UC Davis ADVANCE: Institutional Transformation to Build ... · closely with Dr. Chang to develop...

UC Davis ADVANCE: Institutional Transformation to Build and Sustain a Diverse Community of Innovative STEM Scholars

Year 2 Midterm Report

PROGRAM SUMMARY

During the first 6 months of Year 2 (September, 2013 – February, 2014), UC Davis ADVANCE has continued to make progress on both the program infrastructure and all five of the initiatives that comprise the program. Members of the program leadership team also engaged in activities aimed at informing and engaging the university community about our program, and connecting with the state and national ADVANCE community and with networks that serve our target populations: women, and particularly Latinas, in STEM fields.

PROGRAM INFRASTRUCTURE

Management Team: To accelerate implementation of UC Davis ADVANCE program initiatives, several changes to the management team have been made during this reporting period. Both the Faculty Director and Program Coordinator roles have been shifted to a faculty team familiar with interdisciplinary project management across the STEM administrative units at UC Davis. Dr. Karen McDonald, Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, will now be serving as the Faculty Director and Dr. Denneal Jamison-McClung will be serving as Program Coordinator. Their previous work on a multi-institutional, interdisciplinary IGERT (http://create-igert.ucdavis.edu/) will inform management of the ADVANCE program. Prof. Kim Shauman will be continuing as a key member of the management team, taking on the role of Associate Faculty Director, in addition to remaining active in the leadership team as a Co-PI and as Co-Director of the Inclusive Campus Climate Initiative. In October 2013, the new management team hired a full-time Program Assistant, Ms. Sophie Barbu, to facilitate the UC Davis ADVANCE interface with campus infrastructure and day-to-day program office work. In addition to the core management team, UC Davis ADVANCE has budget analyst, human resources, purchasing and institutional data analyst management support within the College of Engineering. The individuals responsible for these management components meet regularly with the management team.

Project Leadership: The project leadership, including the PI, Co-PIs, Management Team and Initiative Co-Directors meet regularly to update the group on project goals and accomplishments. All committees and internal and external advisory boards are populated with actively participating members. Leadership meetings and ADVANCE events with a majority of the leadership and management team in attendance during this reporting period include the following:

• October 9th – Leadership Team and External Evaluator Meeting with Dr. Mariko Chang • October 25th – UC San Diego ADVANCE PAID Roundtable (PI – Linda Katehi, Faculty Director – Karen

McDonald, Program Coordinator – Denneal Jamison-McClung, Initiative Directors – Linda Bisson,

UC Davis ADVANCE, Year 2 Interim Report page 1

http://create-igert.ucdavis.edu/

Susan Rivera, Marylou de Leon Siantz, UC Davis Administrators and Faculty – Trish Berger, John Harada, Bruce Hartsough, Jan Hopmans, Phil Kass, John Pascoe, Binnie Singh, Mani Tripathi)

• November 7th – All initiative updates and focused report by CAMPOS Director Mary Lou de Leon Siantz

• November 20th – All initiative updates and focused report by Inclusive Campus Climate/STEAD Committee trip to UM

• December 2nd – Women in Leadership Panel Discussion at UC Davis (PI – Linda Katehi and Co-PI Maureen Stanton participating as panelists)

Currently Scheduled for this Reporting Period (Thru Feb 2014):

• December 11th – All initiative updates and focused report by Policy and Practices Review Committee • December 17th – All initiative updates and focused report by Co-PI/Vice Provost Maureen Stanton on

the Academic Affairs Search Committee training

Evaluation Team: The ADVANCE internal evaluation team is composed of UC Davis Center for Education and Evaluation Services (CEES) personnel, Terry Westover and Lisa Sullivan. Dr. Mariko Chang (http://www.mariko-chang.com/ ) joined the evaluation team as external evaluator of the UC Davis ADVANCE Program (replacing Daryl Smith and Refugio Rochin). The internal evaluation team is working closely with Dr. Chang to develop and implement a comprehensive evaluation plan for the UC Davis ADVANCE program. Dr. Chang made a site visit to UC Davis on October 9th to meet with the ADVANCE program leadership, management team and Initiative Co-Directors. The goals of the site visit were to finalize the Initiative-specific logic models and evaluation needs, identify roles and responsibility division between the internal and external evaluation teams, to identify looming challenges and to outline milestones for the upcoming 3rd year NSF site visit. As an outcome of Dr. Chang’s visit and ongoing work by the internal evaluation team, we have logic models in place and have aligned project goals with the ADVANCE “Theory of Change”.

