
UIC.
Campus Climate Survey
46
Figure 7. Path Model for Complete Sample
STEM
Department
supports family
obligations
Tenured
Undergrad
courses
taught
–.236
PI
–.127
–.101
.218
.205
–.182
Lack of
resources
Overall
satisfaction
–.327
–.146
–.548
Think about
leaving UIC
Children
–.385
–.133
Negative
department
climate
White
–.181
.151
Grad courses
taught
.218
Self-rated
productivity
Department-rated
productivity
Campus Climate Survey
–.388
–.225
–.175
.185
Lack of likeminded colleagues
–.117
Renegotiation
In this figure, the numbers represent the standardized partial
regression coefficients (i.e., Beta coefficients) shown in the
preceding tables. A negative sign means that there is an inverse
association between the independent and dependent variables
being examined; a positive sign means that there is a direct
linear association between the independent and dependent
variables. For example, undergraduate teaching responsibility
(+ Beta value) is a positive predictor of lack of resources,
whereas PI on grants (- Beta value) is less likely to be linked to
lack of resources.
47
Summary
The path model shows that a number of departmental and personal factors influence faculty
thoughts of leaving, either directly or indirectly. The factors with the biggest influence are overall
satisfaction, departmental climate, and resource availability. Faculty who perceive the department as
a positive place to work and who feel the resources are adequate were less likely to think seriously
about leaving.
Additional issues related to thoughts of leaving are differences in perceptions of departmental
climate, teaching load, personal and departmental productivity, and departmental support of family
obligations. White respondents were more likely to perceive their department as a positive place than
were respondents of other races. (Race was not examined in the bivariate analysis but was included as
an explanatory variable in the regression and path analyses.) Faculty who feel their teaching load is
excessive were more likely to rate the departmental climate as negative.
Faculty who find their department is productive with respect to research were more positive
about the department. However, those who rate their own productivity highly were less positive.
Family issues are less straightforward. While those faculty members with children were more
likely to find the departmental climate positive, those who think their department supports family
obligations were less satisfied.
Overall, the model suggests that some of the pathways to attracting and retaining faculty are to
create a productive and positive environment, one in which teaching loads are reasonable, resources
are available, and high-quality research is encouraged. In addition, while the model cannot provide
specifics, it also suggests some racial disparities in perceptions of departmental climate. In order to
retain minority faculty, these issues need to be identified and addressed.
Three variables of particular interest in this analysis are gender, rank, and discipline. While
being in a STEM vs. non-STEM discipline did have a direct effect on thoughts of leaving UIC, gender
and rank did not have an impact once we controlled for other variables. It is possible that the effects
of gender present in the bivariate analyses reflect the impact of other variables that are correlated
with gender. It is also possible that the survey includes too few women to be able to detect gender
differences. The problem is not one of proportional response of women but rather the small numbers
of women faculty in the STEM disciplines. We will be able to address gender issues more fully using
such instruments only when we achieve better gender equity among our faculty members.
Campus Climate Survey
48
CONCLUSIONS
The Climate Survey was designed to capture all LAS and Engineering faculty members’
perceptions of their workplace: what they like, what they dislike, what is important to their daily life,
what enhances or impedes productivity. Recognizing the existing strengths and limitations of the
workplace environment (climate) will help the campus develop a cohesive plan to benefit all faculty
members.
The primary outcomes of concern in this survey were
•
•
•
Faculty satisfaction with current position;
Faculty satisfaction with career progression; and
Faculty members’ consideration to leave UIC.
Across our analyses, working in a negative departmental climate was the single most important
factor associated with level of satisfaction and consideration to leave UIC. Lack of resources was the
second most important factor predicting dissatisfaction and consideration to leave. This suggests that
some of the pathways to attracting and retaining faculty are to create a productive and positive
environment, one in which the teaching loads are reasonable, resources are available, and highquality research is consistently generated.
To enable us to develop targeted, effective policy measures that can effect change, we have
presented the factors that influence these outcome measures based on discipline and gender.
1.
Differences by Discipline (STEM vs. Non-STEM)
Both disciplines have significantly more men than women faculty. Women comprised 14% of
the respondents from STEM fields and 38% of the respondents from non-STEM fields.
