GENDER EQUITY UPDATE June 20/23, 2005 Sponsored by the Gender Equity Program Advisory Committee and...

GENDER EQUITY UPDATE

June 20/23, 2005

Sponsored by the

Gender Equity Program Advisory Committee

and the Offices of the Director and Director of Research

TE

OVERVIEW

• Gender Equity Program Advisory Committee members• Brief history of gender equity efforts at WHOI since

1988• Status report on recommendations from 2000• Recent GEPAC activities• “Chilly Climate” workshop survey results • Plans for the future• Community input

TE

Gender Equity Program Advisory Committee

Continuing Members

Heidi Sosik, Co-chair (Biology)

Tim Eglinton, Co-Chair (MC&G)

Ernie Charette (Facilities)

Marsha Gomes (APO)

Christine Hammond (CIS)

Andone Lavery (AOPE)

Tom Nemmers (Board Relations)

Karen Rauss (Ombuds Office)

Retired/Retiring Members

Kathy Elder (G&G)

Susan Grieve (AOPE)

Marjorie Holland (Marine Ops)

Darlene Ketten (Biology)

Steve Lentz (PO)

Ellyn Montgomery (PO)

Barrie Walden (AOPE/OSS )

Dan Repeta (MC&G)

New Members

Cyndy Chandler (MC&G)

John Farrar (PO JP student)

Greg Hirth (G&G)

Nancy Grumet (MC&G PDF)

Ken Houtler (Ship Ops)

Elizabeth Kujawinski (MC&G)

Mike Purcell (AOPE)

Larry Pratt (PO)

TE

History of gender equity initiatives at WHOI

1987: Creation of independent office for Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action

1988: Equity Climate Assessment Study1999: Release of report on status of women on the faculty in MIT’s School of

Science1999: Gender Equity Review Committee established (S. Humphris, co-Chair; P.

Richardson, co-Chair; A. Bower, M. Grosenbaugh, S. Lentz, J. McDowell, M.K. Tivey)

2000: Gender Equity Review Committee report released2001: Formation of Gender Climate Assessment Advisory Committee (Charge:

provide advice and feedback to the Institution's Ombuds/EEO Officer with regard to the type, scope and manner in which to conduct further assessments of the gender climate at WHOI.)

2002: Retrospective on Progress since 1988 Equity Climate Assessment study. Gender Equity Survey conducted June 2002, Results presented 2003

2003: Pilot “Chilly Climate” workshops2003: Initiation of Visiting Scholars in gender equity2004: Gender Equity Program Advisory Committee

TE

Retrospective on Progress since 1988 Equity Climate Assessment studyConducted by the Gender Climate Assessment Advisory Committee

January, 2002

Selected Conclusions and Recommendations• “Progress has been made in the status, population and influence of women

at WHOI since the 1988 [study]. ...However, most of the recommendations made then are still valid and require consistent attention and additional effort to address.”

• “The notable areas still needing attention and improvement are:

– Appointing a female department chair.

– Attracting/retaining more women on the Scientific Staff, particularly at the senior levels.

– Educating and training supervisors, management, and advisors, especially in the area of discriminatory behaviors.”

TE

Update on progress since 2000 report

• Gender Equity Review Committee produced a report in 2000 addressing equity issues specifically for the Scientific Staff

• Current GEPAC objective:

to conduct a retrospective on progress made since the 2000 Gender Equity Report

• Report included 13 specific recommendations

• For each recommendation, – Assess status

– Identify potential further action

TE

1. WHOI should carefully review the salaries of women scientists to (i) ensure that women are being compensated equitably, (ii) determine why, in 3 out of the 4 ranks, women’s salaries are below those of men, (iii) ensure that women “joiners” are rewarded equitably for their total careers since Ph.D.

2000 Report Recommendations

Recommendation 1 - Salary

Status• Salary equity is an issue that receives on-going attention

across all levels• Inequities documented in 2000 for Scientific Staff were

corrected through salary adjustments and analysis in 2002 confirmed no inequities

• The Compensation Manager in Human Resources reviews all salary recommendations with other incumbents in the job group, specifically checking for any inequities

• Review is also conducted by the Director of Research

Preliminary GEPAC recommendation• Statistical analysis of salaries should be done annually and

results made available to document no recurrent inequities

HS


2. Department Chairs should review the space allocations in those groups identified in this report where women have significantly less space than men, and discuss space needs with the women who fall within those groups. If necessary, space should be reallocated to ensure that women scientists have equitable space to their male colleagues. As new space becomes available, the Department Chairs should ensure that the space needs of women are considered equally to those of men.