Project Evaluation meetings that took place during this reporting period include:

• September 10th – Internal Evaluation and the CAMPOS Initiative (Terry Westover, Lisa Sullivan and Marylou de Leon Siantz)

• October 9th – External Site Visit by Mariko Chang o 9-10am (Internal Evaluators & Management: Karen McDonald, Kim Shauman, Denneal

Jamison-McClung, Terry Westover, Lisa Sullivan) o 10-11am (Co-Directors: JoAnne Engebrecht, Carol Erickson, Kim Shauman, also Internal

Evaluators Terry Westover and Lisa Sullivan) o 11-12pm (Researchers: Yvette Flores, Laura Grindstaff, Kim Shauman, also Internal Evaluators

Terry Westover and Lisa Sullivan) o 12-1pm (Internal Evaluators Working Lunch: Terry Westover, Lisa Sullivan) o 1-1:15pm (Program Coordinator: Denneal Jamison-McClung) o 1:30-2pm Open


o 2-3pm (Co-Directors: Linda Bisson, Jonathan Eisen, Marylou de Leon Siantz, Co-PIs: Kim Shauman, Ray Rodriguez, also Internal Evaluators: Terry Westover and Lisa Sullivan, Faculty Director: Karen McDonald)

o 3-4pm (Project Leadership: PI - Linda Katehi; Co-PIs - Mau Stanton, Kim Shauman, Faculty Director – Karen McDonald, PC – Denneal Jamison-McClung, CAMPOS Director – Mary Lou de Leon Siantz)

o 4-5pm Work Time in ADVANCE Offices o 5-5:30pm (Internal Evaluators: Terry Westover and Lisa Sullivan) Debrief

• October 18th – Meeting of Internal Evaluators with Management Team (Terry Westover, Lisa Sullivan,

Karen McDonald, Denneal Jamison-McClung, Kim Shauman)

• November 21st - Internal and External Evaluators Conference Call (Terry Westover, Lisa Sullivan, Mariko Chang, Kim Shauman, Denneal Jamison-McClung – discussion Theory of Change)

Website: The new faculty director, program coordinator, program assistant and CAMPOS director participated in a two hour offsite training workshop with the website management firm, Digital Deployment, on November 14th. Launched on April 20, 2013, the program website (http://ucd- advance.ucdavis.edu) utility will be enhanced by a blog and connection to social media platforms (LinkedIn and Twitter) this reporting period. Additional quarterly training meetings will be offered to ADVANCE program faculty and personnel, with focus on using the website as a hub for dissemination of program materials and communication across the Initiatives, as well as to external groups (on and off-campus).

Website Development meetings that took place during this reporting period include:

• November 12th – Internal review of website usage and functionality (Kim Shauman, Karen McDonald, Denneal Jamison-McClung and Sophie Barbu)

• November 14th – Digital Deployment website training for Management Team (Karen McDonald, Marylou de Leon Siantz, Denneal Jamison-McClung and Sophie Barbu)

ENGAGING THE UC DAVIS COMMUNITY

The UC Davis ADVANCE Leadership co-sponsored the final panel discussion of the Women in Leadership campus seminar series, with PI Linda Katehi and Co-PI Maureen Stanton serving as two of the distinguished panelists. The Women in Leadership seminar series was organized and hosted by two enterprising young women (doctoral students) in the UC Davis Department of Biomedical Engineering (Nicole Chaffee and Jeni Lee). Throughout the academic quarter the weekly seminar has focused on global human rights issues and educational attainment for women in STEM, engaging members of the campus community and professional women in the region.

