GEORGIA TECH ADVANCE SURVEY OF
FACULTY PERCEPTIONS, NEEDS, AND EXPERIENCES
Report to National Science Foundation
August 2003
Mary Frank Fox
Co-Principal Investigator
NSF ADVANCE Program
Georgia Institute of Technology
Table of contents:
Introduction…………………………………….……….2
Method………………………………………………….4
Data: Population and Sample……………………4
Method of Surveying and
Response Rate…………………….….5
Dimensions and Indicators……….…………..…..6
Analyses of Data……………………..…………...9
Findings……………………….……………………….10
Summary and Conclusions…….………………………21
Notes……………………..…………………………….26
References……………………………………....……...27
Appendix: Profile of Respondents……..…....………...30
Tables and Figures…………….……………………….32
Fox
Page 2
Introduction
The Georgia Tech (GT) ADVANCE survey is closely tied to the GT ADVANCE
initiative’s integrated institutional approach to factors that support the advancement of
faculty and provide a model of best practices in academic science and engineering.
In its approach, the GT ADVANCE initiative emphases organizational features and
factors that have been shown to shape positive outcomes of participation and performance
in science and engineering. These include: 1) leadership and an organizational climate
that signal the importance of equity (Fox, 2000; Valian, 1998); 2) clarity and equity of
guidelines for evaluation and rewards Evetts, 1996; Fox, 1991, 2000; Long and Fox, 1995;
Glazer-Raymo, 1999); 3) collegial and collaborative networks of access and opportunity
(Feldt, 1985, 1986; Fox, 1991; Reskin, 1978); and 4) supportive family policies (Raabe, 1997;
Rosser and Zieseniss, 2000).
Organizational and institutional context are important for participation and
performance across occupational areas. But they are particularly important in science and
engineering, because in these fields, especially, work revolves on the cooperation of people
and groups, and requires human and material resources. In scientific fields, work tends to
be conducted as teamwork rather than solo; to be carried out with costly equipment; to
require funding; and to function as an interdependent enterprise (Fox, 1991).
Advancement in academic science and engineering then becomes an organizational
issue, subject to institutional transformation. Advancement and institutional
transformation to support it are especially important for women in science and engineering.
Women in science and engineering are a highly selective group, whose ability, educational
background, and attainments are as higher as or higher than those of male counterparts
Fox
Page 3
(see Fox, 1999; Sonnert, 1999). The women have survived barriers of selection—both selfselection into scientific fields and selection by institutions. They have moved through the
proverbial pipeline. They have completed doctoral degrees, and have strong credentials.
However, the highest career attainments—particularly advancement to full professorial
rank–tend to elude this select group of women (Sonnert and Holton, 1995).
Women’s status (evidenced in lower rank) is not a matter of individual shortcoming
in ability, prestige of doctoral origins, training, or skills. Rather it is a consequence, more
so, of complex factors of organizational context—the characteristics and practices of the
settings in which people work. These include collegial patterns and opportunities, reward
structures, work climate and culture, and work-family arrangements as they may operate
for women and men (see Brown, 1998; Fox, 1991, 1996, 2000, 2001).
The potential for the organization to shape positive outcomes for faculty underlies
the National Science Foundation’s Institutional Transformation Program. This
organizational potential, in turn, underlies Georgia Tech’s ADVANCE initiative.
The GT survey is part of GT ADVANCE research program1 that helps identify
further what is known, and what can be done, for advancement. As part of this program,
the GT survey helps assess experiences and perceptions of faculty in four key areas:
teaching and research, work environments, processes of evaluation, and work-family
arrangements and experiences. The findings have implications for Georgia Tech’s
momentum for equity, success, and satisfaction among faculty, and for development of best
practices for advancement.
Fox
Page 4
Method
Data: Population and Sample
The data are from a mail survey, conducted in academic year 2002/03, of the
population of tenure and tenure-track women faculty, and a stratified, random sample of
men, in Georgia Tech’s Colleges of Computing, Engineering, Sciences, and Ivan Allen
College. These are the Colleges with NSF-funded fields. The Ivan Allen College (IAC)
contains some faculty in NSF-funded fields2 and others outside of those fields. The data for
IAC are analyzed across the fields in this report.
The population of tenured and tenure-track women in the four Colleges are included,
because of the relatively small number of women involved (N=110). It was estimated that
approximately 70% of women faculty or about 77 women would respond (an even higher
proportion responded, as described below).
The aim was to obtain approximately equal numbers of women and men faculty
respondents. The response rate of men was estimated to be approximately 50% (the
response was higher, as described). Thus, to obtain approximately 77 men respondents out
of a total of 623, the sampling fraction for men is 25% (calculated 77 x 2 = 154 [estimated on
50% response]; 154/623 = .247 or 25%).
The sample for men is stratified by College because the GT ADVANCE initiative
focuses upon issues of organizational settings, and these may vary by College/areas. Thus,
in order to ensure representation by Colleges, the sample was stratified with 25% of men
sampled in each of the four Colleges. Although men are a higher proportion of Colleges of
Computing, Sciences, and Engineering, than in Ivan Allen College, the 25% is applied
Fox
Page 5
across Colleges, so that weighting is not necessary in analyses, as weighting disturbs
intuitive interpretation of the data (see Table 1).
Further, within Engineering, the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
(ECE) and School of Mechanical Engineering (ME) are of such size in number of male
faculty (Ns=96 and 63, respectively) that each of these Schools constitutes a stratum for
sampling of 25% of men in each. The other Engineering Schools, together, constituted a
stratum, and a sample of 25% men was taken.
Likewise, within the Sciences, the number of male faculty in the School of
Mathematics (N=52) is sufficiently large, compared to the number of men in other Schools
in Sciences, that Mathematics represented a stratum for sampling of 25% of men. The
other Schools in College of Sciences, together, were sampled as one stratum, and a sample
of 25% of men was taken.
Method of Surveying and Response Rate
The method of surveying involved a timed protocol of up to 4 mailings (first mailing;
a postcard; and up to two repeated mailings to those not responding to first sets of requests)
(Dillman, 2000). The mailings were personalized in letters and mailing labels–and
designed to maximize quantity and quality of response, and reduce non-response bias (that
is, potential bias owing to different characteristics among those who do and do not respond,
initially, to a survey).
The leadership of GT Provost, Jean-Lou Chameau, contributed substantially to the
survey. Provost Chameau sent a pre-notice message about ADVANCE and the survey by
email and by letter to all faculty members surveyed. This signaled the importance to the
faculty of the ADVANCE initiative and survey.
Fox
Page 6
Seventy six percent (76%) of GT faculty surveyed responded, 70% of men and 85% of
women. Response rates were somewhat higher than average in Sciences, and lower in
Computing (Table 2).
Profiles of respondents (age, years at institution, rank, and race/ethnicity) by
gender, and by College and gender, appear in the Appendix.
Dimensions and Indicators – and their Importance for Study of the Faculty
The four key dimensions in the survey are: teaching and research, work
environments, processes of evaluation, and work-family arrangements and experiences.
Teaching and research are the focal activities of research universities. As indicators
of teaching and research, the survey assesses levels of interest in teaching and research,
patterns of collaboration, and frequency of communication with faculty about research.
Levels of interest in teaching and research gauge whether the two tend to converge
or diverge in reported levels of interest (Feldman, 1987).
Collaboration in the home unit, between units on campus, and outside the campus is
important because with the growth of increasingly technical and specialized teamwork, solo
research is difficult to initiate, fund, and sustain (Barker, 2002; Bradley, 1982). Further,
collaborative work fares better in the publication process. Collaboration can provide checks
and balances in research, and help avoid error (Presser, 1980).