Overall, faculty from the non-STEM disciplines were more satisfied with the way their careers
have progressed, and this was especially true the higher the rank. Non-STEM faculty rated
themselves higher on the department’s view of their productivity as compared to faculty from the
STEM fields. However, despite being satisfied and productive—or perhaps because of it—non-STEM
faculty were also more likely to consider leaving.
Women and faculty from the non-STEM disciplines were more likely to utilize rollback of the
tenure clock and reported finding it more difficult to adjust their work schedules to care for their
children. Although the percent of women utilizing the tenure rollback in non-STEM was greater, the
discipline difference may be a reflection of the lower percent of women in the STEM disciplines.
2.
Differences by Gender
Overall, 89 (26%) of the responses were from women as compared to 253 (74%) from men.
Twenty-four (14%) of the responses from the STEM fields were from women, and 64 (38%) of the
responses from the non-STEM fields were from women. The small number of women in the sample
may have limited the ability to detect differences by gender.
There were significant differences between men and women in the factors associated with
satisfaction and consideration to leave. The only factor associated with dissatisfaction with current
position for women was working in a negative departmental climate. However, for men, in addition
to a negative working climate, working with fewer resources, not having tenure, and caring for
dependent children were associated with less satisfaction with current position.
Campus Climate Survey
49
Issues related to career progression also differed by gender. Again, both men and women
agreed that working in a negative departmental climate and having fewer resources negatively
affected their career progression. Women also reported being less satisfied with their career
progression if they did not have papers accepted and were not PIs on funded grants. On the other
hand, men were less satisfied with their career progression if they had fewer like-minded colleagues
and worked in a climate perceived as positive for women. Hence, for long-term career satisfaction,
men appeared to need a more conducive work climate, as compared to women, who put the burden
on themselves to meet self-determined productivity measures. Women rated themselves lower than
men on the self-rated productivity scale even though the objective markers of productivity were the
same.
Women were twice as likely as men to be childless, and 35% of women as compared to 16% of
men reported that their jobs prevented them from having the number of children they would have
liked to have. Women faculty were more likely than men faculty to report that they would use
childcare programs, even though men were more likely to report having and caring for dependent
children. Perhaps it is the case that, although men have more dependent children, they also are more
likely than women to have a spouse as a primary caregiver for the child and thus feel less dependent
on childcare services.
Women and faculty from the non-STEM fields were more likely to roll back the tenure clock.
Women reported using the tenure rollback, family medical leave, new faculty workshops, and faculty
mentoring programs more than men. More women—including women with no children—rated
tenure rollback, dual-career hiring program, family medical leave, and campus childcare as programs
of value than did men.
One limitation of this analysis is the relatively small number of women respondents, limiting
our ability to detect gender differences. The problem is not one of proportional response of women
but rather the small numbers of women faculty. An alternative methodology could be to use
qualitative methodologies, such as one-on-one interviews or focus groups, to get at the gender issues.
It is also possible that the effects of gender present in the bivariate analyses actually reflect the impact
of other variables that are correlated with gender.
Campus Climate Survey
50
NEXT STEPS
The results of the Climate Survey have provided the campus with a framework to address
issues of climate and resources that will affect all faculty at UIC. The survey findings have been
presented to the faculty of the Colleges of Liberal Arts and Sciences and Engineering and to the
WISEST Executive Committee.
A group comprised of senior campus leadership will be tasked by the Provost with developing a
blueprint for policy and program recommendations based on the survey data. The Provost will
request an initial report by December 2006. Implementation of the recommendations will occur in
conjunction with the Strategic Plan to create a more robust and supportive climate. Practical steps to
be taken to promote a dialogue across campus include workshops with department heads and
faculty, seminars, and town hall meetings. Future research to examine gender differences should
include qualitative methodologies, such as one-on-one interviews or focus groups.
Campus Climate Survey
51
REFERENCES
American Association for Public Opinion Research (2004). Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of
Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, Third Edition. Lenexa, Kansas: AAPOR.
Bickel, J., Wara, D., Atkinson, B. F., Cohen, L. S., Dunn, M., Hostler, S., et al. (2002, October).
Increasing women’s leadership in academic medicine: Report of the AAMC Project
Implementation Committee. Academic Medicine, 77, 1043–1061.
Glomb, T. M., Lluis, S., & McCall, B. (2005). University of Minnesota PULSE Survey: Feedback report
faculty survey. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Human Resources Research Institute.