In addition to UC Davis ADVANCE leadership, the culminating panel discussion on December 2nd at the


http://ucd-/

UC Davis Conference Center featured well-known female scientists and entrepreneurs: Meg Arnold, CEO of the Sacramento Regional Technology Alliance (SARTA); Constance McKee, President and CEO of Manzanita Pharmaceuticals; Lois Wolk, California State Senator; and Michele Wong, CEO of Synergex and CleanWorld. Of the six panelists, four have STEM degrees and the others work closely with STEM professionals in developing STEM-related industries in the region. The panel addressed questions of importance to the UC Davis ADVANCE program, including rewards and challenges for women in leadership roles, lack of critical mass in the workplace, strategies to encourage junior level women to pursue leadership roles, and the social and economic benefits of having more women in leadership positions. The event was publicized in local news media and garnered the attendance of ~120- local scientists, campus and community members.

Events and Activities to Engage the UC Davis Community:

• October 9, 16, 23, 30; Nov 6, 13; December 2, 2013 – Women in Leadership seminar series and Panel Discussion (PI Linda Katehi, Co-PI Maureen Stanton, PC – Denneal Jamison-McClung)

ENGAGING THE GREATER SACRAMENTO REGION

NSF Career Life Balance Program Supplemental Funding Award – Expansion of UC Davis Partner Opportunities Program:

The ADVANCE Program has been working with Angela McNerney, President and CEO of Tech Valley Connect, to significantly expand the existing UC Davis Partner Opportunities Program for new faculty hires with the goal of improving retention and diversity among STEM faculty at UC Davis. The Associate Director Kim Shauman is working with Binnie Singh, Assistant Vice Provost – Academic Affairs and in consultation with Angela McNerney to build a regional consortium that includes major employers in the Davis-Sacramento area across all employment sectors in order to facilitate job placement of faculty spouses and support cultural assimilation of faculty families (when needed). On November 13-14th, President Angela McNerney visited UC Davis and presented the proposal to ADVANCE program leadership. (See uploaded Agenda for this visit.)

• October 23rd – Tech Valley Connect visit preparation meeting (Kim Shauman, Binnie Singh) • November 6th – Tech Valley Connect Project meetings (Kim Shauman, Binnie Singh, Karl Engelbach) • November 14-15th – UC Davis seminar and meetings with Angela McNerney, Tech Valley Connect • November 25th – Meeting with UC Davis Chief Counsel Jacob Appelsmith (Kim Shauman, Binnie Singh,

Angela McNerney) • December 2nd – Meeting with UC Davis Assistant Chancellor for Strategic Communications Luanne

Lawrence (Kim Shauman, Binnie Singh, Angela McNerney)


ENGAGING WITH THE STATE AND NATIONAL COMMUNITIES FOCUSED ON EQUITY IN STEM

Several of the UC Davis ADVANCE Leadership, Management Team and Initiative Directors have engaged in recent regional and national events focused on equity and diversity in STEM. Program Coordinator Denneal Jamison-McClung has joined the AIM network and hosted a booth at the Expanding Your Horizons science conference for middle school girls in October. Faculty Director Karen McDonald attended the 2013 SACNAS annual meeting on October 7th (Co-PI Ray Rodriguez also attended the SACNAS conference and gave a keynote address on October 13th), traveling on to the University of Texas Pan Am ADVANCE meeting on October 8th. Also in attendance at UT-PanAm meeting were UC Davis ADVANCE Co-PIs Maureen Stanton and Adela de la Torre, CAMPOS Director Mary Lou de Leon Siantz.

Events and Activities Focused on Equity in STEM:

• October 2-5th – Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing (Nina Amenta) • October 3-6th – SACNAS National Conference (Karen McDonald, Ray Rodriguez) • October 7th – UC Davis ADVANCE site visit/conference participation at University of Texas – PanAm

ADVANCE (Maureen Stanton, Karen McDonald, Adela de la Torre, Marylou de Leon Siantz) • October 12th – Expanding Your Horizons Conference at Sacramento State University (PC – Denneal

Jamison-McClung) • October 25th – UC San Diego ADVANCE PAID Roundtable “Evaluating and Rewarding Contributions to

Diversity in Hiring and Academic Review” (PI – Linda Katehi, Faculty Director – Karen McDonald, Program Coordinator – Denneal Jamison-McClung, Initiative Directors – Linda Bisson, Susan Rivera, Marylou de Leon Siantz, UC Davis Administrators and Faculty – Trish Berger, John Harada, Bruce Hartsough, Jan Hopmans, Phil Kass, John Pascoe, Binnie Singh, Mani Tripathi)