Frequency of discussion with faculty about research helps to generate and support
research activity. Discussion about research has been shown to help stimulate interests,
test ideas, and reinforce the work (Blau, 1973; Reskin, 1978; Pelz and Andrews, 1976).
Features of the work environments are critical because academic work is conducted
within organizational settings, and relies upon human and material resources—especially
Fox
Page 7
in scientific fields. Performance and advancement become tied to the organizational
environment of work—including human and material resources available or allocated,
reward structures in place, and priorities perceived to be operating (Fox, 1992, 2001; Long
and McGinnis, 1981; Pelz and Andrews, 1976).
The survey assesses indicators of work environment in availability of colleagues
within home unit who are working in own/related research, and if available, their
willingness to collaborate; ratings of aspects of position and home unit; characterizations of
climate of home units; and mentoring given or received.
The availability of colleagues within home unit who are working in own/related
research area, and if available, their willingness to collaborate are two factors that go to
access to colleagues in the home work environment. Such access is important because the
cooperation and coordination of persons are significant for research outcomes, particularly
in science and engineering (National Research Council, 1997; Swatez, 1970). These
variables relate also to the collaborative patterns, discussed above under research and
teaching.
Ratings of aspects of position and home unit involve faculty’s reported assessments
of (11) critical areas, including quality of faculty, students, space, equipment, and
recognition received, as poor to excellent. Reported characterizations of home units involve
faculty’s perceptions of their home units’ climate and culture along (8) dimensions. Work
climate can activate interests, convey standards, and stimulate or stifle performance
(Kopleman et al., 1990).
Reports of mentoring—given or received–are important because much of what is
critical for success in scientific fields involves tacit knowledge, conveyed or learned through
Fox
Page 8
mentoring given and received (Fort, 1993; Fox, 2003; National Academy of Sciences, 1997;
Zuckerman, 1977).
Processes of evaluation are important for advancement because they are tied to
institutional priorities, practices, and rewards. Further, clarity of criteria for evaluation is
important because it is associated with greater equity in assessment of performance. When
criteria for evaluation are relatively clear, known, and specified, bias tends to be reduced,
and equity is enhanced (Fox, 1991; Long and Fox, 1995; Nieva and Gutek, 1980).
As indicators of processes of evaluation, the survey assesses perceptions of factors
involved in promotion and salary decisions in home unit and of clarity of criteria for tenure
and promotion, and reports of having (or not having) performance reviewed annually with a
chair or other supervisor.
Ratings of the perceived importance of (13) factors in home unit’s decisions
regarding promotion and salary involve faculty’s perceptions about the relative importance
of key aspects of teaching, advising, research, service, as well as informal factors, such as
“personality” and “social interaction.”
Perceptions about clarity of criteria for tenure and promotion are assessed with
reports of the criteria being “not at all” to “very clear.”
Reports of school chair or other supervisor reviewing performance with faculty
member at least once a year are important, because, over time, organizational research has
pointed to review of performance as a central element of evaluation, associated with
positive outcomes for personnel (e.g., Lawler, Hall, and Oldham, 1971; Niven, 2002).
Work family arrangements and experiences are important insofar as work and
family represent “greedy” and potentially competing spheres, especially when scheduled
Fox
Page 9
bench-marks make it difficult to take time-off temporarily (Brown, 1998; Brown, 2002;
Grant, Kennelly, and Ward, 2000; Rosser, 2001).
In order to assess the range of faculty’s family/household arrangements, the survey
includes questions about faculty’s current marital/household status, occupation of spouse (if
married or with life partner), contribution to total household income, parental status, and
parenthood of pre-school and school-aged children.
As indicators of conflict between work and family among faculty, the survey assesses
the extent to which home and work are perceived to conflict with each other, and the affect
of availability of childcare options for current participation in work and work-related
activities.
Analyses of Data
In the findings, data are separated by gender overall, and by gender within Colleges.
This is consistent with the ADVANCE focus upon women relative to men in academic
science and engineering, and upon institutional environments that can vary by College.
Throughout these survey findings, we observe where gender differences reach
statistical significance (in t-tests of differences between mean values for women and men;
or in chi-square tests of differences in proportions of women’s compared to men’s responses
among particular categories of a given question). However, owing to size of the Ns,
particularly separated by College, gender differences may be notable but not statistically
significant. They are treated as such.
Fox
Page 10
Findings
Teaching and Research
Georgia Tech faculty report very high interest in both teaching and research: 92% of
Georgia Tech faculty report “great interest” in research, and 7% a “moderate interest.”
While interest in teaching is lower than in research, overall interest in teaching is between
“moderate” and “great” (67% report great interest, and 30% moderate interest). Little or no
gender difference appears in these interests (Figure 1).
By College, interest in research is consistently high across Colleges. Interest in
teaching is significantly lower among women, compared to men, in Engineering;
nonetheless, interest in teaching is above “moderate” for both genders in Engineering
(Figure 2).
In patterns of collaboration, we find that the clear (77%) majority of Georgia Tech
faculty report collaborating in research proposals or publications with faculty in their home
unit in the past three years–and 83% report collaborating with faculty outside the
institution. Collaboration with faculty in other units on campus –outside of home unit—is
lower, but still reported among 64% of faculty. In each of these patterns of collaboration,
gender differences are small (Figure 3).
By College (Figure 4), we find that in Computing and Ivan Allen College (IAC),
women report higher collaboration in home unit than do men. In Sciences, women report
lower collaboration in home unit than do men.
For collaboration outside of home unit, but on campus, notable is the higher
percentage of women (85%) compared to men (69%) in Engineering who report collaborating
across units. For collaboration outside of the institution, all women in Computing,
Fox
Page 11
compared to 50% of men, report this collaboration. In Sciences as well, all women
collaborate outside, compared to 92% of the men. In Computing, the gender difference is
significant in collaboration outside the institution (Figure 5).
A third area of experience with research is frequency of speaking with faculty in
home unit about research. As explained in the previous section, face-to-face discussion
about research is important because it has been shown to help generate and support
research activity.
The graphic at the top of Figure 6 shows women’s and men’s reported frequency of
speaking about research with faculty in home unit, within five categories: 1) almost never,
2) once or twice a semester, 3) once or twice a month, 4) at least once a week, and 5) almost
every day. The gender difference is significant in distribution among these categories of
speaking. This owes, particularly, to the higher proportions of men (30%), compared to
women (13%), who speak daily about research. The graphic at the bottom of Figure 6 then
classifies frequency of speaking into three categories: speaking 1) less than weekly; 2) at
least once a week; and 3) almost every day – and we continue with these three categories.
We find that the pattern of men, compared to women, being more likely to speak
about research daily appears for each College. Some Colleges show higher frequency of
interaction than do other Colleges–but within each College, men are more likely to be
speaking about research daily (Figure 7).
Work Environments
Work environments are important because, as discussed previously, academic work
is conducted within organizational settings, and relies upon human and material resources,
Fox
Page 12
including space, facilities, apparatus, and cooperation among people and groups. This is
especially the case for science and engineering fields.
The great preponderance (90% of men and 89% of women) of faculty report that they
have colleagues within their home unit who are working in own/related research area.
Variations occur by College, with availability reported by 100% of faculty in Computing,
compared to 71% of the men and 82% of the women in Ivan Allen College (Figure 8).
