Faculty Work Climate Survey

Transcription

1 Faculty Work Climate Survey University of Illinois at Chicago June 2006 FINAL REPORT 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 Women in Science and Engineering System Transformation Leading the WISE Way to Better Science & Engineering

2

3 CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES... iii LIST OF FIGURES... v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 INTRODUCTION History Women In Science and Engineering System Transformation (WISEST) Faculty Climate Survey Previous Studies Climate Survey Project Goals... 5 CLIMATE SURVEY DEVELOPMENT Survey Design Pilot Testing IRB Approval Survey Implementation Data Management Response Rate Data Analysis... 8 a. Analysis of Variance... 8 b. Exploratory Factor Analysis... 8 c. Multiple Regression Analysis... 9 d. Path Analysis Structure of the Report RESULTS SECTION I Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Satisfaction with UIC a. Satisfaction with Position at UIC b. Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC c. Overall Satisfaction Measure d. Consideration to Leave UIC Summary The Hiring Process at UIC a. Faculty Rank b. Satisfaction with the Hiring Process c. Renegotiation Summary Professional Activities a. Objective Measures of Productivity b. Subjective Measures of Productivity c. Resources Available to Faculty d. Departmental Committees Page Campus Climate Survey i

4 e. Workplace Safety Summary Work Climate a. Interactions with Colleagues b. Climate for Men and Women Faculty c. Climate for Minority Faculty Summary The Tenure Process at UIC a. The Tenure Process Scale b. Tenure Clock Summary UIC Programs and Resources a. Use and Value of Existing UIC Programs b. Perceived Value of Programs Summary Balancing Personal and Professional Life a. Care of Dependents b. Departmental Support of Family Obligations c. Household Tasks Summary SECTION II Multiple Regression Analysis a. Factors Predicting Satisfaction with Current Position at UIC b. Factors Predicting Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC c. Factors Predicting Consideration to Leave UIC Summary Path Analysis a. Path Model Predicting Consideration to Leave UIC b. Predictors of Overall Satisfaction c. Predictors of Negative Departmental Climate d. Predictors of Departmental Lack of Resources e. Predictors of Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues Summary CO NCLUSIONS Differences by Discipline (STEM vs. Non-STEM) Differences by Gender NEXT STEPS REFERENCES 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

5 TABLES Page 1. Response Rates, by College Response Rates, by Discipline Response Rates, by Gender Scales Developed from Survey Items Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Factors That Most Contribute to Satisfaction at UIC Factors That Most Detract from Satisfaction at UIC Mean Scale Scores for Level of Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC, by Discipline and Rank Mean Scale Scores for Consideration to Leave UIC, by Gender and Discipline Factors Contributing to Consideration to Leave UIC The Hiring Process Scale Mean Scores for the Hiring Process Scale, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank Mean Number of Undergraduate Courses Taught, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank Mean Number of Graduate Courses Taught, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank Mean Number of Papers Accepted for Publication, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank Mean Number of Books Accepted for Publication, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank Self-Rated Research Productivity as Compared to Other Researchers in the Field, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank Department View of Research Productivity as Compared to the Departmental Average, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank The Lack of Resources Scale The Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues Scale The Negative Departmental Climate Scale Mean Scores for the Negative Departmental Climate Scale, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank The Positive Climate for Women Scale Mean Scores for the Positive Climate for Women Scale, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank The Positive Climate for Minorities Scale Campus Climate Survey iii

6 26. Mean Scores for the Positive Climate for Minorities Scale, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank The Tenure Process Scale Mean Scores for the Tenure Process Scale, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank Utilization and Value of UIC Programs The Balance Between Personal and Professional Life Scale Mean Scores for Balance Between Personal and Professional Life Scale, by Gender and Whether Faculty Cared for Children, Controlling for Rank Departmental Support for Family Obligations Who Performs More Than 50% of Child/Dependent Care, by Gender and Discipline Predictors of Satisfaction with Current Position at UIC Predictors of Satisfaction with Current Position at UIC, by Gender Predictors of Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC Predictors of Satisfaction with Career Progression with UIC, by Gender Predictors of Consideration to Leave UIC Predictors of Consideration to Leave UIC, by Gender Predictors of How Seriously Faculty Have Considered Leaving UIC Predictors of Overall Satisfaction Predictors of Negative Departmental Climate (as Perceived by Respondents) Predictors of Departmental Lack of Resources (as Perceived by Respondents) Predictors of Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues Campus Climate Survey iv