Recommendation 2 – Space allocation

Status• Space allocation is a perennial and thorny issue• Each department has procedures for tracking and reporting

space allocation• Assessment of possible gender inequity is an informal part of

this process• Evaluation by GEPAC pending data synthesis

Preliminary GEPAC Recommendation• A formal institution-level review of space allocation should

conducted on a regular basis, with results readily available (e.g., every 3 years repeat the analysis presented in the 2000 Report)

HS


3. WHOI should continue to actively seek qualified women for scientific positions at the Institution, and in particular, a special effort should be made to attract senior women scientists.

4. WHOI should ensure that sufficient mentoring and advocacy of women junior scientists is in place to provide the best possible chance of promotion.

Recommendation 3 – Hiring of women

Status• Priority issue with

Department Chairs and Directorate

• Substantial progress in numbers of women

• Focus on senior hires has not emerged

Open question

Does hiring of senior women merit renewed attention or should focus remain on promotion and retention?

Women on Scientific Staff, 1988 - June 15, 2005

4 57 6 5 4 4 5

7 8 8

11 10 911

68 91

1

1 3 55

7 6

6 5 5

55 7

7

8

7

8

2

3

22

22

2 3

3 2 3

4 5 3

3

5

7

7

11

11

11

1 2

3

3 2 4

5

5

5

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Nu

mb

er

of

wo

me

n

SeniorAssoc. w/ TenureAssoc. w/out TenureAssistant

HS

Women on Scientific Staff, 1988 - June 15, 2005

4 5 7 6 5 4 4 5 7 8 8 11 10 9 11 6 8 91 1 1 3 5 5 7 6 6 5 55 5 7 7

8 7 8

2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 34 5 3 3

5 7 7

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 33 2 4 5 5

5 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Nu

mb

er

of

wo

men


Men on Scientific Staff, 1988 - June 15, 2005

29 34 33 28 2818 19 18 18 20 21 17 20 20 21 22 21 25

12

16 19 24 25

31 3124 24 16 15

1618 16 17 14 14

14

23

21 20 19 2224 19

26 2829 28

28 23 2527 28 27 24

42

47 50 5048

4544 42

4545 48 50

56 5655 54 53 56

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Nu

mb

er

of

men


Total number of Scientific Staff 113 in 1988 148 in 2005

HS

Women on the Scientific Staff 7 in 1988 29 in 2005

Women

Men

Recommendation 4 – Mentoring

Status• Mentoring is a priority issue for Department Chairs and

the Directorate • Department-level mentoring for Scientific Staff has

become more formalized, though practices vary• “Navigating the Tenure Track” (Scientific Staff

handbook) was published in 2001, distributed to all Scientific Staff, and made available from the Director of Research web site

• Institution-wide Mentoring Task Force convened in 2001, successful pilot Mentoring Program initiated in 2003

• Organizing committee and on-going institution-wide Mentoring Program now in place

TE


5. WHOI should identify the issues that are important in recruiting and retaining scientific staff in order to determine whether steps can be taken to increase the attractiveness of WHOI as a workplace for both men and women.

6. WHOI should make every effort to retain women scientists as they progress through the promotion process by (i) making sure women scientists have the necessary resources to do their work, (ii) building critical mass of scientists in areas of research that WHOI women scientists represent, and (iii) recognizing, at the Department Chair and the Directorate levels, important contributions by WHOI women scientists.

Recommendations 5 & 6 – Recruitment and retention

Status• Viewed as a critical issue by Department Chairs and

Directorate• “Navigating the Tenure Track” provides clear guidelines

to everyone• Proactive recruitment efforts are being pursued

– Soliciting applicants, Academic Programs “booth”• More open attention to dual career couples, but still a

difficult issue• WHOI selection process is not a factor in the decline in

representation of women between graduate school and post-doc position

TE

Postdoctoral Scholars, 1995-2005

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Pro

po

rtio

n o

f P

os

tdo

cto

ral

Sc

ho

lars

(%

)

Male Applicants

Male awardees

Female Applicants

Female awardees

Men

Women

TE


2000-2005: 62 men and 34 women completed Postdoctoral Scholar/Fellow appointments;

29% (18) of the men and 20.5% (7) of the women were appointed to the Scientific or Senior Technical Staff;

30% of all Scientific Staff hires were women (compared, for instance, to women being 35% of post-docs)

TE

Scientific Staff hires

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Nu

mb

er

of

hir

es

MenWomen

Open question

Is the selection process for Scientific Staff equitable?