For those who report that colleagues are available in own/related area, the next
question asks if colleagues who are available are willing to collaborate with the respondent.
Here, we find a greater gender disparity: 93% of men, compared to 86% of women, report
willingness of colleagues to collaborate (statistically, this is marginally significant, p=.07).
In Engineering, the gender difference is significant, with men (94%) more likely than
women (85%) to report the willingness of colleagues to collaborate (Figure 9).
Faculty’s mean levels of ratings of aspects of their position and home unit appear in
Figure 10. The graph represents mean levels of ratings of (11) aspects of position and home
unit. The (11) aspects appear at the bottom of the Figure. The scale on the Y axis is “poor”
to “excellent.” The graph presents ratings in the decreasing order of mean ratings of these
aspects, overall.
What we find is that three (3) aspects of position and home unit are rated as better
than “good” by both women and men. These are (in decreasing order): 1) quality of faculty,
2) quality of undergraduate majors, and 3) chances for being promoted. The two aspects
with lowest rating –less than “good,” better than “fair”–are: 1) space available for research,
and 2) recognition of accomplishments from College/or central administration. Except for
recognition from College/central administration, women report lower ratings than men for
Fox
Page 13
each aspect of their position and home unit. The gender difference in rating is statistically
significant for equipment available for research.
For each College, the same order of aspects appears as overall. Thus, any bumps in
the slope for help show help show variation of a given College from overall pattern.
In Computing, we find that all but three aspects are rated as “good” or better by both
women and men; the two (2) lowest rated aspects are the same as those in data aggregated
across Colleges. In Engineering, four (4) of the aspects are rated as “good” or better by both
women and men: quality of faculty, quality of undergraduate majors, chances of being
promoted, and quality of graduate students. The pattern retains of the two lowest rated–
space and recognition from College/central administration (Figure 11).
In Sciences, both men and women report “good” or better on five (5) aspects: quality
of faculty, quality of undergraduate majors, chances of being promoted, sense of inclusion
from faculty, and start-up package. Unlike other Colleges, in Sciences, space is rated as
“good,” but it is still one of the two lowest rated aspects. The gender difference in rating of
equipment available is statistically significant. In Ivan Allen College, two (2) aspects,
quality of faculty and of undergraduate majors, are rated “good” or better by both women
and men; the two (2) lowest rated aspects—rated less than “fair” by both women and men—
are equipment and space (Figure 12).
Another feature of work environments is the way that faculty characterize their
home units. Home units may be thought to have “cultures and climates”– ways of behaving
and interacting. The survey asks about “character” or “conduct” of the home unit along
eight (8) dimensions: “formal/informal,” “boring/exciting,” “unhelpful/helpful,”
“uncreative/creative,” “unfair/fair,” “noncompetitive/competitive,” “stressful/unstressful,”
and “noninclusive/inclusive.”
Fox
Page 14
These dimensions appear in Figure 13. The scale at the top of the figure is 1 – 5,
where 1 is low and 5 is high. For each of the eight dimensions, the label for one end of the
dimension is on the left; the label for the other end of the same dimension is on the right.
We find that three (3) of the eight (8) characterizations of home unit are rated
significantly different by women and men: Men are more likely to characterize their home
unit as “exciting” (compared to “boring”), “helpful” (compared to “unhelpful”), and “creative”
(compared to “uncreative”).
The most significant gender difference is in “helpfulness.”
Further, for all characterizations except “competitiveness,” women’s ratings are further to
the left, lower-rated end, of each dimension.
In characterizations of home unit by College (Figure 14), Computing is exceptionally
high on “informality,” “excitement,” "helpfulness,”“creativity,” “competitiveness,” and
“inclusiveness.” At the same time, men in Computing report higher levels than women for
each of these dimensions; and the reported gender difference is statistically significant for
“helpfulness” and “inclusiveness.” In Engineering, across the dimensions, men and women
are close in their characterizations of home units.
In Sciences, a gender gap in characterizations of home unit is most notable in
“helpfulness” and “stress” – but none are statistically significant. In Ivan Allen College,
except for “informality,” characterizations of home units are close to middle, “3” on scale—
that is, not as far toward the positive end of the dimension as for other Colleges (Figure 15).
A third feature of work environment is mentoring. As described previously,
mentoring is important because much of what one needs for know for professional success
involves “tacit knowledge”–knowledge that may be conveyed informally.
Fox
Page 15
In the survey, we ask “are you a mentor for faculty on campus?” Figure 16 shows
that less than half of faculty report being a mentor for faculty on campus. Variation occurs
by gender: 1) virtually no men are mentors for women only; 2) few women are mentors for
men only; and 3) women are more likely than men to be mentors for both women and men
faculty. The gender difference in these mentoring patterns is statistically significant.
In Figure 17, we observe certain variations by College in these mentoring patterns.
In Engineering, women are less likely than men to report being a mentor. In Sciences,
what is striking is that over 50% of women are mentors for both women and men faculty; a
little over 20% of men are mentors for women and men. This is a statistically significant
gender difference. Finally, those mentoring women only are most likely to be found among
women in Sciences.
The survey also asks “do you have a mentor on campus?” A significant gender
differences appears (Figure 18): almost 30% of men, and over 40% women, report having a
mentor. Notable is the percentage of women (26%), compared to men (8%), who have both
men and women mentors. Likely, this reflects the gender distribution of faculty in the
institution–and who is available for mentoring.
By College (Figure 19), except in Computing, women are more likely than men to
report having a mentor on campus. In Engineering and Sciences, women are more likely
than men to have both women and men mentors. In these Colleges, the differences in
patterns by gender are statistically significant. In Ivan Allen College, 85% of men report
not having a mentor; by College, this is the group with the highest proportion reporting not
having a mentor.
Fox
Page 16
Processes of Evaluation
Processes of evaluation are important because they are tied to institutional priorities
and rewards, as discussed previously. Further, clarity of criteria for evaluation is
important because it is associated with greater equity. Annual reviews of performance
have been shown to be associated with positive outcomes of productivity.
The survey asks faculty to assess the importance of (13) different factors in
promotion and salary decisions in home unit. These factors appear in Figure 20, and are
ordered in decreasing mean values of reported importance among faculty, overall.
We see four (4) factors reported as “moderately” or greater in perceived importance
in promotion and salary decisions: 1) research grants received, 2) quantity of publications,
3) quality of publications, and 4) advising graduate students in own research or researchteam. Of these, the latter is rated significantly higher by men.
At the other end of the axis (Figure 20), four (4) factors stand out as only “slightly”
or less than slight important. In decreasing order of perceived importance, these are: 1)
committee work outside of the home unit, 2) involving undergraduates in research, 3)
advising graduate students outside of one’s research program or team, and 4) advising
undergraduates. Of these four factors, two (2) are rated as significantly more important by
men: involving undergrads in research, and advising other grad students.
Among the five (5) factors in the middle, rated between “moderately” and “slightly”
important in decisions of tenure and salary, one factor, “collaboration with faculty,” is rated
significantly higher by men. In addition, it may be noted that “personality” is the fifth most
important reported factor—ahead of eight other factors in perceived importance for
decisions of promotion and salary (Figure 20).
Fox
Page 17
By College (Figure 21), we see in Computing the same pattern as in the previous
Figure, with the first four factors reported as “moderately” important or higher. In
Engineering, the same four factors are on top, the same four are at the bottom as overall.
In Engineering, gender differences are significant in 1) advising other graduate students
not one’s own team, 2) involving undergraduates in research, and 2) advising
undergraduates—with men giving higher ratings of importance. In a middle factor, we see
a significant gender difference, with men compared to women giving higher rating to
classroom teaching in Engineering.