• November 8th – Inclusive Campus Climate/STEAD Committee visit to the University of Michigan ADVANCE program and attendance at a “Strategies and Tactics for Recruiting to Improve Diversity and Excellence (STRIDE)” Workshop (Co-Directors Kim Shauman, Susan Rivera, Committee members Steve Athanases, Phil Kass, Manuel Calderón de la Barca Sánchez, Leticia Saucedo, Lisa Tell)

PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

UC Davis ADVANCE comprises 5 initiatives: CAMPOS, Inclusive Campus Climate/STEAD, Policies and Practices Review, Mentorship and Networking, and Research and Evaluation. Each initiative is led by a director or two co-directors, along with a committee of faculty members drawn from STEM fields. During this reporting period, there have been changes to the composition and leadership of each committee. Active members are listed in the sections that follow. Each Initiative Committee has been meeting regularly (~ once per month or more often) and working toward achieving the programmatic goals outlined at the close of Year 1. All Initiative Committee meetings are attended by the Program Coordinator and/or the Program Assistant to capture the meeting minutes, In addition, the Program Coordinator will attend each of the five initiative meetings to identify synergies between the ADVANCE Initiatives and develop cohesive communication and planning strategies for UC Davis ADVANCE.


Center for the Advancement of Multicultural Perspectives on Science (CAMPOS) Initiative:

Founding Director, Dr. Mary Lou de Leon Siantz and CAMPOS committee members form an interdisciplinary group of UC Davis STEM faculty (Committee members: Kent Pinkerton, Susan Kauzlarich and Julie Sutcliffe).

During this reporting period, Director de Leon Siantz has been working with Provost Ralph Hexter, Vice-Provost Maureen Stanton, and Faculty Director Karen McDonald to identify faculty recruitment and hiring strategies that will facilitate the mission of the UC Davis ADVANCE program and the CAMPOS Initiative, while syncing with campus hiring policies and procedural norms. A “Blue Print for Action” was presented to the UC Davis Council of Deans on November 13, 2013, including potential CAMPOS strategies for recruitment and hiring (opportunistic, programmatic and target of excellence), as well as, plans for ongoing mentorship, retention and promotion of CAMPOS faculty once on campus. There has been significant interest from Deans and Department Chairs in the CAMPOS hiring initiative and preliminary discussions for near-term hires from current candidate search pools have occurred. At the same time, CAMPOS is working to develop a long-term, “programmatic” approach to attracting diverse candidates in upcoming STEM faculty searches.

Currently, Director de Leon Siantz is scheduling individual meetings with each of the academic deans that hire STEM faculty within their respective Schools and Colleges in order to discuss the hiring initiative in detail and to identify practices that will facilitate implementation across these administrative units. Director de Leon Siantz will meet with deans from the following UC Davis Schools and Colleges in Year 2: the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences; the College of Biological Sciences; the College of Engineering; the Division of Mathematical and Physical Sciences within the College of Letters and Sciences; the Division of Social Sciences within the College of Letters and Sciences; the School of Education (since there are sometimes joint appointments between faculty in the School of Education and MPS); the School of Medicine; the School of Nursing; and the School of Veterinary Medicine.

While connections to the campus deans are being solidified, CAMPOS is moving ahead in raising awareness of the CAMPOS hiring initiative and building a sense of community through an upcoming informal networking event. CAMPOS will host a Holiday Tamalada on December 14th, reaching out to the Latina/o STEM faculty community currently on campus, as well as ADVANCE program participants.

CAMPOS Initiative Meetings this reporting period:

• October 17th – CAMPOS Meeting (Marylou de Leon Siantz, Karen McDonald, Denneal Jamison-McClung)

• November 7th – Leadership Meeting: All initiative updates and report by CAMPOS Director Mary Lou de Leon Siantz

• November 13th – Presentation to the UC Davis Council of Deans (Mary Lou de Leon Siantz, Maureen Stanton)



• December 6th – CAMPOS Meeting with Dr. Ladson Hinton, Director of the Latino Aging Research Resource Center (LARRC) (Karen McDonald, Marylou de Leon Siantz, Dr. Ladson Hinton, Sophie Barbu)