Total men hired : 28

Total women hired: 12


Preliminary GEPAC Recommendations• Annual data should be made available to

a) compare applicant and appointment poolsb) document hiring and retention rates

• A formalized exit interview process, as previously suggested, should be implemented institution-wide

Example from Academic Programs• 1999-2001 exit interviews and recruitment discussions highlighted

dissatisfaction with lack of a parental leave benefit for Postdoctoral Scholars

• In response, a new benefit was put in place in 2002 and has been very well received

TE


7. The WHOI Directorate should establish clear guidelines for the use of bridge support and make sure that the policy is applied uniformly among men and women scientists across all the departments.

Recommendation 7 – Bridge support

Status

• Guidelines on bridge support completed in 2001 and currently published on Director of Research web site

• Addressed in “Navigating the Tenure Track”

• Bridge support is distributed on the basis of need

HS


8. WHOI should carefully review the distribution of “hard money” support among men and women scientists, including distribution among untenured and tenured groups. Although preliminary data indicate that men and women scientists both get about 2-3 months of internal support per year on average, the data may show discrepancies among the different scientific staff levels and departments.


9. Department Chairs should make a concerted effort to ensure that all scientists (i) are aware that discretionary funds are available, (ii) understand the types of activities that are appropriate for requesting discretionary funds, and (iii) know the procedures for requesting them. This is particularly important for women scientists who, in some cases, do not appear to be part of the process by which this information is disseminated.

Recommendations 8 & 9 Hard Money and Discretionary Funds

Status• Distribution of salary support is tracked by the Director of

Research and Academic Programs Offices• Overall evaluation by GEPAC pending data synthesis• In recent years, there is no apparent inequity with respect

to distribution of faculty hours

HS

100%

Institution-wide 2003: Women accounted for 15% of the Scientific Staff

and received 18% of the available faculty hours 2004: Women accounted for 19% of the Scientific Staff

and received 18% of the available faculty hours

Distribution of Faculty Hours in 2004

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Biology MCG G&G AOPE PO MPC

Pro

po

rtio

n t

o/a

s w

om

en (

%) Faculty support hours

Scientific Staff members

Distribution of Faculty Hours in 2003

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Biology MCG G&G AOPE PO MPC

Pro

po

rtio

n t

o/a

s w

om

en (

%) Faculty support hours

Scientific Staff members

HS

Status (cont.)

• Guidelines for distribution of discretionary funds completed in 2001 and currently published on Director of Research web site.

• Access to discretionary support addressed in “Navigating the Tenure Track”

• Department Chairs take a proactive role in equitably promoting awareness about availability of discretionary funds

Preliminary GEPAC Recommendation

• Annual statistics on distribution of hard money and discretionary funds should be made available

Recommendations 8 & 9 Hard money and discretionary funds

HS


10. WHOI should continue to strive to have women represented on both Institution and Departmental Committees in proportion to their population in the scientific staff. Because of the limited number of senior women, achieving that desired goal currently puts an undue burden on those women that are in a position to serve. Senior women who are spending a greater amount of time doing committee work than their male counterparts should receive financial compensation for the additional time taken away from research. Increasing the number of senior women will make proportionate representation easier to accomplish.

Recommendation 10 – Committee load

Status

• Disproportionate committee loads for women appear to be an on-going problem

• Increase in the number of women on the staff is an important part of the long term solution

Open question

• Are new guidelines needed now?

TE


11. WHOI should establish a clear policy on the allocation of salary support to scientific staff participating in Development events.

12. Each department should review its postdoctoral [researchers] on an annual basis to identify potential new appointments (especially of women) to the Scientific Staff.

Recommendation 11 – Development activities

Status• Preliminary data on staff outreach activities for

Development suggest women play a disproportionate role• Further evaluation by GEPAC pending data synthesis• Formal salary support policy in place since 2002

“When staff are asked to participate in outreach activities/events held at WHOI and their participation at the event exceeds 4 hours (not including preparation time), the Development Office will compensate the staff's salary for the amount of time that exceeds 4 hours. For events held off-site, away from WHOI, the Development Office will pay for travel expenses and will compensate the staff's salary for time spent away from campus, up to 8 hours per day.”