In Sciences (Figure 22), as in overall (aggregated by Colleges), three (3) factors are
rated as most important; the first two – research grants received and quantity of
publications–are rated significantly higher by women. We see the pattern, as elsewhere, of
the lowest rated factors: advising undergrads, and advising grads not on team/project. For
the latter, the gender difference in rating is significantly different–with men giving higher
rating.
In Ivan Allen College (Figure 22), the same three –publication quantity, publication
quality, and research grants—are at the top, but compared to elsewhere, publication
quantity and quality are rated higher than grants received. In IAC, advising graduate
students on one’s team is “somewhat,” rather than “moderately,” important. The same four
factors are low as for other Colleges, plus the addition of collaborating with faculty in
research.
In their perceptions about clarity of criteria for tenure and promotion, Georgia Tech
faculty report that the criteria are “moderately clear.” This retains for men and women,
and across Colleges (Figure 23).
Fox
Page 18
Over 90% of both women and men faculty report that their unit chair reviews
performance with them at least once a year (Figure 24). Some variation appears by
College. Notable are that: 1) In Engineering, virtually all faculty (95% of men, 100% of
women) report an annual review with chair. 2) In Sciences, women (94%) are more likely to
report a review than are men (77%). 3) In Ivan Allen College, 100% of men compared to
85% of women report an annual review.
Work-Family Arrangements and Experiences
Work and family represent “greedy” and potentially competing spheres, especially
when scheduled bench marks make it difficult to take time-off, temporarily. These point
toward the importance of work-family patterns and experiences.
The survey asks about family arrangements, including current household/marital
status, occupation of spouse/life partner (if married or with life partner), contribution to
income, parental status, and parenthood by age of children.
In marital/household statuses (Figure 25), the vast majority of men (79%) and
women (78%) are married (combining first and subsequent) or living with a life partner.
However, women (7%) are more likely than men (1.8%) be living with a life partner.
By College (Figure 26), notable are the high proportions of men (73%) and women
(74%) in Engineering who are married in a first marriage; and the high proportion of
women (40%) compared to men (0%) in Computing who are in subsequent marriages.
In occupations of spouse/life partner (among those who are married or with life
partner), two patterns are notable, by gender (Figure 27). First, women (44%) are almost
three times more likely than men (15%) to have a spouse/partner who is a college or
Fox
Page 19
university professor. Second, men (31%) are over four times men likely than women (7%)
have a spouse/partner who is a homemaker, retired, or a student.
By College, these occupational patterns hold for Computing and Engineering (Figure
28) and for Sciences (Figure 29). Ivan Allen College is an exception. In IAC, men (30%) are
as likely as women (29%) to have a spouse/partner who is a college or university professor
(Figure 29).
The survey also asks about respondents’ contribution to total household income:
sole, primary, equal, or secondary contribution. The majority of women (51%) are equal
contributors to household income. The majority of men (51%) are sole contributors; men are
also more likely (30%) than women (20%) to be primary contributors. The gender difference
is statistically significant (Figure 30).
By College (Figure 30), women are more likely than men to be equal contributors to
household income in Computing, Engineering, and Sciences. The gender difference in
pattern of contribution to total income is statistically significant for each of these three
Colleges. Ivan Allen College is an exception, with 30% of women and 50% of men reporting
that they are equal contributors.
In parental statuses, men (74%) are more likely than women (56%) to be parents of
any children (Figure 31). By College, this pattern retains, except for Computing, where
women are more likely than men to be parents (Figure 31).
Because of the more demanding responsibilities for children who are of pre-school
age (under age six) or of school-age children (ages 6-17), we look at the proportions of
women and men who are parents of children in these age groups (among those who are
parents). These data appear in Figure 32. Note that a respondent may have children both
Fox
Page 20
under age 6 and ages, 6-17; these categories are not mutually exclusive. We find that 37%
of all respondents have pre-school children; and that women (44%) are more likely than
men (32%) to have children in this age group. Fifty three percent of all respondents have
school-age children; men (59%) are more likely than women (44%) to have children in this
age group. The gender difference may be related to the younger average age of women
compared to men (see Appendix).
In Engineering (Figure 33), among women who are parents, notable is the high
proportion (55%) who are parents of children under age six. In Ivan Allen College (Figure
34), it is notable that women are more likely than men to have preschool children, and that
the vast (89%) majority of men have school age children.
In the next set of findings, we look at work-family interference, and the affects of
options for childcare.
The survey asks “to what extent” work interferes with family; and “to what extent”
family interferes with work. Faculty report higher interference of work with family—than
family with work. Men and women are almost identical in reporting that work “somewhat”
interferes with family. However, women report a higher level the other way around: of
family interfering with work (Figure 35). This is first-level findings, not separated by
parental status, age of children, or occupation of spouse/partner.
By College (Figure 36), the pattern of women reporting higher interference of family
with work holds across Colleges–except in IAC, where men report significantly higher
interference of family with work than do women. Considering the reports the other way, of
work interfering with family: across the Colleges, we find that men and women report that
work interferes “somewhat” with family.
Fox
Page 21
The survey also asks whether work is affected by availability of options for childcare:
not affected, positively affected, or negatively affected by availability of options. In the
graph at the top of Figure 37, we see that women are more likely to report that work is
affected by childcare options: either positively affected (light green) or negatively affected
(deep green).
The graphic at the bottom of Figure 37 shows affects of availability of childcare
options by College and gender. Women in Engineering and Sciences are the groups most
likely to report work affected by childcare options. These are first-level findings, and are
not yet broken down by parental statuses, age of children, or employment of
spouse/partners.
Summary and Conclusions
The survey points to key findings, and implications, in the four dimensions of
teaching and research, work environments, evaluative processes, and work-family
arrangements and experiences.
Research and Teaching
1. Women and men faculty report “great” interest in research, and “moderate” to
“great” interest in teaching. High interests in both research and teaching co-exist among
the faculty.
2. Men and women faculty report collaborating in research proposals and
publications within the past three years. Interestingly, in Engineering, women report
significantly higher collaboration than men outside of home unit but on campus; and in
Computing and in Sciences, all women report collaborating with faculty outside of the
institution. This is an area for continuing inquiry (in follow-up, face-to-face interviews).
Fox
Page 22
3. In each College, we find a gender difference in frequency of speaking with faculty
in home unit about research: men are more likely to speak daily about research. This may
point to patterns of access and ease of interaction as they operate for men and women.
Because speaking about research has been shown to activate interests, test ideas, and
reinforce research, such interaction is an area that Schools may address for support of
women faculty.
Work Environments
1. Variations exist by Colleges, but overall, the vast majority of faculty (90% men,
89% women) report that they have colleagues in their home units who are working in areas
that are the same or related to their own. This points to the existence of “clusters” of
faculty in research areas at Georgia Tech.
2. At the same time, among those faculty who report that they have colleagues in
home unit in their research area, gender disparity appears in the reports of “willingness” of
those faculty to collaborate. Men are more likely to report “willingness” of faculty to
collaborate. This is an aspect of work environment that may be shaped through leadership
in Schools (home units) and Colleges.
3. Women and men faculty perceive as relatively high three aspects of their position
and unit: the quality of faculty, the quality of undergraduates, and chances for promotion.
The two aspects rated as less than “good” are space and recognition from
College/administration. A significant gender difference is in rating of equipment available.
Because of the importance of equipment in many research fields, equipment is a potential
area for support of women faculty.