Retrieved May 18, 2006, from http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/img/assets/19761/FacultyPulse.pdf
Preston, A. E. (2004). Leaving science: Occupational exit from scientific careers. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Riger, S., Stokes, J, Raja, S., & Sullivan, M. (1997). Measuring perceptions of the work environment for
female faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 21(1), 63–78.
Stewart, A. J., Stubbs, J., & Malley, J. (2002). Assessing the academic work environment for women scientists
and engineers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Research on Women and Gender.
Retrieved May 18, 2006, from www.umich.edu/~advproj/climatereport.pdf
Stewart, A. J., Malley, J., & Stubbs, J. (2004). Assessing the academic work environment for faculty of color in
science and engineering. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Research on Women and
Gender. Retrieved May 18, 2006, from www.umich.edu/~advproj/S&E%20RaceEthnicity%20Report.pdf
Sullivan, B., Hollenshead, C., & Smith, C. (2004). Developing and implementing work-family policies
for faculty. Academe, 90(6). Retrieved June 7, 2006, from
www.aaup.org/publications/academe/2004/04nd/04ndsull.htm
The University of Wisconsin-Madison Campus Climate (n.d.). Retrieved May 18, 2006, from
http://www.provost.wisc.edu/climate/
Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow: The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Williams, J. (2000). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Campus Climate Survey
52
APPENDIX A
Survey Instrument
Instrument questions were adapted from the following three major sources:
Riger, S., Stokes, J., Raja, S., & Sullivan, M. (1997). Measuring perceptions of the work environment for
female faculty. The Review of Higher Education 21(1): 63–78.
The University of Wisconsin-Madison Campus Climate (n.d.). Retrieved May 18, 2006, from
http://www.provost.wisc.edu/climate/
Stewart, A. J., Stubbs, J., & Malley, J. (2002). Assessing the academic work environment for women scientists
and engineers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Research on Women and Gender.
Retrieved May 18, 2006, from http://www.umich.edu/~advproj/climatereport.pdf
These were selected from a review of existing climate surveys, including those from the University of
Minnesota, Ohio State University, and Cornell University.
Campus Climate Survey
Department of Psychology (MC 285)
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
1007 W. Harrison Street
Chicago, Illinois 60607-7137
Department of Computer Science (MC 152)
College of Engineering
1120 Science and Engineering Offices
851 South Morgan Street
Chicago, Illinois 60607-7053
March 24, 2004
Dear Faculty Members of the Colleges of Engineering and Liberal Arts and Sciences:
As you have just read in Provost Tanner’s cover letter, the University of Illinois at Chicago is undertaking
a very important survey project to learn about UIC faculty members’ perceptions of their workplace: What do
you like? What do you dislike? What is important to your daily life and satisfaction? Understanding these
issues is the initial step toward improving the UIC workplace for all faculty. That is, the University is
committed to use these data as it examines ways to improve its policies affecting various aspects of academic
life, including faculty development and advancement. Recognizing what our strengths and limitations are with
respect to the workplace environment (climate) will help the campus develop a cohesive plan to benefit all
faculty members, rather than a piece-meal approach affecting only a few.
This project will be successful only if you help us. We know you are extremely busy, but please, take
10-15 minutes to complete the enclosed anonymous questionnaire. We are surveying every faculty
member in the Colleges of Engineering and Liberal Arts and Sciences because we want to have everyone’s
unique perspective represented in our results.
Note that by completing the questionnaire, you are consenting to participate in this research. Although we
hope you will answer every question, you may certainly skip any questions that make you uncomfortable. It’s
far better that you return the questionnaire with missing answers than not return it at all.
After completing the questionnaire, (a) seal it in the enclosed envelope and send it to our research
assistants via campus mail, and (b) send the enclosed postcard separately via campus mail. The postcard tells
us that you have completed the survey, so that we won’t send you a reminder. It is not, however, linked in any
way with your anonymous responses on the questionnaire.
Even though this survey is anonymous, we have taken additional steps to ensure the confidentiality of
your responses. Only trained research assistants who input data into computer files will see the completed
questionnaires, with one possible but unlikely exception: the UIC Institutional Review Board, which has
approved this research, has the right to inspect data files from UIC studies. The actual questionnaires will be
destroyed after all data have been entered into computer files. Finally, the survey data will be analyzed and
reported only in aggregated ways that will not compromise identities of respondents.