7 FIGURES Page 1. Degree of Satisfaction with Position at UIC Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC Distribution of Overall Satisfaction Consideration to Leave UIC Number of Years in Current Faculty Position Assumed Causal Ordering of Variables in Path Model Path Model for Complete Sample Campus Climate Survey v

8 Campus Climate Survey vi

9 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 Judith K. Gardiner, PhD Manorama M. Khare, PhD, Claudia S. Morrissey, MD, MPH Mrinalini C. Rao, PhD Judith A. Richman, PhD Stephanie Riger, PhD Brenda Russell, PhD Lisa Kelly-Wilson, MA Professor, Department of Psychology Professor, Department of English; Professor and Director, Department of Gender & Women s Studies Senior Research Specialist, Center for Research on Women & Gender Director, WISEST Initiative; Deputy Director, Center for Research on Women & Gender Professor, Department of Physiology & Biophysics; Vice-Provost for Faculty Affairs Professor of Epidemiology, Department of Psychiatry Professor, Department of Psychology; Professor, Department of Gender & Women s Studies Professor, Department of Physiology & Biophysics; Executive Associate Vice Chancellor for Research 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

10 Final Report Reviewers Stacie E. Geller, PhD Timothy P. Johnson, PhD Manorama M. Khare, PhD Linda Owens, PhD Claudia S. Morrissey, MD, MPH Mrinalini C. Rao, PhD Linda Skitka, PhD Administrative Support Patricia Newton Kimberly Barba Laura Stempel, PhD Associate Professor, College of Medicine; Director, Center for Research on Women & Gender; Director, Center for Excellence in Women s Health Professor, Public Administration; Director, Survey Research Laboratory Senior Research Specialist, Center for Research on Women & Gender Assistant Director for Sampling & Statistics, Survey Research Laboratory Director, WISEST Initiative; Deputy Director, Center for Research on Women & Gender Professor, Department of Physiology & Biophysics; Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Professor, Department of Psychology Center for Research on Women & Gender Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs (now Administrative Assistant, External Education Administration) Assistant to the Vice Provost, Office of Faculty Affairs Campus Climate Survey viii

11 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 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, 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

12 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 non- STEM 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

13 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 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

14 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

15 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

16 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 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 # ). 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

17 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 Number of responses Response rate Percent of total responses TOTAL % 100.0% College of Engineering % 20.0% LAS - Natural Sciences % 29.0% LAS - Humanities % 30.4% LAS - Social Sciences % 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 2 Error rate: The questionnaire had 164 variables. The error rate was computed as 9/(114 x 164). 3 Response rate was calculated using a formula recommended by the American Association of Public Opinion Research (2004). Campus Climate Survey 7

18 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 TOTAL % 100.0% STEM % 49.3% Non-STEM % 49.0% Discipline missing n/a 6 n/a 1.7% Table 3. Response Rates, by Gender Gender Total sample size Number of responses Response rate Percent of total responses TOTAL % 100.0% Men % 72.1% Women % 25.4% Gender missing n/a 9 n/a 2.6% 7. 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. non- STEM), 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

19 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 R 2 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