TE

Recommendation 11 – Development activities

Open question• Are research funds linked to Development distributed

equitably?– Some preliminary data are available: Over the last five years, gifts

for designated research by specific researchers have involved 13 female PIs and 100 male PIs; i.e., 12% to women during a period when Scientific staff averaged 18% women

Preliminary GEPAC Recommendation • Policy and process by which foundation and private funds

are distributed directly to PIs for sponsored research should made readily available

TE

Recommendation 12 – Post-doc review

Status

• This issue receives considerable attention from Academic Programs and Department Chairs

• Progress report completed in 2003 68% of the women on the

Scientific Staff had come to WHOI as post-docs (44% for men)

• Continues to be an important route for recruitment to the Scientific Staff

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Assistant Assoc w/oTenure

Assoc w/Tenure Senior

Nu

mb

er

of

wo

men

non-PDPD

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Assistant Assoc w/oTenure

Assoc w/Tenure Senior

Nu

mb

er

of

me

n

non-PDPD

Women

Men

HS

Recommendation 12 – Post-doc Review

Status (cont.)

• Formal annual review process is now in place for all post-docs

• Recruitment of women into postdoctoral positions is critical– Academic Programs “booth” and web site may help

– Current selection process is equitable

• Post-doc (and Joint Program student) representative now on GEPAC

HS


13. WHOI should now initiate a study of intangible issues that directly affect the gender climate in the workplace.

Recommendation 13 – Climate assessment

Status

• Survey in 2001 documented certain issues such as “microinequities” that exist throughout the WHOI workforce

• Advisory group (now GEPAC) formed in 2001– Major recent focus on assessing and improving the workplace climate

HS

Recent GEPAC Activities

• Execution of Phase I “Introduction to the Chilly Climate” Workshops (led by Bernice Sandler, 14 separate sessions in 2004)

• Development and distribution of Gender Equity survey (associated with the workshops)

• Development of GEPAC website (http://www.whoi.edu/committees/GEPAC/internal/)

• Third in a series of Visiting Scholars on gender equityDr. Virginia Valian, March 2003Dr. Kathleen Crane, June 2003Prof. Nancy Hopkins, MIT. Dec 2004

• Preliminary discussions on format and content of Phase II workshops

HS

“Introduction to the Chilly Climate” Workshops

Dr. Bernice SandlerSenior Scholar, Women’s Research and Education Institute

"Although most people try to treat everyone fairly, many of us --- men and women alike -- often inadvertently treat women differently in many small ways. For example, women are interrupted more often, receive less eye-contact and are included less in professional interactions… Although the chilly climate certainly includes overtly discriminatory behaviors which are more easily recognized, it is the more subtle behaviors that will be explored in the workshops."

Phase 1

Attendees: 341

Survey return rate: 96% (328)

(152 men, 171 women, 5 no response)

Total (including pilots)

Attendees: 415

Survey return rate: 89%

HS

Workshop SurveyGender Equity Workshop Survey

N.B. Please answer the questions on this page at the start of the workshop With which Department are you affiliated? __________________________________ What is your gender? Male / Female (please circle)

Q#. Rank (please circle)

1. On a scale of 1-5, how familiar are you with what a chilly climate refers to with regard to gender equity? [1 = very familiar; 5 = no idea].

1 2 3 4 5

2. How harmful do you think gender bias is in the workplace? [1 = negligible; 5 = very harmful]

1 2 3 4 5

3. Within the last five years have you experienced disrespectful treatment, intolerance or preferential behavior based on your gender or ethnicity at WHOI? [yes or no]

- if so, how often? [1 = rarely; 5 = very frequently (daily)]

Yes / No

1 2 3 4 5

4. Within the last five years have you witnessed disrespectful treatment, intolerance or preferential behavior based on gender or ethnicity at WHOI? [yes or no]


Yes / No

1 2 3 4 5

5. Is reducing gender inequity an important pursuit for our Institution? [1 = no; 5 = extremely important]

1 2 3 4 5

N.B. Please answer the questions on this page at the end of the workshop:

Q#. Rank (please circle)