Fox
Page 23
4. In characterizations of work environments: overall, men are more likely to
characterize their home units as “exciting” (compared to “boring”); “helpful” (compared to
“unhelpful”); and “creative” (compared to “uncreative”). The most significant gender
difference is “helpfulness.”
Computing is exceptionally high/positive in characterizations; however, compared to
men, women in the College report significantly lower levels of “helpfulness” and
“inclusiveness.” In Sciences, the gender gap is most notable (but not statistically
significant) in “helpfulness” and “stress.” The meaning of these characterizations,
particularly “helpfulness,” is an area for follow-up interviews, and in turn, a possible area
for attention within units.
5. In mentoring, women, especially, report that they are mentors for both women
and men faculty; and that they have both women and men mentors (the gender difference
in mentoring patterns is statistically significant). By College, except in Computing, women
are more likely than men to report having mentor. In Sciences, women are significantly
more likely than men to report both being a mentor and having a mentor. This may reflect
the presence–and impact—of an organized mentoring program for women in the College of
Sciences.
Processes of Evaluation
1. In perceived importance of ratings of factors in home units’ decisions about
promotion and salary, overall, the faculty report three factors to be most important:
research grants received, quantity of publications, and quality of publications
Fox
Page 24
In Engineering, women, compared to men, report significantly lower importance of
classroom teaching, advising graduate students not on team, and advising undergraduates.
In Sciences, women, compared to men, report significantly higher importance of research
grants and quantity of publications in decisions of promotion and salary made in home
units. One interpretation is that, compared to men, these women may perceive to be more
important those factors that are seen to give “reliable results,” grants and publications.
2. Across Colleges, men and women faculty report criteria for tenure and promotion
to be “moderately clear.”
3. Although variations occur by College, overall, 90% of men and women faculty
report annual reviews with their chairs or other supervisor—a recommendable practice.
Work-Family
1. In their household/family arrangements, the majority of men and women are
married or live with a life partner. Occupations of spouse/partners diverge by gender of
faculty—with women (44%) being three times more likely than men (15%) to have a
spouse/partner who is a college or university professor. Further, the majority of women
(51%) are “equal contributors” to household income, while the majority of men (51%) are
“sole contributors.” These two areas–spousal occupation and contribution to household
income–point to the importance among women, especially, of dual-career
issues/considerations.
2. Women are less likely than men to be parents of any children. But among those
who are parents, 44% of women and 32% of men have pre-school children. This points to
the importance of supportive family programs—addressed by Georgia Tech in the opening
of the new Georgia Tech and Home Park Childcare Center, and the establishment of
Fox
Page 25
Campus Nursing Moms Program (nursing locations on campus), and the Active-Service
Modified Duties procedure (to allow a more flexible schedule for family-related issues).
3. Overall and across Colleges, we find that both men and women report that work
interferes “somewhat” with family. Except in Ivan Allen College, however, women report a
higher interference in the other direction, of family with work, than do men.
4. We find that women are more likely than men to report that their work is
affected by childcare options.
These survey findings also lead us to continuing inquiries, in the ADVANCE
research program, including: 1) how factors in advancement vary by race and gender; 2)
what is involved in “critical transitions” between career-stages; and 3) what is associated,
not just with success, but with satisfaction together with advancement to senior rank.
These are tied to the GT ADVANCE initiative’s commitment to satisfaction, success, and
advancement of faculty—and toward development of best practices for faculty at Georgia
Tech, and beyond.
Fox
Page 26
NOTES
1
The GT ADVANCE research program includes a base-line survey of Georgia Tech faculty,
follow-up surveys of the faculty, face-to-face interviews, and a survey of peer institutions.
2
NSF-funded fields in Ivan Allen College comprise economics, history and philosophy of
science, science and technology studies, political science, and sociology.
Of those faculty in the population of women and sample of men within Ivan Allen College,
64% are in NSF-funded fields and 36% are in non-NSF funded fields.
Fox
Page 27
REFERENCES
Barker, Kathy. At the Helm: A Laboratory Navigator. Cold Spring Harbor, New York:
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 2002.
Blau, Peter. The Organization of Academic Work. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973.
Bradley, Raymond T. “Ethical Problems in Team Research: A Structural Analysis and an
Agenda for Resolution.” The American Sociologist 17 (May 1982): 87-94.
Brown, April. Enhancing the Environment for Success: Report of the Task Force for
Women in Engineering. College of Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology,
1998.
Brown, April. Statement Before the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. US Senate, October 3, 2002.
Dillman, Don. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 2000.
Evetts, Julia. Gender and Career in Science and Engineering. London: Taylor and
Francis, 1996.
Feldman, Kenneth. “Research Productivity and Scholarly Accomplishment of College
Teachers as Related to Their Instructional Effectiveness.” Research in Higher
Education 26 (1987): 227-98.
Feldt, Barbara. “An Analysis of Productivity of Nontenured Faculty Women in the Medical
al and a Related School.” Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan, Office
of Affirmative Action, 1985.
Feldt, Barbara. “The Faculty Cohort Study: School of Medicine.” Ann Arbor, Michigan:
The University of Michigan, Office of Affirmative Action, 1986.
Fort, Deborah C. A Hand Up: Women Mentoring Women in Science. Washington, DC:
Association for Women in Sciences, 1993.
Fox, Mary Frank. “Gender, Environmental Milieu, and Productivity in Science.” In The
Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Community, edited by H. Zuckerman, J. Cole,
and J. Bruer. New York: W. W. Norton, 1991.
Fox, Mary Frank. “Research Productivity and the Environmental Context.” In Research
and Higher Education: The United Kingdom and the United States, edited by T. G.
Whiston and R. L. Gieger. Buckingham, England: Open University Press, 1992.
Fox, Mary Frank. “Women, Academia, and Careers in Science and Engineering.” In The
Equity Equation: Fostering the Advancement of Women in the Sciences,
Fox
Page 28
Mathematics, and Engineering, edited by C.-S. Davis, A. Ginorio, C. Hollenshead, B.
Lazarus, and P. Rayman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.
Fox, Mary Frank. “Gender, Hierarchy, and Science.” In Handbook of the Sociology of
Gender, edited by J. S. Chafetz. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers,
1999.
Fox, Mary Frank. “Organizational Environments and Doctoral Degrees Awarded to Women
in Science and Engineering Departments.” Women’s Studies Quarterly 28
(Spring/summer 2000): 47-61.
Fox, Mary Frank. “Women, Science, and Academia: Graduate Education and Careers.”
Gender & Society 15(October 2001): 654-666.
Fox, Mary Frank. “Gender, Faculty, and Doctoral Education in Science and Engineering.”
In Equal Rites, Unequal Outcomes: Women in American Research Universities,
edited by L. Hornig. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2003.
Glazer-Raymo, Judith. Shattering the Myths: Women in Academe. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1999.
Grant, Linda; Kennelly, Ivy; and Ward, Kathryn. “Revisiting the Gender, Marriage, and
Parenthood Puzzle in Scientific Careers.” Women’s Studies Quarterly
28(Spring/summer 2000):62-85.
Kopelman, Richard; Brief, Arthur; and Guzzo, Richard. “The Role of Climate and Culture
in Productivity.” In Organizational Climate and Culture, edited by B. Schneider.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.
Lawler, Edward; Hall, Douglas; and Oldman, Greg. “Organizational Climate: Relationship
to Organizational Structure, Process, and Performance.” Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance 11 (1971): 139-155.