20 Table 4. Scales Developed from Survey Items SURVEY ITEMS Scale Title Description 1(r), 2(r) 12a 12f 21a 21d Satisfaction with Current Position and Career Progression See page 13, 15 The Hiring Process See page 20 Lack of Resources See page 23 21e, 21f Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues See page 24 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 29a(r), 29b(r), 29c, 29d, 29e, 29f, 29g, 29h, 59a, 59b(r), 59c, 59d(r), 59e(r), 59f, 59g(r) 30a(r), 30b(r), 30c, 30d, 30e, 30f, 30g, 30h, 60a, 60b(r), 60c, 60d(r), 60e(r), 60f, 60g(r) 37a 37f Positive Climate for Women See page 27 Positive Climate for Minorities See page 28 The Tenure Process See page 30 47a, 47c Balance Between Personal and Professional Life See page 33 Scale combines 2 satisfaction measures. Higher values indicate greater satisfaction. Satisfaction with resources, interactions, salary negotiations, etc. Value of 1 indicates highest satisfaction. Lack of computing equipment and office and lab space. High value indicates inadequate resources. Lack of colleagues who do similar research or provide career advice. High value indicates lack of colleagues. Includes feelings of integration, respect, recognition, and participation. High values indicate negative feelings about or experiences in the department. Equal treatment of men and women, harassment and discrimination not tolerated, etc. High value indicates positive climate for women. Equal treatment of minority and nonminority faculty, harassment and discrimination not tolerated, etc. High value indicates positive climate for minorities. Lower values indicate difficulty integrating personal/professional life. Alpha for Scale Structure of the Report The remaining sections of the report are presented in two parts: Section I (pp ) 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 ) 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

21 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

22 Table 5. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Frequency (%) CHARACTERISTIC Total N=351 Male N=253 Female N=89 Gender Male 253 (74%) Female 89 (26%) No response 9 Citizenship US citizen 332 (98%) 247 (98%) 85 (96%) Not US citizen 8 (2%) 4 (2%) 4 (2%) Total No response 11 Race Caucasian, non-hispanic 263 (80%) 199 (83%) 64 (72%) Underrepresented minority (a) 28 (9%) 10 (4%) 18 (20%) Other 38 (11%) 31 (13%) 7 (8%) Total No response 22 Discipline STEM 169 (50%) 145 (58%) 24 (27%) Non-STEM 169 (50%) 105 (42%) 64 (73%) Total No response 13 Current Rank/Title Assistant professor 64 (19%) 37 (15%) 27 (31%) Associate professor 105 (31%) 73 (29%) 32 (36%) Professor 167 (50%) 138 (56%) 29 (33%) Total No response 15 Current Tenure Status Tenured 275 (80%) 214 (85%) 61 (68%) Not tenured 65 (20%) 37 (15%) 28 (32%) Total No response 11 Full-Time Status Full-time 338 (100%) Part-time No response 13 Marital Status Married living with spouse/unmarried living with partner 268 (80%) 204 (82%) 48 (56%) Married/Partnered living in different locations 18 (5%) 9 (4%) 9 (11%) Single, widowed, other 49 (15%) 29 (12%) 20 (23%) Total No response 16 Spousal Employment Status Employed full-time 174 (60%) 118 (53%) 56 (84%) Employed part-time 52 (18%) 46 (21%) 6 (9%) Not employed 43 (15%) 43 (19%) Retired 20 (7%) 15 (7%) 5 (2%) Total No response 62 Number of Children None 76 (24%) 45 (19%) 31 (39%) (73%) 182 (77%) 48 (61%) > 4 11 (4%) 11 (5%) Total No response 34 (a) Includes African American, Hispanic, and Native American/Alaskan Native. Campus Climate Survey 12

23 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 Percent % % 15.2% 7.8% 12.0% 15.5% Very Moderately Slightly Slightly Moderately Very dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied 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

24 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: 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 responded to this question. Table 7 Table 7. Factors That Most Detract from Satisfaction at UIC % of presents the percentage of faculty that responded under each of the coding categories (see Appendix D for the coding scheme). Response Category Resources in general Administration Salary Count (N=295) Respondents* 47% 35% 35% 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%). Below are some representative written responses for factors detracting from satisfaction: Table 6. Factors That Most Contribute to Satisfaction at UIC % of Response Category Count (N=295) Respondents* Colleagues % Students 88 30% Research 78 26% Teaching 59 20% Location 43 15% Administration 22 8% Resources in general 20 7% UIC reputation & potential 16 5% Staff & staff support 16 5% Recognition & respect for work 13 4% UIC urban identity & mission 12 4% Salary 11 4% Service duties/responsibilities 7 2% Miscellaneous 30 10% *Because multiple responses were accepted, the % does not sum to 100. Colleagues 71 23% Students 57 18% Research 35 11% Staff & staff support 27 9% Teaching 22 7% Recognition & respect for work 21 7% UIC reputation & potential 14 5% Service duties/responsibilities 12 4% Location 7 2% UIC urban identity & mission 2 1% Miscellaneous 35 11% *Because multiple responses were accepted, the % does not sum to 100. 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