6. How beneficial do you feel this workshop was? [1 = not beneficial; 5 = very beneficial].

1 2 3 4 5

7. Did you learn something new about your own behavior? [yes or no] Yes / No

8. How much has your understanding of chilly climate issues changed as a result of the workshop? [1= not at all; 5 = greatly]

1 2 3 4 5

9. How much did your perceptions of the effects of small behaviors change as a result of the workshop? [1= not at all; 5 = greatly]

1 2 3 4 5

10. Do you feel you now have more strategies to address uncomfortable situations? [1 = no; 5 = very much so]

1 2 3 4 5

11. Do you believe your behavior will change as a result of this workshop? [yes or no]

Yes / No

12. How beneficial do you think it would be to participate in a second in-depth workshop? [1= not at all; 5 = greatly]

1 2 3 4 5

Do you have any suggestions to improve this workshop? Do you have any suggestions about content or format of a follow-up workshop?

HS

03-Dec-2004Sessions: 1-14Group: All

1 2 3 4 50

20

40

60

80

100

1. On a scale of 1-5, how familiar are you with what a chilly climate refers to with regard to gender equity? [1 = very familiar; 5 = no idea].]

15%

25%

29%

15% 15%

# of

res

pond

ents

Response

Q1

1 2 3 4 50

50

100


4% 9%

19%

30%

38%

# of

res

pond

ents

Response

Q2

Pre-workshop questions

Q1. On a scale of 1-5, how familiar are you with what a chilly climate refers to with regard to gender equity?[1 = very familiar; 5 = no idea].

TE

Q2. How harmful do you think gender bias is in the workplace? [1 = negligible; 5 = very harmful]


1 2 3 4 50

20

40

60

80

100

1. On a scale of 1-5, how familiar are you with what a chilly climate refers to with regard to gender equity? [1 = very familiar; 5 = no idea].]

15%

25%

29%

15% 15%

# of

res

pond

ents

Response

Q1

1 2 3 4 50

50

100


4% 9%

19%

30%

38%#

of r

espo

nden

ts

Response

Q2

TE

03-Dec-2004Sessions: 1-14Group: Women

N Y0

20

40

60

80

100


56%

44%

# o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Response

Q3

1 2 3 4 50

5

10

15

20

25


31% 29% 31%

7% 3%

# o

f re

spo

nd

ents

Response

Q3b


N Y0

50

100

150

200

250


70%

30%

# of

res

pond

ents

Response

Q3

1 2 3 4 50

10

20

30


34%

28% 28%

7%

2%

# of

res

pond

ents

Response

Q3b

Women only

Q3. Within the last five years have you experienced disrespectful treatment, intolerance or preferential behavior based on your gender or ethnicity at WHOI? [yes or no]


Women only

TE


1 2 3 4 50

50

100

150


3% 5%

21% 23%

48%#

of r

espo

nden

ts

Response

Q5

1 2 3 4 50

50

100

6. How beneficial do you feel this workshop was? [1 = not beneficial; 5 = very beneficial]

2%

10%

25%

38%

25%

# of

res

pond

ents

Response

Q6

Q5. Is reducing gender inequity an important pursuit for our Institution? [1 = no; 5 = extremely important]

TE

Post-workshop questions


1 2 3 4 50

50

100

150


3% 5%

21% 23%

48%

# of

res

pond

ents

Response

Q5

1 2 3 4 50

50

100

6. How beneficial do you feel this workshop was? [1 = not beneficial; 5 = very beneficial]

2%

10%

25%

38%

25%

# of

res

pond

ents

Response

Q6

Q6. How beneficial do you feel this workshop was?[1 = not beneficial; 5 = very beneficial].

HS

Q7. Did you learn something new about your own behavior? [yes or no]


N Y0

50

100

150

200

250

7. Did you learn something new about your own behavior? [yes or no]

27%

73%#

of r

espo

nden

ts

Response

Q7

1 2 3 4 50

50

100

Response

# of

res

pond

ents

Q8

2%

11%

37%33%

18%

8. How much has your understanding of chilly climate issues changed as a result of the workshop? [1= not at all; 5 = greatly]

6%

18%

36%

28%

12%

Start unfamiliar(Q1: >2) Start familiar(Q1: <=2)

HS

Q10. Do you feel you now have more strategies to address uncomfortable situations?[1 = no; 5 = very much so]


1 2 3 4 50

50

100

9. How much did your perceptions of the effects of small behaviors change as a result of the workshop? [1= not at all; 5 = greatly]