Please complete the questionnaire this week. If you have questions, feel free to contact either of us. We
expect to post final reports of this project on the UIC Web site so that it will be available to the UIC
community. We’ll notify faculty members via e-mail when we have done so.
Thank you very much for your valuable time.
Best wishes,
Bette L. Bottoms, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
bbottoms@uic.edu (312) 413-2635
Peter Nelson, Ph.D.
Professor and Head
Department of Computer Science
nelson@uic.edu (312) 996-3259
University of Illinois at Chicago
Faculty Work Climate
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. For each question, please select one response
unless otherwise instructed.
Satisfaction with UIC
We would like an overall assessment of your level of satisfaction with UIC.
1. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with your position at UIC? Please circle the number that best
corresponds to your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Very
SATISFIED
1
Moderately
satisfied
2
Slightly
satisfied
3
Slightly
dissatisfied
4
Moderately
dissatisfied
5
Very
DISSATISFIED
6
2. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with the way your career has progressed at UIC? Please circle the
number that best corresponds to your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Very
SATISFIED
1
Moderately
satisfied
2
Slightly
satisfied
3
Slightly
dissatisfied
4
Moderately
dissatisfied
5
Very
DISSATISFIED
6
3. What factors contribute most to your satisfaction at UIC? ________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
4. What factors detract most from your satisfaction at UIC? ________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
5. How seriously have you considered leaving UIC?
Never considered
leaving1111
Slightly
seriously
Moderately
seriously
Very
seriously
1
↓
2
3
4
SKIP TO Q.7
6. What factors contributed to your consideration to leave UIC? ____________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
The Hiring Process at UIC
We are interested in identifying what makes UIC attractive to faculty job applicants, and the aspects of
the hiring process that may be experienced positively or negatively. If you were hired into more than
one department or unit, please answer for the department or unit that you consider to be primary.
7. In what year were you first hired at UIC? ______________
8. What was your first faculty position at UIC? ....................................... 1
2
3
1
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
9. Are you currently full time faculty at UIC? ........................................ 1
2
Yes
No
3
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
4
Non-tenure track
10. What is your current title/rank at UIC? ................................................ 1
2
11. How many years have you held this position? ______________ years
12. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the hiring process.
Strongly
AGREE
Moderately
agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Moderately
disagree
Strongly
DISAGREE
NA
a. I was satisfied with the hiring process overall.
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
b. The department did its best to obtain resources
for me.
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
c. Faculty in the department made an effort to
meet me.
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
d. My interactions with the search committee
were positive.
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
e. I negotiated successfully for what I needed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
f. I was satisfied with my start-up package at the
time.
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
13. In the past 5 years, have you successfully re-negotiated your salary, summer support,
lab resources, or reduction of teaching load for any reason, including an outside job offer? ..... 1
2
Yes
No
Professional Activities
We are interested in various dimensions of the work environment for faculty at UIC, including
teaching load, productivity, work allocation, resources for research and teaching, service
responsibilities, and your interaction with colleagues.
14. In the past 2 years, what has been your average yearly teaching load?
a. Number of undergraduate courses taught on average in any one year ________
b. Number of graduate courses taught on average in any one year________
15. In the past 2 years, has your research been supported by a grant on which you were
either PI or co-PI?........................................................................................................................ 1
2
Yes
No
16. In the past 2 years, what percentage of the papers/articles/chapters in books
(all combined) that you have submitted for publication have been accepted? _______________ %
17. In the past 2 years, how many papers/articles have you had accepted for publication? ________
2
18. In the past 2 years, how many books have you had accepted for publication? _______________
19. How would you rate your overall level of research productivity compared to researchers in your area and at your rank
nationwide? Please circle the number that best corresponds to your rating.
Much LESS
productive
1
Much MORE
productive
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
20. How do you think your department views your research productivity, compared to the departmental average? Please
circle the number that best corresponds to your rating.
Much LESS
productive
1
Much MORE
productive
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
21. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the resources available
to you.
a. I have the equipment and supplies I need to
adequately conduct my research.
b. I receive regular maintenance/upgrades of my
equipment.
c. I have sufficient office space in terms of
quantity and quality.
d. I have sufficient laboratory space in terms of
quantity and quality.
e. I have colleagues on campus who do similar
research.
f. I have colleagues or peers at UIC who give
me career advice or guidance when I need it.
g. I have sufficient teaching support (e.g., TAs).