25 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 Percent % 11.7% 5.7% 13.4% Degree of satisfaction 44.2% 18.5% Very Moderately Slightly Slightly Moderately Very dissatisfied dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 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

26 Table 8. Mean Scale Scores for Level of Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC, by Discipline and Rank STEM Discipline Non-STEM Discipline Total by Rank* Rank Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n Assistant Professor (n=63) Associate Professor (n=101) Professor (n=165) TOTAL by Discipline (n=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 ± Figure 3 shows the distribution of overall satisfaction. Figure 3. Distribution of Overall Satisfaction 30.0% 25.0% Percent 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Very dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Slightly dissatisfied Slightly satisfied Moderately satisfied Very 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

27 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 Percent % 26% 27% 12% Very Moderately Slightly Have not seriously seriously seriously 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 STEM Discipline Non-STEM Discipline Total by Gender* Gender Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n Male faculty (n=244) Female faculty (n=85) TOTAL by Discipline** (n=329) *p=0.04, **p=0.01. Overall F value: 2.27; p=0.06. Campus Climate Survey 17

28 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. UIC urban identity & mission 2 1% Respondents were asked to Miscellaneous 62 22% 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 Table 10. Factors Contributing to Consideration to Leave UIC % of Response Category Count (N=282) Respondents* Salary % 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% 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

29 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 Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor Respondents * Non-overlapping 5-year categories were used (i.e., "5 10" consists of the range from 5 up to but not including 10) 3. The Hiring Process at UIC Years held current position* 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

30 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 Items Mean SD Item Total Correlation 12a. I was satisfied with the hiring process overall b. The department did its best to obtain resources for me c. Faculty in the department made an effort to meet me d. My interactions with the search committee were positive e. I negotiated successfully for what I needed f. I was satisfied with my start-up package at the time 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 Non-STEM Discipline Total by Gender Gender Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n Male (n=241) Female (n=84) TOTAL by Discipline (n=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

31 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 Non-STEM Discipline Total by Gender Gender Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n Male (n=239) Female (n=84) TOTAL by Discipline* (n=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 Non-STEM Discipline Total by Gender Gender Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n Male (n=238) Female (n=83) TOTAL by Discipline* (n=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

32 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 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 Non-STEM Discipline Total by Gender Gender Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n Male (n=239) Female (n=82) TOTAL by Discipline* (n=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 Non-STEM Discipline Total by Gender Gender Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n Male (n=239) Female (n=83) TOTAL by Discipline* (n=321) *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 ± An ANOVA procedure was conducted to test for differences by gender Campus Climate Survey 22

33 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 Non-STEM Discipline Total by Gender* Gender Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n Male (n=244) Female (n=86) TOTAL by Discipline (n=322) *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 STEM Discipline Non-STEM Discipline Total by Gender Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n Male (n=240) Female (n=84) TOTAL by Discipline* (n=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 Mean SD Item Total Correlation 21a. I have the equipment 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 Reliability Coefficient Alpha =.78. Campus Climate Survey 23

34 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 f. I have colleagues or peers at UIC who give me career advice or guidance when I need it 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. non- STEM 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

35 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

36 Table 21. The Negative Departmental Climate Scale Question Mean SD Item Total Correlation 28a. I am treated with respect by colleagues b(r). I feel isolated at UIC overall c. I feel like a full and equal participant in the problem-solving and decision-making in my department e(r). I feel excluded from informal networks in my department f. Colleagues regularly solicit my opinion about work-related matters (such as teaching, research, and service) g(r). I feel isolated in my department h. I feel that colleagues value my research i. I do a great deal of research that is not formally recognized by my department k(r). I do a great deal of teaching that is not formally recognized by my department l. I have a voice in how resources are allocated within my department m(r). I do a great deal of service that is not formally recognized by my department n. I am treated with respect by my department head or chair o. Faculty meetings allow for all participants to share their views p. I feel I can voice my opinions openly in my department q. Committee assignments are rotated fairly to allow for participation of all faculty 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 STEM Discipline Non-STEM Discipline Total by Gender Gender Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n Male (n=244) Female (n=86) TOTAL by Discipline (n=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