Long, J. Scott; Allison, Paul; and McGinnis, Robert. “Rank Advancement in Academic
Careers: Sex Differences and the Effects of Productivity.” American Sociological
Review 58(1993):703-722.
Long, J. Scott and Fox, Mary Frank. “Scientific Careers: Universalism and Particularism.”
Annual Review of Sociology 21(1995):45-71.
National Academy of Sciences. Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor
to Students in Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
1997.
National Research Council. Maximizing US Interests in Science and Technology Relations
with Japan. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997.
Nieva, Veronica and Gutek, Barbara. “Sex Differences in Evaluation.” Academy of
Management Review 5 (1980): 267-276.
Fox
Page 29
Niven, Paul. Balanced Scoreboard: Maximizing Performance and Maintaining Results.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.
Pelz, Donald and Andrews, Frank M. Scientists in Organizations. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Institute of Social Research, 1976.
Presser, Stanley. “Collaboration and the Quality of Research.” Social Studies of Science 10
(February 1980): 95-101.
Raabe, Phyllis Hutton. “Work-Family Policies for Faculty.” In Academic Couples:
Problems and Promises, edited by M. A. Ferber and J. W. Loeb. Urbana, Illinois:
University of Illinois Press, 1997.
Reskin, Barbara. “Sex Differentiation and the Social Organization of Science.” Sociological
Inquiry 48(1978):491-504.
Rosser, Sue V. and Zieseniss, Mirellie. “Career Issues and Laboratory Climates: Different
Challenges and Opportunities of Women Engineers and Scientists.” Journal of
Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 6(2000):1-20.
Rosser, Sue V. “Balancing: Survey of Fiscal Year 1997, 1998, 1999 POWRE Awardees.”
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 7(2001):1-11.
Sonnert, Gerhard. “Women in Science and Engineering.” The Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences 869 (1999):34-57.
Sonnert, Gerhard and Holton, Gerald. Gender Differences in Science Careers. New
Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1995.
Swatez, Gerald M. “The Social Organization of a University Laboratory.” Minerva 8(1970):
36-68.
Valian, Virginia. Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1998.
Zuckerman, Harriet. Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New York:
The Free Press, 1977.
Fox
Page 30
Appendix: Profile of Respondents
The broad profile of respondents, by self-reported age, years at the institution,
academic rank, and racial/ethnic identifications, appears in Table 3.
Among all respondents (not separated by College), men are older on average (45.4)
than women (41.5) (p<.01). Men also have been at the institution longer on average (10
years) than women (6.7 years) (p<.01). In their distribution among the academic ranks, the
men (38.9%) are more likely to be professors than women (25.7%); and women (37.1%) are
more likely than men (25.7%) to be assistant professors. The proportions of women (37.1%)
and men (32.7%) at middle rank of associate professor are more comparable than at the
extremes (professor and associate).
By College (Table 4), Computing especially varies from the broad profile. In
Computing, men are somewhat younger (40.4) than women (43.4), and women have been in
the institutions slightly longer (7.4 years) than men (6.2 years). In their ranks, 12.5% of
men compared to 20% of women are professors; 50% of men compared to 20% of women are
assistant professors; and 37.5% of men compared to 60% of women are associate professors.
A higher proportion of men (28.6%) than women (20%) are Asian; the remainder of men
(71.4%) and women (80%) are white.
In Engineering, women are younger and the gender difference in average age of
women (37.6) compared to men (46.3) is greater (p<.001) than in the broad profile. Men’s
(10.2) and women’s (6.2) average years at the institution (p<.05) are close to the broad
profile. Gender disparity in academic ranks is more marked than among the broad group:
38.6% of men compared to 17.6% of women are professors, and 21.1% of men compared to
Fox
Page 31
50% of women are assistant professors (p<.05). In ethnic/racial identities, a slightly higher
proportion of men (82.7%) than women (79.4%) are white.
In Sciences, women’s and men’s average age and number of years at the institution
are close to the broad profile. In academic ranks, higher proportions of men (45.7%) and
women (47.1%) are professors than in the broad profile; and lower proportions of women
and men are at ranks of assistant and associate professor. About the same proportions of
men and women are white, as in the broad profile of faculty.
In Ivan Allen College, mean ages of both men (46.5) and women (45.5) are older than
those in the broad profile; but men’s and women’s number of years at the institution are
about the same as faculty, broadly. In their distributions by rank, men (30.8%) are more
likely to be assistant professors and less likely (23.1%) to be associate professors than in the
broad profile. Women in Ivan Allen College are more concentrated (45.5%) at rank of
associate professor than in the profile, broadly. Higher proportions of women are Black
(12.5%) than in the broad profile. Among the men, lower proportions (9.1%) are Asian and
higher proportions (9.1%) are Black than in the broad profile, but the total proportion
(18.2%) of men who are nonwhite is almost the same as in the profile, broadly.
Fox
Page 32
Table 1. Sampling Design
Men
Women
College of Computing
14
7
College of Engineering
87*
42
College of Sciences
45**
19
Ivan Allen College
18
39
Overall
164
* (ECE 25, ME 17, all other Engineering 45)
** (Math 17, all other Sciences 28)
107
Fox
Page 33
Table 2. Response Rate
by Gender within College and Overall
Men
Women
College of Computing
57%
71%
College of Engineering
66%
81%
College of Sciences
80%
95%
Ivan Allen College
72%
87%
Overall
70%
85%
Fox
Page 34
Table 3. Profile of Respondents by Gender
Age
Years at Institution
Overall
Men
Women
43.6
45.4
41.5**
8.5
10.0
6.7**
Rank
Assistant Professor
30.7%
25.7%
37.1%
Associate Professor
34.7%
32.7%
37.1%
Professor
33.2%
38.9%
25.8%
Asian
14.3%
13.6%
15.1%
Black
3.7%
1.0%
7.0%
Hispanic
2.1%
1.9%
2.3%
Native American
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
White
79.4%
82.5%
75.6%
Other
** p < .01
0.5%
1.0%
0.0%
Race/Ethnicity
Fox
Page 35
Table 4. Profile of Respondents by College and Gender
College of
Computing
College of
Engineering
College of
Sciences
Ivan Allen
College
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
40.4
43.4
45.3
37.6***
46.3
41.1*
46.5
45.3
6.2
7.4
10.2
6.2*
10.8
6.1*
9.6
7.3
Asst. Prof.
50.0%
20.0%
21.1%
50.0%*
25.7%
29.4%
30.8%
30.3%
Assoc. Prof.
37.5%
60.0%
36.8%
32.4%
28.6%
23.5%
23.1%
45.5%
Professor
12.5%
20.0%
38.6%
17.6%
45.7%
47.1%
38.5%
24.2%
Asian
28.6%
20.0%
15.4%
14.7%
9.1%
20.0%
9.1%
12.5%
Black
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.9%
0.0%
6.7%
9.1%
12.5%
Hispanic
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
2.9%
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.1%
Native Amer.