6%

16%

33% 34%

12%

# of

res

pond

ents

Response

Q9

1 2 3 4 50

50

100

150

10. Do you feel you now have more strategies to address uncomfortable situations? [1 = no; 5 = very much so]

6%

12%

25%

39%

18%

# of

res

pond

ents

Response

Q10

HS


N Y0

50

100

150

200

250


33%

67%

# of

res

pond

ents

Response

Q11

1 2 3 4 50

50

100


14%18%

37%

23%

9%# of

res

pond

ents

Response

Q12

Q11. Do you believe your behavior will change as a result of this workshop? [yes or no]

HS


N Y0

50

100

150

200

250


33%

67%

# of

res

pond

ents

Response

Q11

1 2 3 4 50

50

100


14%18%

37%

23%

9%# of

res

pond

ents

Response

Q12

Q12. How beneficial do you think it would be to participate in a second in-depth workshop? [1= not at all; 5 = greatly]

HS

Selected Comments• “There are compelling parallels between gender inequities and other kinds of

inequities – based on race, age, class, education etc. It might be helpful for each participant to submit one story (200-300 words max) before a workshop, and have those as the basis of discussion, anonymously” (male, group leader).

• “I think it is wonderful for the institution to be educating its staff on this kind of subconscious activity” (female).

• “Address more specifically to science environment now that the general has been addressed” (female).

• “Please don’t waste any more employees’ time with this non-issue. Does WHOI stand to lose some funding or accreditation if these sessions aren’t held?” (male).

• “Spent majority of time on man’s actions against women. None on what women do to me” (male).

• “This workshop should be mandatory for everyone. Otherwise not much change will be made” (female student).

• “I think any PI with graduate students should be required to take this session” (female student).

TE

Plans for the Future

• Final offering of Phase 1 workshops• Phase II workshops

– Customized case studies/strategies• Initiation of workshops for new employees• Enhanced GEPAC website with interface for

anonymous community input (stay tuned)• Increased attention on equity issues for the WHOI

community beyond the Scientific Staff

TE

Total employees 1988 2001 2005

835 931 1024 23% increase

0

50

100

150

200

Num

ber

of e

mpl

oyee

sM

anag

emen

t & E

xem

pt A

dmin

.N

on-

Exe

mpt

Adm

in. S

taff

Sci

enti

fic

Sta

ff (

tenu

re tr

ack)

Oth

er S

cien

tifi

c S

taff

Tec

hnic

al S

taff

(ex

empt

)N

on-E

xem

pt R

esea

rch

Sta

ffM

arin

e C

rew

Pos

tdoc

Sch

olar

s &

Fel

low

sJo

int P

rogr

am S

tude

nts

SS

& M

inor

ity F

ello

ws

198820012005

HS

Total women 1988 2001 2005 260 355 406 56% increase

0

50

100

Num

ber

of w

omen

Man

agem

ent &

Exe

mpt

Adm

in.

Non

- E

xem

pt A

dmin

. Sta

ffS

cien

tifi

c S

taff

(te

nure

trac

k)O

ther

Sci

enti

fic

Sta

ffT

echn

ical

Sta

ff (

exem

pt)

Non

-Exe

mpt

Res

earc

h S

taff

Mar

ine

Cre

wP

ostd

oc S

chol

ars

& F

ello

ws

Join

t Pro

gram

Stu

dent

sS

S &

Min

ority

Fel

low

s

198820012005

HS

Proportion women 1988 2001 2005 31% 38% 40%

0

20

40

60

80

Pro

port

ion

wom

en (

%)

Man

agem

ent &

Exe

mpt

Adm

in.

Non

- E

xem

pt A

dmin

. Sta

ffS

cien

tifi

c S

taff

(te

nure

trac

k)O

ther

Sci

enti

fic

Sta

ffT

echn

ical

Sta

ff (

exem

pt)

Non

-Exe

mpt

Res

earc

h S

taff

Mar

ine

Cre

wP

ostd

oc S

chol

ars

& F

ello

ws

Join

t Pro

gram

Stu

dent

sS

S &

Min

ority

Fel

low

s

198820012005

HS

GENDER EQUITY UPDATE June 20/23, 2005 Sponsored by the Gender Equity Program Advisory Committee and...

Documents

Transcript of GENDER EQUITY UPDATE June 20/23, 2005 Sponsored by the Gender Equity Program Advisory Committee and...