37 Table 23. The Positive Climate for Women Scale Question Mean SD Item Total Correlation 29a(r). Faculty are serious about treating men and women faculty equally b(r). 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 a. There are too few women faculty in my department b(r). My department has actively recruited women faculty c. My department has difficulty retaining women faculty d(r). The climate for women in my department is good e(r). My department has taken steps to enhance the climate for women f. My department has too few women faculty in leadership positions g(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 Non-STEM Discipline Total by Gender* Gender Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n Male (n=242) Female (n=86) TOTAL by Discipline (n=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

38 Table 25. The Positive Climate for Minorities Scale Inter-item Question Mean SD Correlation 30a(r). Faculty are serious about treating minority and non-minority faculty equally b(r). 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 nonminority 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 a. There are too few faculty of color in my department b(r). My department has actively recruited faculty of color c. My department has difficulty retaining faculty of color d(r). The climate for faculty of color in my department is good e(r). My department has taken steps to enhance the climate for faculty of color f. My department has too few faculty of color in leadership positions g(r). My department has made an effort to promote faculty of color into leadership positions 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 STEM Discipline Non-STEM Discipline Total by Gender Gender Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n Male (n=235) Female (n=84) TOTAL by Discipline (n=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

39 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 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

40 Table 27. The Tenure Process Scale Question Mean SD Inter-item Correlation 37a. 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. 37e. I was told about assistance available to pre-tenure/promotion faculty (e.g., workshops, mentoring) f. A senior colleague was very helpful to me as I worked towards tenure/promotion Reliability Coefficient Alpha =.81. Table 28. Mean Scores for Tenure Process Scale, by Gender and Discipline, Controlling for Rank STEM Discipline Non-STEM Discipline Total by Gender Gender Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n Male (n=149) Female (n=37) TOTAL by Discipline (n=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

41 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

42 Table 29. Utilization and Value of UIC Programs Used the program Not heard of the Anticipate using the Mean score for UIC Programs/Resources (%) program (%) program (%) value of program Tenure Rollback 9% 23% 1% 3.4 Dual-Career Hiring Program 5% 44% 7% 3.6 Family Medical Leave 4% 18% 20% 3.7 New Faculty Workshops 27% 22% 4% 2.9 Faculty Mentoring Program 17% 14% 11% 2.9 Campus Childcare 3% 24% 14% 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

43 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 Mean SD Item total Correlation 47a. I often have to forgo professional activities (e.g., meetings, sabbaticals, conferences) because of personal responsibilities c. Personal responsibilities and commitments have slowed down my career progression Reliability Coefficient Alpha = Campus Climate Survey 33

44 Table 31. Mean Scores for Balance Between Personal and Professional Life Scale, by Gender and Whether Faculty Cared for Children, Controlling for Rank Male Female TOTAL by Whether Faculty Cared for Children* Faculty Cared for Children Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD n Yes (n=215) No (n=111) TOTAL by Gender (n=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

45 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

46 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 Mean Score Question STEM 57a. Most faculty in my department are supportive of 2.52 ± 1.31 colleagues who want to balance their personal (n=153) 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 ± 1.37 (n=150) 5.63 ± 0.89 (n=156) 57d. My department is supportive of family leave ± 1.31 (n=119) 57e. The head of my department understands the 2.05 ± 1.23 existing policies regarding family leave. (n=121) 57f. Men faculty who have children are considered by 5.00 ± 1.33 department members to be less committed to (n=142) their careers than men who do not have children. 57g. Women faculty who have children are considered by department members to be less committed to their careers than women who do not have children ± 1.48 (n=142) Mean Score Non-STEM 2.29 ± 1.21 (n=162) 3.91 ± 1.46 (n=159) 5.71 ± 0.75 (n=163) 2.15 ± 1.20 (n=149) 1.90 ± 1.18 (n=139) 5.14 ± 1.19 (n=155) 4.54 ± 1.57 (n=154) Comments No significant differences. Significant differences by discipline (p=0.04). No significant differences. 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 Respondent Spouse/Partner Shared Equally Hired Help Other Gender Male 17 (10%) 68 (39%) 76 (43%) 7 (4%) 7 (4%) Female 23 (47%) 0 22 (45%) 3 (6%) 1 (2%) Discipline STEM 8 (7%) 48 (40%) 58 (48%) 3 (3%) 4 (3%) Non-STEM 33 (32%) 21 (20%) 40 (39%) 6 (6%) 4 (4%) Campus Climate Survey 36