• December 18th – CAMPOS Meeting with School of Vet Med Dean (Marylou de Leon Siantz, VetMed Exec Assoc Dean John Pascoe, Personnel Manager Cherie Felsch)

Inclusive Campus Climate/Strength Through Equity and Diversity (STEAD) Initiative:

The Inclusive Campus Climate Initiative/STEAD committee meets twice a month and has a strong focus on the development of a faculty-led training program that will ultimately be required of all UC Davis faculty that serve on faculty search and interview committees. The STEAD workshops in development will be modeled on the successful University of Michigan program, Strategies and Tactics for Recruiting to Improve Diversity and Excellence (STRIDE). The goals of both programs are to make faculty aware of implicit biases (their own and others), and to identify/change biased recruitment and hiring practices to be more inclusive, broaden applicant pools, and ultimately enhance the excellence and diversity of faculty job candidates.

Training for members of faculty recruitment committees

Co-PI and Vice Provost-Academic Affairs Maureen Stanton, Co-PI Kim Shauman, and staff from the Vice Provost-Academic Affairs developed a presentation for a workshop to which all members of faculty recruitment committees were strongly encouraged to attend. The presentation was delivered by Maureen Stanton and staff from her office and focused on the importance of increasing diversity in hiring, the benefits of diversity for innovation, and the impact of implicit bias on the evaluation process. A total of 3 workshops were held between September and November and a fourth is scheduled for January; 224 faculty attended the fall quarter workshops. The workshops were evaluated positively by faculty participants: >90% of attendees rated the workshops as “useful” or “very useful.” (See the uploaded presentation slides)

Presentations to Campus Stakeholders

Co-PI and Associate Director Kim Shauman made a presentation entitled “Implicit Bias and its Impact on Diversity” at a retreat (on September 29, 2013) of the Council of Deans and Vice Chancellors that focused on all aspect of diversity on campus. (See the uploaded presentation slides)

Development of STEAD

ADVANCE STEAD committee members have been in communication with the UM STRIDE program faculty throughout the current reporting period, gathering information to support the development of a similar UC Davis STEAD workshop. To immerse the committee in the STRIDE experience, Co-Directors Susan Rivera and Kim Shauman organized a trip to UM on November 8th. Accompanying the Co-Directors were


committee members Steve Athanases, Manuel Calderón de la Barca Sánchez, Leticia Saucedo and Lisa Tell, as well as UC Davis administrator Phil Kass. The group took part in an actual STRIDE workshop and met with deans and administrators to gather advice and best practices that may be useful for implementation at UC Davis. Upon their return, the STEAD committee summarized their findings and presented them to the ADVANCE Leadership. At the last STEAD committee meeting, a clear timeline for development and launch of a UC Davis faculty training program was shared with the group (Development of materials through March 2014, Workshop practice in April 2014, Beta-test in May 2014).

Proposed Timeline for STEAD Committee Activities in YEAR 2

• Nov 21: Debrief about U of M visit, map out schedule for rest of year • Dec 5: Block out the outline, topics, timing, and activities of our workshop • Jan 9 Part 1 of workshop: read background materials, decide final content • Jan 23 Part 1 of workshop: finalize slides • Feb 13 Part 2 of workshop: read background materials, decide final content • Feb 27 Part 2 of workshop: finalize slides • Mar 13 Part 3 of workshop: read background materials, decide final content • Mar 27 Part 3 of workshop: finalize slides • April 10 First workshop practice • April 17 Second workshop practice • May 8 First workshop run-through (audience TBD) • May 22 Second workshop run-through (audience TBD)

STEAD meetings and activities held during this reporting period include:

• October 3rd - Inclusive Campus Climate/STEAD Committee (Susan Rivera, Kim Shauman, Tom Famula, Manuel Calderon de la Barca Sanchez, Louise Kellogg, Mitch Singer, Kathy Ferrara, Steven Athanases, Leticia Saucedo, Lisa Tell)

• October 24th – Inclusive Campus Climate/STEAD Committee (Co-Directors Susan Rivera, Kim Shauman, Committee members Kathy Ferrara, Louise Kellogg, Karen McDonald, Manuel Calderon de la Barca Sanchez, Leticia Saucedo, Mitchell Singer, Lisa Tell, Sophie Barbu – Note taker)