Strongly
AGREE
Moderately
agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Moderately
disagree
Strongly
DISAGREE
NA
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
Please indicate whether you have ever served on or chaired any of the following committees in the past 5 years. If there
is no such committee in your department, check the NA box.
Committee
NA
a. Have you ever served b. Have you ever chaired
on this committee?
this committee?
Yes
No
Yes
No
c. If you have not chaired this
committee, would you like to?
Yes
No
22. Departmental Advisory/
Executive Committee
1
2
1
2
1
2
23. Promotion
1
2
1
2
1
2
24. Faculty search
1
2
1
2
1
2
25. Curriculum (graduate and/or
undergraduate)
1
2
1
2
1
2
26. Graduate admissions
1
2
1
2
1
2
27. Salaries
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
28. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about your interactions with
colleagues and others in your primary department/unit.
Strongly
AGREE
Moderately
agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Moderately
disagree
Strongly
DISAGREE
a. I am treated with respect by colleagues.
1
2
3
4
5
6
b. I feel isolated at UIC overall.
1
2
3
4
5
6
c. I feel like a full and equal participant in the
problem-solving and decision-making in my
department.
1
2
3
4
5
6
d. I am treated with respect by department staff.
1
2
3
4
5
6
e. I feel excluded from informal networks in my
department.
1
2
3
4
5
6
f. Colleagues regularly solicit my opinion about
work-related matters (such as teaching,
research, and service).
1
2
3
4
5
6
g. I feel isolated in my department.
1
2
3
4
5
6
h. I feel that colleagues value my research.
1
2
3
4
5
6
i. I do a great deal of research that is not
formally recognized by my department.
1
2
3
4
5
6
j. I am treated with respect by students.
1
2
3
4
5
6
k. I do a great deal of teaching that is not
formally recognized by my department.
1
2
3
4
5
6
l. I have a voice in how resources are allocated
within my department.
1
2
3
4
5
6
m. I do a great deal of service that is not formally
recognized by my department.
1
2
3
4
5
6
n. I am treated with respect by my department
head or chair.
1
2
3
4
5
6
o. Faculty meetings allow for all participants to
share their views.
1
2
3
4
5
6
p. I feel I can voice my opinions openly in my
department.
1
2
3
4
5
6
q. Committee assignments are rotated fairly to
allow for participation of all faculty.
1
2
3
4
5
6
4
29. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the work climate within
your department/unit for men and women faculty.
Strongly
AGREE
Moderately
agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
a. Faculty are serious about treating men and women
faculty equally.
b. Most faculty would be as comfortable with a woman
department head as a man department head.
c. Women faculty are less likely than their male
counterparts to have influence in departmental
politics and administration.
d. It is not uncommon for a woman faculty member to
present an idea and get no response, and then for a
man faculty member to present the same idea and
be acknowledged.
e. Women faculty tend to get more feedback about
their performance than men faculty do.
f. Sex discrimination or harassment is a problem in my
department.
g. Faculty don’t often speak up when they see an
instance of sex discrimination for fear that it will
jeopardize their careers.
h. Men faculty are more likely than women faculty to be
involved in informal social networks within the
department.
Moderately Strongly
disagree DISAGREE
30. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the work climate within
your department/unit for underrepresented minority faculty (African Americans, Native Americans, and
Hispanics).
Strongly
AGREE
Moderately
agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Moderately
disagree
Strongly
DISAGREE
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
a. Faculty are serious about treating minority and
non-minority faculty equally.
b. Most faculty would be as comfortable with a minority
department head as a non-minority department head.
c. Minority faculty are less likely than their non-minority
counterparts to have influence in departmental politics
and administration.
d. It is not uncommon for a minority faculty member to
present an idea and get no response, and then for a
non-minority faculty member to present the same
idea and be acknowledged.
e. Minority faculty tend to get more feedback about
their performance than non-minority faculty do.
f. Discrimination against or non-minority harassment of
minorities is a problem in my department.
g. Faculty don’t often speak up when they see an instance
of discrimination against minorities for fear that it will
jeopardize their careers.
h. Non-minority faculty are more likely than minority
faculty to be involved in informal social networks
within the department.