47 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

48 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. Discipline (1 = STEM, 0 = non-stem) 2. Gender (1 = male, 0 = female) 3. Tenure (1 = yes, 0 = no) 4. Successful renegotiation of salary, summer appointment, etc. 5. Race ( 1 = Caucasian, 0 = all other) 6. Marital/Partnered status 7. Children (1 = yes, 0 = no) 8. Attitudes towards Hiring Process Scale 9. Balance Between Personal and Professional Life Scale 10. Overall research productivity 11. Respondent s beliefs about the department s rating of his/her productivity 12. Negative Departmental Climate Scale Campus Climate Survey 38

49 13. Lack of Resources Scale 14. Departmental Support for Family Obligations Scale 15. Positive Climate for Women Scale 16. Positive Climate for Minorities Scale 17. How seriously respondent has considered leaving UIC 18. Whether respondent cares for dependent children 19. Whether respondent cares for dependent adults 20. Whether respondent has been a PI on a grant 21. Number of graduate courses taught 22. Number of undergraduate courses taught 23. Number of published articles 24. 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 Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients 4 Predictor B Std. Error Beta t Sig CONSTANT Negative Departmental Climate Scale Lack of Resources Scale Tenured Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues Scale Balance Between Personal & Professional Life Scale Adjusted R 2 :.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 R 2 represents the proportion of variance explained by the independent variables in the model. Campus Climate Survey 39

50 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 Women (n=61) Men (n=183) Predictor Beta p-value Beta p-value Negative Departmental Climate Scale Lack of Resources Scale Tenured Care for dependent children Overall F 21.16; p= ; p=0.000 Adjusted R (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 Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients B Std. Error Beta t Sig 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 Adjusted R 2 = 0.224; F-value for the model = , p <.001. Campus Climate Survey 40

51 Table 37. Predictors of Satisfaction with Career Progression at UIC, by Gender Women (n=61) Men (n=182) Predictor Beta p-value Beta p-value 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 9.58; p= ; p=0.00 Adjusted R (c) 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 Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients PREDICTOR B Std. Error Beta t Sig CONSTANT Lack of Resources Scale Negative Departmental Climate Scale Successful renegotiation Department supports family obligations Tenured STEM discipline Married/Partnered Adjusted R 2 = 0.351; F-value for the model = , p<.001. Table 39. Predictors of Consideration to Leave UIC, by Gender Women only (n=60) Men only (n=183) PREDICTOR Beta p-value Beta p-value Negative Departmental Climate Scale Lack of Resources Scale STEM discipline Successful renegotiation Overall F 6.71; p= ; p=0.00 Adjusted R 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

52 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

53 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.) Climate variables (resources, climate for women & minorities, etc.) Overall satisfaction How seriously faculty considered leaving UIC (a) 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 Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Predictor B Std. Error Beta t Sig CONSTANT STEM discipline Overall satisfaction Successful renegotiation Adjusted R 2 =.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

54 (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 Standardized Coefficients Predictor B Std. Error Beta t Sig CONSTANT Lack of Like-Minded Colleagues Tenured Negative Departmental Climate Lack of Resources Department supports family obligations Adjusted R 2 =.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

55 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 Standardized Coefficients Predictor B Std. Error Beta t Sig CONSTANT PI on grant Successful renegotiation White Ever cared for children Number of undergraduate courses taught Number of graduate courses taught Self-rated productivity Perception of department-rated productivity Adjusted R 2 =.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

56 Table 43. Predictors of Departmental Lack of Resources (as Perceived by Respondents) Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Predictor B Std. Error Beta t Sig CONSTANT PI or co-pi on a grant Number of undergraduate courses taught Adjusted R 2 =.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 Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Predictor B Std. Error Beta t Sig CONSTANT Perception of department-rated productivity Adjusted R 2 =.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