• November 8th – Inclusive Campus Climate/STEAD Committee visit to the University of Michigan ADVANCE program and attendance at a “Strategies and Tactics for Recruiting to Improve Diversity and Excellence (STRIDE)” Workshop (Co-Directors Kim Shauman, Susan Rivera, Committee members Steve Athanases, Phil Kass, Manuel Calderón de la Barca Sánchez, Leticia Saucedo, Lisa Tell)

• November 20th – Leadership Meeting presentation by Co-Directors Susan Rivera and Kim Shauman - Inclusive Campus Climate/STEAD Committee update and report on trip to UM STRIDE November 21st – STEAD Committee Update on STRIDE Workshop visit and take-homes (Co-Directors Susan Rivera, Kim Shauman; Committee members Tom Famula, Mitch Singer, Kathy Ferrara, Lisa Tell, Louise Kellogg, Leticia Saucedo)

Currently scheduled for this Reporting Period (Thru Feb 2014):


• December 5th – Inclusive Campus Climate/STEAD Committee

UC ADVANCE PAID Roundtable Planning: The UC Davis ADVANCE program will host the final UC ADVANCE PAID Roundtable on April 23, 2014, “Workplace Climate: Assessments and Interventions to Improve Diversity Among STEM Faculty”. Members of the local planning committee include Kim Shauman, Karen McDonald, Mau Stanton, Denneal Jamison-McClung, Linda Bisson, Susan Rivera and Amparo Villablanca).

Meetings held this reporting period:

• September 27th – Management Meeting and UC ADVANCE PAID Roundtable discussion (Kim Shauman, Karen McDonald, Denneal Jamison-McClung)

• October 8th – April 23rd Roundtable Planning Meeting (Kim Shauman, Denneal Jamison-McClung, Yuri Rodriguez at Mondavi Center, UC Davis)

• October 14th –UCSD Roundtable Preparation and “Save the Date” flier draft for April 23rd Roundtable at UC Davis (Kim Shauman, Karen McDonald, Denneal Jamison-McClung, Linda Bisson, Susan Rivera, Maureen Stanton, Amparo Villablanca)


• December 9th – UC ADVANCE PAID Planning Committee Teleconference (UC Davis - Maureen Stanton; Karen McDonald; Kim Shauman; Susan Rivera; Linda Bisson; Amparo Villablanca; Denneal Jamison-McClung; Sophie Barbu | UC ADVANCE PAID - Susan Carlson; Nancy Tanaka; Gina Durrin; Matthew Xavier; Amy K. Lee; Jennifer Lipscomb)

Mentorship and Networking Initiative:

Co-Directors JoAnne Engebrecht and Carol Erickson are leading planning efforts for an ADVANCE STEM Faculty Networking Reception to be held on February 10th, 2014 at UC Davis. The program will focus on introducing junior faculty to mentorship resources on campus and on connecting STEM faculty across cohorts (assistant, associate and full professors). The intention is for the event to become an annual gathering in support of the STEM faculty network on campus.

In addition to the annual Mentorship & Networking event, the committee is developing “MentorNet”-like framework to be deployed through the UC Davis ADVANCE website. The committee is currently working to outline mentorship guidelines and suggested profile components, in preparation for mentor recruitment effort. Online resources for “best-practices” for faculty mentors and mentees will accompany the mentor profile database.

Development of an ADVANCE Mentorship Workshop format is ongoing. In September, Co-Directors


Engebrecht and Erickson met with Judith Turgeon, Director of the UC Davis Medical Center Mentoring Academy to discuss best practices and observe a mentoring workshop.