31. Do you feel safe in your workplace in terms of physical safety and security?............... 1
2
5
Yes
No
The Tenure Process at UIC
32. Do you currently have tenure? ....................................................................... 1
2
Yes
No → SKIP TO Q.35
33. In what year did you get tenure? ___________
34. Did you have tenure before coming to UIC and did not have to be
considered for it again when you got to UIC?................................................ 1
2
35. Will you experience or are you currently involved in
the tenure process at UIC?.............................................................................. 1
2
Yes → SKIP TO UIC PROGRAMS AND
No →
SERVICES ON NEXT PAGE
SKIP TO Q.37
Yes
No → SKIP TO Q.38a
36. What year do you expect to be reviewed for tenure? __________ → SKIP TO Q.38a
37. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about your experience with
the tenure or promotion process in your primary unit or department.
a. I was satisfied with the tenure/promotion
process overall.
b. I understood the criteria for achieving
tenure/promotion.
c. I received feedback on my progress toward
tenure/promotion.
d. I received reduced teaching or service
responsibilities so that I could build my
research program.
e. I was told about assistance available to pretenure/promotion faculty (e.g., workshops,
mentoring).
f. A senior colleague was very helpful to me as
I worked towards tenure/promotion.
Strongly
AGREE
Moderately
agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Moderately
disagree
Strongly
DISAGREE
NA
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
38a. Have you ever stopped or rolled back your tenure clock at UIC? ................ 1
2
Yes
No → SKIP TO Q.40a
38b. What was the main reason for stopping or rolling back your tenure clock? ______________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
38c. Were there any consequences to taking the rollback? (IF YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN.) _____________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
39a. In the past 10 years, were you ever denied a request to stop or roll back
your tenure clock? ......................................................................................... 1
Yes
2
No → SKIP TO Q.40a
39b. What were the reasons given for the denial? ______________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
6
40a. In the past 10 years, did you ever choose NOT to stop/roll back the tenure clock
even though you may have wanted to? ...................................................................... 1
2
Yes
No → SKIP TO NEXT SECTION
(UIC PROGRAMS AND
RESOURCES)
40b. Why did you choose not to stop/roll back your tenure clock? ________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
UIC Programs and Resources
UIC has implemented a number of policies and programs designed to improve the working
environment for faculty and is considering others. We would like to know your opinions about
the following programs.
Please indicate whether you have used the program and/or would use the program in the future. Rate your perception of
the value of the policy/program regardless of whether you have used it.
a. Have you ever b. Do you
c. How valuable is this program?
used this
anticipate using
program?
it in the future?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Not at all
valuable
Slightly
valuable
Moderately
valuable
Very
valuable
Have not
heard of it
41. Tenure rollback
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
7
42. Dual Career Hiring Program
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
7
43. Family Medical Leave
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
7
44. New Faculty Workshops
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
7
45. Faculty Mentoring Program
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
7
46. Campus Child Care
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
7
Balancing Personal Life and Professional Life
47. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about balancing your
personal and professional lives.
a. I often have to forgo professional activities
(e.g., meetings, sabbaticals, conferences)
because of personal responsibilities.
b. I often have to forgo personal activities (e.g.,
school events, community meetings) because
of professional responsibilities.
c. Personal responsibilities and commitments
have slowed down my career progression.
Strongly
AGREE
Moderately
agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Moderately
disagree
Strongly
DISAGREE
NA
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
1
2
3
4
5
6
NA
48. Have you ever cared for or do you currently care for dependent children? ...................... 1
2
Yes
No
49. How many children do you have? _______ children
50. Do you feel that your job prevented you from having the number of children
you wanted?....................................................................................................................... 1
2
7
Yes
No
51. Do you currently use or need any childcare services or programs to care for a
dependent child?....................................................................................................................... 1
2
Yes
No → SKIP TO Q.53
52. If you need childcare, would you use any of the following?
a. Campus childcare
b. Infant/toddler care
c. Care for school-aged children after school or when school is not in session
Yes
No
1
2
1
2
1
2
53. Have you cared for or do you currently care for one or more dependent persons
(elderly, disabled, or chronically ill)?....................................................................................... 1
2
54. Would you have used a spousal hiring program if available at the time you came to UIC?.... 1
2
Yes
No
Yes
No
55. Which of the following statements best describes you?
1
I am married and live with my spouse
2
I am not married but live with a domestic partner (opposite or same sex)
3
I am married or partnered, but we reside in different locations
4
I am a widow/widower → SKIP TO Q.57
5
I am single (am not married and am not partnered) → SKIP TO Q.57
56. What is your spouse’s/partner’s current employment status? .................................................. 1
2
3
4
Employed full-time
Employed part-time
Not employed
Retired
57. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about your primary
department/unit’s support of family obligations.