57 Figure 7. Path Model for Complete Sample STEM Tenured Department supports family obligations.182 Undergrad courses taught PI Children White Lack of resources Negative department climate Overall satisfaction Think about leaving UIC Grad courses taught Lack of likeminded colleagues Self-rated productivity Department-rated productivity 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. Campus Climate Survey 47

58 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

59 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

60 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

61 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 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

62 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, 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 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), 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 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 Ethnicity%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 The University of Wisconsin-Madison Campus Climate (n.d.). Retrieved May 18, 2006, from 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

63 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): The University of Wisconsin-Madison Campus Climate (n.d.). Retrieved May 18, 2006, from 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 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

64 Department of Psychology (MC 285) College of Liberal Arts and Sciences 1007 W. Harrison Street Chicago, Illinois Department of Computer Science (MC 152) College of Engineering 1120 Science and Engineering Offices 851 South Morgan Street Chicago, Illinois 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 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 when we have done so. Thank you very much for your valuable time. Best wishes, Bette L. Bottoms, Ph.D. Peter Nelson, Ph.D. Associate Professor Professor and Head Department of Psychology Department of Computer Science [email protected] (312) [email protected] (312)

65 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 Moderately satisfied Slightly satisfied Slightly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Very DISSATISFIED 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 Moderately satisfied Slightly satisfied Slightly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Very DISSATISFIED 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 Slightly Moderately Very leaving1111 seriously seriously seriously 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 Assistant Professor 2 Associate Professor 3 Professor 1

66 9. Are you currently full time faculty at UIC?... 1 Yes 2 No 10. What is your current title/rank at UIC?... 1 Assistant Professor 2 Associate Professor 3 Professor 4 Non-tenure track 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 a. I was satisfied with the hiring process overall NA b. The department did its best to obtain resources for me NA c. Faculty in the department made an effort to meet me NA d. My interactions with the search committee were positive NA e. I negotiated successfully for what I needed NA f. I was satisfied with my start-up package at the time NA 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 Yes 2 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 Yes 2 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

67 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 Much MORE productive 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 Much MORE productive Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the resources available to you. Strongly AGREE Moderately agree Slightly agree Slightly disagree Moderately disagree Strongly DISAGREE a. I have the equipment and supplies I need to adequately conduct my research NA b. I receive regular maintenance/upgrades of my equipment NA c. I have sufficient office space in terms of quantity and quality NA d. I have sufficient laboratory space in terms of quantity and quality NA e. I have colleagues on campus who do similar research NA f. I have colleagues or peers at UIC who give me career advice or guidance when I need it NA g. I have sufficient teaching support (e.g., TAs) NA 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. a. Have you ever served on this committee? b. Have you ever chaired this committee? c. If you have not chaired this committee, would you like to? Committee NA Yes No Yes No Yes No 22. Departmental Advisory/ Executive Committee Promotion Faculty search Curriculum (graduate and/or undergraduate) 26. Graduate admissions Salaries

68 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 b. I feel isolated at UIC overall c. I feel like a full and equal participant in the problem-solving and decision-making in my department d. I am treated with respect by department staff e. I feel excluded from informal networks in my department f. Colleagues regularly solicit my opinion about work-related matters (such as teaching, research, and service) g. I feel isolated in my department h. I feel that colleagues value my research i. I do a great deal of research that is not formally recognized by my department j. I am treated with respect by students k. I do a great deal of teaching that is not formally recognized by my department l. I have a voice in how resources are allocated within my department m. I do a great deal of service that is not formally recognized by my department n. I am treated with respect by my department head or chair o. Faculty meetings allow for all participants to share their views p. I feel I can voice my opinions openly in my department q. Committee assignments are rotated fairly to allow for participation of all faculty

69 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 Moderately disagree Strongly DISAGREE 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 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 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 Do you feel safe in your workplace in terms of physical safety and security?... 1 Yes 2 No 5