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
71.4%
80.0%
82.7%
79.4%
84.8%
73.3%
81.8%
71.9%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Age
Years at
Institution
Rank
Race/Ethnicity
White
Other
* p < .05
*** p < .001
Figure 1. Current Level of Interest in Teaching and Research, by Gender
Great
Moderate
Slight
Almost None
4
3
2
1
Teaching
Overall
Research
Men
Women
Figure 2. Current Level of Interest in Teaching, by College and Gender
Great
4
*
Moderate
3
Slight
2
Almost None
1
Computing
Engineering
Sciences
Ivan Allen
Current Level of Interest in Research, by College and Gender
Great
4
Moderate
3
Slight
2
Amost None
1
Computing
Engineering
Men
Sciences
Women
Ivan Allen
* = gender diff. sig. at <.05
Figure 3. Percentage Reporting Collaboration With Faculty, by Gender
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
home school/unit
not home school/unit
Overall
Men
other campuses
Women
Figure 4. Percentage Reporting Collaboration With Faculty in Home Unit,
by College and Gender
100
80
60
40
20
0
Computing
Engineering
Sciences
Ivan Allen
Percentage Reporting Collaboration With Faculty Not In Home Unit, by College and Gender
100
80
60
40
20
0
Computing
Engineering
Men
Sciences
Women
Ivan Allen
Figure 5. Percentage Reporting Collaboration With Faculty On Other Campuses
by College and Gender
100
80
*
60
40
20
0
Computing
Engineering
Men
Sciences
Women
Ivan Allen
* = gender diff. sig. at <.05
Figure 6. Frequency of Speaking About Research With Faculty in Unit, by Gender
Overall
Men
***
Women
0%
10%
almost never
20%
30%
40%
once or twice a semester
50%
60%
once or twice a month
70%
80%
at least once a week
90%
100%
almost every day
Overall
Men
***
Women
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
less than weekly
50%
60%
weekly
70%
daily
80%
90%
100%
*** = gender diff. sig. at <.001
Figure 7. Frequency of Speaking About Research With Faculty,
by College and Gender
Computing Men
Computing Women
Engineering Men
Engineering Women
Sciences Men
Sciences Women
Ivan Allen Men
Ivan Allen Women
0%
10%
20%
30%
less than weekly
40%
50%
weekly
60%
70%
daily
80%
90%
100%
Figure 8. Percentage Reporting They Have Colleagues in Home Unit Working in Own/Related Area,
by Gender
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Overall
Men
Women
by College & Gender
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
College of Computing
College of Engineering
Overall
College of Sciences
Men
Women
Ivan Allen College
Figure 9. IF Have Colleagues in Own/Related Area,
Percentage Reporting Willingness of Colleagues to Collaborate, by Gender
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Overall
Men
Women
by College and Gender
100
*
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
College of Computing
College of Engineering
Overall
College of Sciences
Men
Women
Ivan Allen College
* = gender diff. sig. at ≤ .05
of
u
Q
ua
lit
y
of
nd
fa
cu
er
lty
gr
ad
C
ha
ua
te
nc
es
m
aj
of
or
Se
be
s
ns
in
g
e
pr
of
om
in
cl
ot
us
ed
i
o
Q
n
ua
fro
lit
m
y
fa
of
cu
gr
lty
ad
ua
te
st
ud
R
en
ea
St
ts
so
ar
na
tu
p
bl
pa
en
ck
e
ss
Eq
ag
R
u
o
e
ip
ec
ft
m
ea
og
en
ch
ni
ta
tio
in
g
va
n
lo
of
ila
ad
bl
ac
e
co
fo
m
rr
pl
es
is
ea
hm
rc
R
e
h
nt
ec
S
s
og
pa
fro
ni
ce
m
tio
av
fa
n
ai
cu
of
l
ab
lty
ac
le
co
fo
m
rr
pl
es
is
hm
ea
rc
en
h
ts
fro
m
co
lle
ge
Q
ua
lit
y
Figure 10. Rating of Aspects of Position/Unit, by Gender
Excellent
4
Good
3
**
Fair
2
Poor
1
Overall
Men
Women
** = gender diff. sig. at
Excellent
4
Good
3
Fair
2
Poor
1
Overall
Men
College of Engineering
Women
Recognition of
accomplishments
from college
Space available
for research
Recognition of
accomplishments
from faculty
Equipment
available for
research
Poor
Reasonableness
of teaching load
Fair
Startup package
3
Quality of grad
students
Good
Sense of
inclusion from
faculty
4
Chances of being
promoted
Excellent
Quality of
undergrads
Quality of faculty
Figure 11. Rating of Aspects of Position/Unit, by College and Gender
College of Computing
2
1
Excellent
4
Good
3
Fair
2
Poor
1
Overall
Men
Women
Recognition of
accomplishments
from college
Space available
for research
1
Recognition of
accomplishments
from faculty
Poor
Equipment
available for
research
2
Reasonableness
of teaching load
Fair
Startup package
3
Quality of grad
students
Good
Sense of
inclusion from
faculty
4
Chances of being
promoted
Excellent
Quality of
undergrads
Quality of faculty
Figure 12. Rating of Aspects of Position/Unit, by College and Gender
College of Sciences
*
Ivan Allen College
* = gender diff. sig. at <.05
Figure 13. Mean Levels of Characterizations of Home Unit
1
2
3
4
5
formal
informal
iti
boring
exciting
*
helpful
unhelpful
**
creative
uncreative
*
unfair
fair
noncompetitive
competitive
stressful
unstressful
inclusive
noninclusive
Overall
Men
Women
* = gender diff. sig. at <.05
** = gender diff. sig. at <.01
Figure 14. Characterizations of Home Unit, by College and Gender
1
2
3
4
5
formal
informal
boring
exciting
*
unhelpful
helpful
creative
uncreative
unfair
fair
noncompetitive
competitive
stressful
unstressful
*
noninclusive
Computing Men
Computing Women
Engineering Men
inclusive
Engineering Women
* = gender diff. sig. at <.05
Figure 15. Characterizations of Home Unit, by College and Gender
1
2
3
4
5
formal
informal
boring
exciting
unhelpful
helpful
uncreative
creative
unfair
fair
noncompetitive
competitive
stressful
unstressful
noninclusive
Sciences Men
inclusive
Sciences Women
Ivan Allen Men
Ivan Allen Women
Figure 16. Percentage Reporting Being Mentor for Faculty on Campus, by Gender
100%
90%
80%
70%
**
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Overall
yes, for women
Men
yes, for men
Women
yes, for women and men
not a mentor
** = gender diff. sig. at <.01
Figure 17. Percentage Reporting Being a Mentor for Faculty on Campus,
by College and Gender
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
**
30%
20%
10%
0%
Computing
Men
Computing
Women
yes, for women
Engineering
Men
Engineering
Women
yes, for men
Sciences
Men
Sciences
Women
yes, for women and men
Ivan Allen
Men
Ivan Allen
Women
not a mentor
** = gender diff. sig. at <.01
Figure 18. Percentage Reporting Having a Mentor for Faculty on Campus,
by Gender
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
***
20%
10%
0%
Overall
yes, women
Men
yes, men
yes, women and men
Women
no mentor
*** = gender diff. sig. at <.001
Figure 19. Percentage Reporting Having a Mentor for Faculty on Campus,
by College and Gender
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
*
30%
20%
*
10%
0%
Computing
Men
Computing
Women
yes, women
Engineering
Men
Engineering
Women
yes, men
Sciences
Men
yes, women and men
Sciences
Women
Ivan Allen
Men
Ivan Allen
Women
no mentor
* = gender diff. sig. at <.05
Overall
Q
ua
n
of
gr
an
ts
tit
y
es
ea
rc
h
re
ce
iv
ed
Q
Moderate
pu
bl
ic
ua
at
lit
io
y
ns
o
f
gr
p
ad
ub
ua
lic
at
te
io
s
ns
in
ow
n
re
se
ar
ch
Pe
rs
on
C
la
al
ss
ity
ro
om
C
te
om
ac
m
hi
So
itt
ng
e
ci
e
al
w
or
in
C
ol
te
k
la
in
r
ac
bo
un
t
i
ra
on
it
tio
s
n
w
ith
w
ith
fa
fa
cu
C
c
lty
om
ul
ty
m
in
itt
ee
re
se
w
In
ar
o
vo
rk
ch
lv
o
in
u
ts
g
id
un
e
de
of
rg
un
r
ad
Ad
it
s
vi
i
n
si
ng
re
se