Strongly
AGREE
Moderately
agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Moderately
disagree
Strongly
DISAGREE
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
a. Most faculty in my department are supportive of
colleagues who want to balance their personal and
career lives.
b. It is difficult for faculty in my department to adjust
their work schedules to care for children or other
dependents.
c. Department meetings frequently occur outside of the
9–5 workday.
d. The department is supportive of family leave.
e. The head of the department understands the existing
policies regarding family leave (e.g., Family Medical
Leave Act).
f. Men faculty who have children are considered by
department members to be less committed to their
careers than men who do not have children.
g. Women faculty who have children are considered by
department members to be less committed to their
careers than women who do not have children.
8
58. Please indicate who performs more than 50% of the following tasks in your household.
Respondent
Shared equally
by respondent &
Spouse/partner spouse/partner
Hired help
Other
a. Childcare/dependent care
1
2
3
4
5
b. Home duties such as
cleaning, cooking, laundry
1
2
3
4
5
c. Home duties such as lawn
care, home repair, car care
1
2
3
4
5
Diversity Issues at UIC
59. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the recruitment of,
climate for, and leadership of women faculty in your primary department/unit.
Strongly
AGREE
Moderately
agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
Moderately Strongly
disagree DISAGREE
a. There are too few women faculty in my department.
1
2
3
4
5
6
b. My department has actively recruited women faculty.
1
2
3
4
5
6
c. My department has difficulty retaining women
faculty.
1
2
3
4
5
6
d. The climate for women in my department is good.
1
2
3
4
5
6
e. My department has taken steps to enhance the
climate for women.
1
2
3
4
5
6
f. My department has too few women faculty in
leadership positions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
g. My department has made an effort to promote
women faculty into leadership positions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
60. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the recruitment of,
climate for, and leadership of underrepresented minority faculty (African Americans, Native Americans, and
Hispanics) in your primary department/unit.
Strongly
AGREE
Moderately
agree
Slightly
agree
Slightly
disagree
a. There are too few faculty of color in my department.
1
2
3
4
5
6
b. My department has actively recruited faculty of
color.
1
2
3
4
5
6
c. My department has difficulty retaining faculty of
color.
1
2
3
4
5
6
d. The climate for faculty of color in my department is
good.
1
2
3
4
5
6
e. My department has taken steps to enhance the
climate for faculty of color.
1
2
3
4
5
6
f. My department has too few faculty of color in
leadership positions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
g. My department has made an effort to promote
faculty of color into leadership positions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
Moderately
Strongly
disagree
DISAGREE
Personal Demographics
Remember: All survey responses will be kept confidential. Information from this survey will be
presented in aggregate form so that individual respondents cannot be identified.
61. What is your gender?............................................................... 1
2
62. Are you a U.S. citizen or permanent resident? ........................ 1
2
Male
Female
Yes
No
63. What is your race/ethnicity? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.
1
2
3
Caucasian, non Hispanic
Underrepresented Minority (African American, Hispanic, Native American/Alaskan Native)
Other
64. What is your terminal degree?................................................. 1
2
Ph.D.
Other—PLEASE SPECIFY:___________________
65. In which year did you receive your terminal degree? ________
66. To which college/division does your primary department/unit belong?
1
2
3
4
College of Engineering
LAS Natural Sciences (Biological Sciences; Chemistry; Earth & Environmental Sciences; Mathematics, Statistics
and Computer Sciences; Physics)
LAS Humanities (African American Studies; Classics & Mediterranean Studies; English; Germanic Studies;
History; Latin American and Latino Studies; Philosophy; Slavic and Baltic Languages and Literatures; Spanish,
French, Italian and Portuguese.)
LAS Social Sciences (Anthropology; Communication; Criminal Justice; Gender & Women’s Studies; Political
Science; Psychology; Sociology)
67. Please feel free to add any additional comments you may have. ___________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
68. You might have provided written comments in response to our questions at various places in
this questionnaire. May we have permission to quote anonymously from these comments in
our final reports? ............................................................................................................................ 1
2
THANK YOU for your time!