70 The Tenure Process at UIC 32. Do you currently have tenure?...1 Yes 33. In what year did you get tenure? 2 No SKIP TO Q Did you have tenure before coming to UIC and did not have to be considered for it again when you got to UIC?...1 Yes SKIP TO UIC PROGRAMS AND SERVICES ON NEXT PAGE 2 No SKIP TO Q Will you experience or are you currently involved in the tenure process at UIC?...1 Yes 36. What year do you expect to be reviewed for tenure? SKIP TO Q.38a 2 No 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. Strongly AGREE Moderately agree Slightly agree Slightly disagree Moderately disagree Strongly DISAGREE NA a. I was satisfied with the tenure/promotion process overall NA b. I understood the criteria for achieving tenure/promotion NA c. I received feedback on my progress toward tenure/promotion NA d. I received reduced teaching or service responsibilities so that I could build my research program NA e. I was told about assistance available to pretenure/promotion faculty (e.g., workshops, mentoring) NA f. A senior colleague was very helpful to me as I worked towards tenure/promotion NA 38a. Have you ever stopped or rolled back your tenure clock at UIC?...1 Yes 2 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

71 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 Yes 2 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 used this program? b. Do you anticipate using it in the future? c. How valuable is this program? Yes No Yes No Not at all valuable Slightly valuable Moderately valuable Very valuable 41. Tenure rollback Dual Career Hiring Program Family Medical Leave New Faculty Workshops Faculty Mentoring Program Campus Child Care Have not heard of it 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. Strongly AGREE Moderately agree Slightly agree Slightly disagree Moderately disagree Strongly DISAGREE NA a. I often have to forgo professional activities (e.g., meetings, sabbaticals, conferences) because of personal responsibilities NA b. I often have to forgo personal activities (e.g., school events, community meetings) because of professional responsibilities NA c. Personal responsibilities and commitments have slowed down my career progression NA 48. Have you ever cared for or do you currently care for dependent children?... 1 Yes 2 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 Yes 2 No 7

72 51. Do you currently use or need any childcare services or programs to care for a dependent child?... 1 Yes 2 No SKIP TO Q If you need childcare, would you use any of the following? Yes No a. Campus childcare 1 2 b. Infant/toddler care 1 2 c. Care for school-aged children after school or when school is not in session Have you cared for or do you currently care for one or more dependent persons (elderly, disabled, or chronically ill)?... 1 Yes 2 No 54. Would you have used a spousal hiring program if available at the time you came to UIC?... 1 Yes 2 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 What is your spouse s/partner s current employment status?... 1 Employed full-time 2 Employed part-time 3 Not employed 4 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 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

73 58. Please indicate who performs more than 50% of the following tasks in your household. Respondent Spouse/partner Shared equally by respondent & spouse/partner Hired help Other a. Childcare/dependent care b. Home duties such as cleaning, cooking, laundry c. Home duties such as lawn care, home repair, car care 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 disagree Strongly DISAGREE a. There are too few women faculty in my department b. My department has actively recruited women faculty c. My department has difficulty retaining women faculty d. The climate for women in my department is good e. My department has taken steps to enhance the climate for women f. My department has too few women faculty in leadership positions g. My department has made an effort to promote women faculty into leadership positions 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 Moderately disagree Strongly DISAGREE a. There are too few faculty of color in my department b. My department has actively recruited faculty of color c. My department has difficulty retaining faculty of color d. The climate for faculty of color in my department is good e. My department has taken steps to enhance the climate for faculty of color f. My department has too few faculty of color in leadership positions g. My department has made an effort to promote faculty of color into leadership positions

74 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 Male 2 Female 62. Are you a U.S. citizen or permanent resident?... 1 Yes 2 No 63. What is your race/ethnicity? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY. 1 Caucasian, non Hispanic 2 Underrepresented Minority (African American, Hispanic, Native American/Alaskan Native) 3 Other 64. What is your terminal degree?... 1 Ph.D. 2 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 College of Engineering 2 LAS Natural Sciences (Biological Sciences; Chemistry; Earth & Environmental Sciences; Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Sciences; Physics) 3 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.) 4 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 Yes 2 No THANK YOU for your time! 10

75 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

76 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

77 Coding Scheme for Questions 3, 4, and 6 APPENDIX D Coding Categories for Open-Ended Responses CODING SCHEMA FOR THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS 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

78 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. None 2. Greater publishing ease 3. Delayed tenure 4. Negative consequences on pay 5. 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. To not deviate from the norm (confront stigma) 2. It wasn t necessary 3. Didn t know it was an option 4. Wanted to get it over with Campus Climate Survey D-2