ot
ar
he
ch
rg
r
ad
Ad
vi
st
si
ud
ng
en
un
ts
de
rg
ra
du
at
es
Ad
vi
si
ng
R
Very
4
Figure 20. Reported Importance of Factors for Decisions on
Promotion and Salary, by Gender
**
3
Slight
*
2
**
***
Not At All
1
Men
Women
* = gender diff. sig. at <.05
** = gender diff. sig. at <.01
*** = gender diff. sig. at <.001
Not At All
Very
Moderately
Slightly
2
Not At All
1
Overall
Men
College of Engineering
Women
3
**
**
Advising
undergraduates
4
Advising other
grad students
Involving
undergrads in
research
Committee work
outside of unit
Collaboration
with faculty in
research
Social
interactions with
faculty
Committee work
in unit
Classroom
teaching
Personality
Advising
graduates in
own research
Quality of
publications
Slightly
Quantity of
publications
Moderately
Research
grants received
Figure 21. Reported Importance of Promotion Criteria, by College and Gender
College of Computing
Very
4
3
2
1
*
*
* = gender diff. sig. at <.05
** = gender diff. sig. at <.01
Not At All 1
Moderately
Somewhat
Not At All
Overall
Men
Classroom
teaching
Personality
Advising
graduates in
own research
Quality of
publications
Ivan Allen College
Women
Advising
undergraduates
Advising other
grad students
Involving
undergrads in
research
Committee work
outside of unit
Collaboration
with faculty in
research
Social
interactions with
faculty
Committee work
in unit
Very
*
Quantity of
publications
Very 4
Research
grants received
Figure 22. Reported Importance of Promotion Criteria, by College and Gender
College of Sciences
*
Moderately 3
Somewhat 2
*
4
3
2
1
* = gender diff. sig. at <.05
Figure 23. Reported Clarity of Criteria for Tenure and Promotion, by
College and Gender
Very
4
Moderately
3
Slightly
Not At All
2
1
Overall
Very
4
Moderately
3
Slightly
2
Not At All
Men
Women
1
Computing
Engineering
Overall
Men
Sciences
Women
Ivan Allen
100
Figure 24. Percentage Reporting That Unit Chair Reviews Performance at Least Once Yearly,
by Gender
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Overall
Men
Women
by College and Gender
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
College of Computing
College of Engineering
Overall
College of Sciences
Men
Women
Ivan Allen College
Figure 25. Current Marital/Household Status, by Gender
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Overall
Men
Women
married, first marriage
married, subsequent marriage
not married but living with a life-partner
divorced or separated
widowed
never married
Figure 26. Current Marital/Household Status, by College and Gender
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Computing Men
Computing
Women
Engineering Men
married, first marriage
not married but living with a life-partner
widowed
Engineering
Women
Sciences Men
Sciences Women
married, subsequent marriage
divorced or separated
never married
Ivan Allen Men
Ivan Allen
Women
Overall
Men
Women
Student, Retired, Not
Employed,
Homemaker
Self Employed
Sales/Clerical/Other
Services
Artists/Entertainers
Technicians/Analysts
Business,
Management
Other Professions
Traditional
Professions
Scientist or Engineer
(non-academic)
College or University
Teacher
Figure 27. IF Married or With Life Partner, Occupation of Spouse/Partner, by Gender **
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
** = gender diff. sig. at ≤ .01
Men
College of Engineering ***
Women
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
*** = gender diff. sig. at ≤ .001
Student, Retired, Not
Employed,
Homemaker
Self Employed
Sales/Clerical/Other
Services
Artists/Entertainers
Technicians/Analysts
Business,
Management
Other Professions
Traditional
Professions
Scientist or Engineer
(non-academic)
College or University
Teacher
Figure 28. IF Married or With Life Partner, Occupation of Spouse/Partner,
by College and Gender
60
College of Computing
50
40
30
20
10
0
Men
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ivan Allen College
Women
Student, Retired, Not
Employed,
Homemaker
Self Employed
Sales/Clerical/Other
Services
Artists/Entertainers
Technicians/Analysts
Business,
Management
Other Professions
Traditional
Professions
Scientist or Engineer
(non-academic)
College or University
Teacher
Figure 29. IF Married or With Life Partner, Occupation of Spouse/Partner,
by College and Gender
College of Sciences
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 30. Total Contribution to Household Income, by College and Gender
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Overall
Men
Women
100%
80%
60%
*
***
**
40%
20%
0%
Computing
Men
sole
Computing
Women
primary
Engineering
Men
equal
Engineering
Women
secondary
Sciences
Men
Sciences
Ivan Allen
Ivan Allen
Women
Men
Women
* = gender diff. sig. at <.05
** = gender diff. sig. at <.01
*** = gender diff. sig. at <.001
Figure 31. Percentage Reporting They Are Parents of Any Children, by Gender
100
90
80
70
60
**
50
40
30
20
10
0
Overall
Men
Women
** = gender diff. sig. at p ≤.01
by College & Gender
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Computing Men
Computing
Women
Engineering Men
Engineering
Women
Sciences Men
Sciences Women
Ivan Allen Men
Ivan Allen Women
Figure 32. IF Parent, Percentage Reporting they are Parents of Children, Age 0-5, or Age 6-17,
by Gender
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Child/Children 0-5 Years Old
Overall
Child/Children 6-17 Years Old
Men
Women
Figure 33. IF Parent, Percentage Reporting they are Parents of Children, Age 0-5, or Age 6-17,
by College and Gender
College of Computing
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Child/Children 0-5 Years Old
Child/Children 6-17 Years Old
College of Engineering
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Child/Children 0-5 Years Old
Child/Children 6-17 Years Old
Overall
Men
Women
Figure 34. IF Parent, Percentage Reporting they are Parents of Children, Age 0-5, or Age 6-17,
by College and Gender
College of Sciences
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Child/Children 0-5 Years Old
Child/Children 6-17 Years Old
Ivan Allen College
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Child/Children 0-5 Years Old
Overall
Child/Children 6-17 Years Old
Men
Women
Figure 35. Reported Extent of Interference - Work and Family Responsibilities,
by Gender
A Great Deal
Somewhat
Very Little
4
3
2
Not At All
1
family interferes with work
Men
work interferes with family
Women
A Great Deal
Somewhat
Figure 36. Reported Extent to Which Family Interferes With Work,
by College and Gender
4
3
**
Very Little
Not At All
2
1
Computing
Engineering
Sciences
Ivan Allen
Reported Extent to Which Work Interferes With Family,
by College and Gender
A Great Deal
4
Somewhat
3
Very Little
2
Not At All
1
Computing
Engineering
Men
Sciences
Women
Ivan Allen
** = gender diff. sig. at <.01
Figure 37. Percentage Reporting Work Affected by Childcare Options, by Gender
100%
80%
60%
40%
**
20%
0%
Overall
Men
Women
by College and Gender
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Computing
Men
Computing
Women
negatively affected
Engineering
Men
Engineering
Women
positively affected
Sciences
Men
not affected
Sciences
Women
Ivan Allen
Men
Ivan Allen
Women
** = gender diff. sig. at p ≤ .01