10
Yes
No
APPENDIX B
The UIC Climate Survey Pilot Test Instructions
Read each question and choose the answer that best describes you. As you go through the survey, put a
checkmark next to any question that:
•
•
•
•
•
•
you were not sure how to answer
if there were any terms that you weren't sure what was meant
there are any questions that you think many people would find difficult to answer
the best answer for you is not there
you have some other ideas to make the question better
you didn’t want to answer the question
After you are done with the whole survey, write down the time it took for you to complete it. Now we would
like to ask you just a few questions about the survey. Please go back to the questions that you checked.
•
If you were not sure how to answer the question, why were you not sure about answering it? Write a
note right on the survey (use the back if you like, but make sure to include the question number),
explaining why that was so. Please describe what might help clarify the question if you have some ideas
about it
•
Are there any questions that you think many people would find difficult to answer?
o If yes, which ones were those?
o Why do you think people would have difficulty with those questions?
•
Is the best answer for you, one of the choices on the survey? If not, please write in the answer you would
prefer.
•
If you have some other ideas about how to make it better, write it on the back of the survey, including
the number of the question.
•
If you didn't want to answer the question, make a note that says so next to that question. Please explain
why if you want to.
•
Were there any important things related to “UIC/Department Climate” that we failed to cover? Please
list those items here.
Campus Climate Survey
APPENDIX C
Return Postcard
Please complete this card and return via campus mail.
Name:
College/Division you belong to (please check the appropriate box)
College of Engineering
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences—Natural Sciences (Biological
Sciences; Chemistry; Earth and Environmental Sciences;
Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Sciences; Physics)
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences—Humanities (African-American
Studies; Classics and Mediterranean Studies; English; Germanic
Studies; History; Latin American and Latino Studies; Philosophy;
Slavic and Baltic Languages and Literatures; Spanish, French, Italian,
and Portuguese.)
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences—Social Sciences (Anthropology,
Communication, Criminal Justice, Gender and Women's Studies,
Political Science, Psychology, Sociology)
I have completed and mailed the UIC Climate Survey.
Note: This card cannot be linked to your completed survey, which is anonymous.
Campus Climate Survey
APPENDIX D
Coding Categories for Open-Ended Responses
CODING SCHEMA FOR THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS
Coding Scheme for Questions 3, 4, and 6
Question 3. What factors contribute most to your satisfaction at UIC?
Question 4. What factors detract most from your satisfaction at UIC?
Question 6. What factors contributed to your consideration to leave UIC?
1. Colleagues: includes work qualities; personal qualities; ability to recruit and retain faculty; morale and
other
2. Students: diversity, quality and accomplishments
3. Research: freedom and support for research; resources provided for research; other
4. Teaching: teaching load; freedom and support for teaching; other
5. Location: Chicago; resources available because of the location; other
6. Administration: specific leadership issues; general leadership issues; programs and policies; other
7. Resources in general: budget; physical resources; resources to support personal life; resources to
support professional life
8. UIC reputation & potential: comments about UIC growing, having potential, ranking, reputation,
being on the move, etc.
9. Staff & staff support
10. Recognition & respect for work: promotion, tenure & advancement; awards; other
11. UIC urban identity & mission: comments about the mission or identity generally of the university,
including urban mission, Great Cities, provides education to the city and state. Note: This does not
include comments specifically about UIC’s research mission, which is included under “Research.”
12. Salary
13. Service duties/responsibilities: Anything about opportunities to do service or have administrative
positions.
14. Miscellaneous
Campus Climate Survey
D-1
Coding Scheme for Questions 38, 39, and 40
Question 38b. What was the main reason for stopping or rolling back your tenure clock?
1. Lack of time
2. Family-related issues
a. childbirth
b. parenthood
3. Fellowships
4. Leave
5. Personal reasons
a. illness
6. Practical/logistical reasons
a. stopping of research at UIC
b. institutional changes
Question 38c. Were there any consequences to taking the rollback?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
None
Greater publishing ease
Delayed tenure
Negative consequences on pay
Negative stigmas from peers
Question 39b. What were the reasons for the denial (i.e., denial of a request to stop or roll back your tenure
clock)?
1. None
2. Childbirth
Question 40b. Why did you choose not to stop/roll back your tenure clock?
1.
2.
3.
4.
To not deviate from the norm (confront stigma)
It wasn’t necessary
Didn’t know it was an option
Wanted to get it “over with”
Campus Climate Survey
D-2