Georgia Tech-NSF ADVANCE Georgia Tech-NSF ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Institutional Transformation

ProgramProgram

Mary Lynn Realff, Director and Co-PI

March 31, 2005 

NSF ADVANCE at Ga TechNSF ADVANCE at Ga Tech

 

NSF’s Goal

The goal of the NSF ADVANCE: Institutional Transformation Program is to increase the representation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers, thereby contributing to the development of a more diverse science and engineering workforce.

Ga Tech’s Objective

The NSF ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Program at Georgia Tech takes an integrated approach to institutional factors that supports the full participation and advancement of women, and provides a model of best practices in academic science and engineering.

Program InitiativesProgram Initiatives

 

• Inter-college network of professorships• Collect and use resource data for equity

and development of best practices• Hold annual retreats of women in science &

engineering, school chairs, deans, Provost• Strengthen and extend the scope & impact

of family-friendly policies• Institutionalize training in evaluation for

P&T committees

A Year in ReviewA Year in Review• GT hosted a national conference

250 participants

• Networks were further developed through Professorships and cross college activities– Research productivity and performance– Grant writing workshops– Mentoring– Career coaching– Work/family ‘balance’– WST/ADVANCE co-sponsored events

• Dissemination of policies/procedures– Active service modified duties– ADEPT instrument developed and available on

web became part of formal RPT process

• Interactive learning tool• Identification of institute best practices

Awareness ofDecisions in Evaluating Promotion & Tenure

• Scholarship on bias• GT ADVANCE research & surveys• PTAC report & surveys

GT Promotion and Tenure ADVANCE Committee

Significant Accomplishment: ADEPTSignificant Accomplishment: ADEPT

Computer Instrument to Reduce Bias in Evaluation

• Fictional P&T case studies• Interactive P&T meeting

A Year in ReviewA Year in Review

• Research expanded to other universities and more in-depth study of GT female faculty

• Third year external review of the program• First female Regents Professor

Female Faculty by RankFemale Faculty by Rank

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

97-98 00-01 03-04 Current

Assistant Professor Associate ProfessorProfessor Regents Professor

49%49% 38

%38%

33%33%

42%42%

33%33% 40

%40%

27%27%

21%21%

18%18%

30%30%

40%40%

29%29%

1%1%

Female Faculty Flux ChartFemale Faculty Flux Chart

 

41 39 42 44 43

51 5255 55 57

28 33

3842 42

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Academic Year

Regents Professor

Professor

Associate Professor

Assistant Professor

120124

135142 144

Female Faculty Flux ChartFemale Faculty Flux Chart

 

41 39 42 44 43

51 5255 55 57

28 33

3842 42

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Academic Year

Regents Professor

Professor

Associate Professor

Assistant Professor

4

3

7

63

6 3

4 3

6

1

120124

135142 144

Up -

Promotions

1

Female Faculty Flux ChartFemale Faculty Flux Chart

 

41 39 42 44 43

51 5255 55 57

28 33

3842 42

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Academic Year

Regents Professor

Professor

Associate Professor

Assistant Professor

49

116

11

62

33

4

11

2

31

4

3

7

6

3

6 3

4 3

6

1

120124

135142 144

In - Hires

Out -

Retirements, Resignations,Terminations

Up -

Promotions

1

Female Faculty Flux ChartFemale Faculty Flux Chart

 

41 39 42 44 43

51 5255 55 57

28 33

3842 42

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Academic Year

Regents Professor

Professor

Associate Professor

Assistant Professor

49 4

1

12

6 111 6

62 2

3 33 2

4 5

1

1 22

3 21 3

4

3

7

6

3

6 3

4 3

6

1

120124

135142 144

In - Hires

Out -

Retirements, Resignations,Terminations

Up -

Promotions

1

1

1

Female Faculty Flux ChartFemale Faculty Flux Chart

 

41 39 42 44 43

51 5255 55 57

28 33

3842 42

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Academic Year

Regents Professor

Professor

Associate Professor

Assistant Professor

4 0/19 0/4

11 1/16 0/1

11 1/5

6 0/02 0/2

3 1/23 0/2

4 0/5

1 1/0

1 0/22 0/0

3 0/21 1/2

4

3

7

6

3

6 3

4 3

6

1

120124

135142 144

In - Hires

Out -

Retirements/ Resignations+Terminations

Up -

Promotions

1

133 139 152 161 153

193 194 191 192 192

330 331 336357 363

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Regents Professor

Professor

Associate Professor

Assistant Professor

38 0/10

32 1/1031 0/8

32 0/8 15 0/6

8 2/19 5/8

12 7/614 1/8

6 2/3

9 7/8

11 13/4

17 17/5

22 12/66 11/5

15

1685695

712744 743

In -

Hires

Out -

Retirements/ Resignations+Terminations

Up -

Promotions

18

2 22

1

15

10

10

12

15

19

17

18

1/ 0

1/0

Male Faculty Flux ChartMale Faculty Flux Chart

Collaboratively Set Expectations and Create Solutions

Advantages– People give you better ideas when they know you are going to

implement them– People “buy in” when they have contributed to the solution– Format gives a good balance of “complaining” with generation

of “actions”

Outcomes– Faculty and administrators develop solutions together– Group interaction builds networks & leverages best practices

across campus

Implement their recommendations

Conference Breakout groups

Identify best practicesIdentify barriers to successMake recommendations

Feedback to next year

We need your feedbackWe need your feedback

 

• Conference survey• Participation in discussion break out

groups• Experience with ADEPT instrument

Program InitiativesProgram Initiatives

 

• Inter-college network of professorships• Collect and use resource data for equity

and development of best practices• Hold annual retreats of women in science &

engineering, school chairs, deans, Provost• Strengthen and extend the scope & impact

of family-friendly policies• Institutionalize training in evaluation for

P&T committees