Mentorship & Networking meetings this reporting period:

• September 17th – Mentorship & Networking Committee (JoAnne Engebrecht, Carol Erickson, Judith Turgeon – Director of the Mentoring Academy at the UC Davis Medical Center (UCDMC))

• November 1st – Mentorship and Networking Committee (planning Feb 10th Faculty Networking Event) (Co-Directors – JoAnne Engebrecht, Carol Erickson; Committee members – Chen-Nee Chuah, Gitta Coaker, Lorena Garcia, Lynn Isbell, Deb Niemeier, Karen McDonald, Binnie Singh, Jay Stachowicz, Denneal Jamison-McClung, Sophie Barbu – Note taker)

• November 21st – Mentorship and Networking Committee (planning online mentor database) (Co-Directors – JoAnne Engebrecht, Carol Erickson; Committee members - Lorena Garcia, Lynn Isbell, Deb Niemeier, Chen-Nee Chuah, Denneal Jamison-McClung, Sophie Barbu – Note taker)

Policies and Practices Review Initiative:

Co-Directors Linda Bisson, Professor of Viticulture and Enology, and Jonathan Eisen, Professor of Evolution and Ecology, are working with committee members Ricardo Castro, Satya Dandekar, Susan Handy and Maureen Stanton (Co-PI) to identify policies in the UC Davis Academic Personnel Manual (APM) that may need revision in order to implement ADVANCE program goals. Initial focus has been given to the following areas: 1) level of friendliness of UC Davis “family friendly” policies, 2) inclusiveness of faculty evaluation criteria, and 3) application of evaluation metrics. A working table of target policies has been developed and is undergoing revision. The committee is also looking at recommendations for the language used in drafting faculty search announcements. Development of a “Breaking Barriers” workshop program that draws on the points highlighted in the NAS 2007 report “Beyond Bias and Barriers” will to be implemented in Year 3 of the ADVANCE project. To inform workshop planning and discussions, all committee members are reading the report.

Policy & Practices Review meetings this reporting period:

• November 21st – Policy and Practices Review Committee (Co-Directors - Linda Bisson, Jonathan Eisen; Committee Members - Ricardo Castro, Phil Kass, Becky Parales, Binnie Singh, Mau Stanton)

Research and Evaluation Initiative:

Co-Directors Adela de la Torre and Kim Shauman are leading the Research and Evaluation Initiative and met with external evaluator, Mariko Chang on October 9th. Working closely with the Co-Director Adela de la Torre are Co-Investigators, Prof. Yvette Flores and Prof. Laura Grindstaff. Graduate student research assistants are currently delving into two projects related to STEM faculty recruitment,


retention and promotion. Lisceth Cruz is tackling the UC President’s Postdoctoral Fellows Program (PPFP) Study and Krysti Ryan is performing an on-going analysis of the COACHE survey data, described below.

ADVANCE Research Activities

• The study, ““Crossing a post-doctoral bridge to a faculty position: Career paths of Latina UC President’s Postdoctoral Fellows” is under the direction of Co-PI Adela de la Torre, along with Co-Investigators Flores and Grindstaff, with the help of Lisceth Cruz. They research group has generated a database of former PPFP participants and an interview protocol to assess the career path trajectories of these Latina Fellows, including barriers and challenges.

• Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) is a survey instrument designed specifically for tenure-stream faculty, with the aim of measuring the faculty population’s levels of engagement in teaching, research, and service, as well as support and satisfaction with the terms and conditions of their employment. UC Davis participated in the 2012-13 COACHE Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey (during the fall and early winter) with Co-PI Kim Shauman directing the analysis of the resulting data.. Unit level data was received in April 2013 and data analysis by Co-PI Shauman and Krysti Ryan has been underway since mid-2013.

COACHE Data Analysis and Presentations

Multiple reports are nearing completion and multiple presentations of the COACHE data have been made by Co-PI Kim Shauman during this reporting period:

• A report of an analysis that contrasts STEM and non-STEM faculty on campus • College-specific reports that present the distribution of each COACHE for all faculty in the

college/division, differences by sex, and differences by race/ethnicity. • A report of the key findings of an analysis of the mentorship variables that will be provided to

the Mentorship & Networking Initiative committee. • A presentation of the COACHE variables related to departmental climate and inclusion was

made at the September 27th Retreat of the Council of Deans and Vice Chancellors • Two presentation of college-specific analyses of the COACHE benchmark and leadership

variables were made to the Council of Deans (September 17, 2013, and October 15, 2013)


Proposed Custom Questions for UC Davis 1. In a typical academic year, on how many committees (within your department, for your

college and the university) do you serve?

Response categories: respondents report number 2. About how many hours per week do you spend on service activities (for your department,

your college and the university)?

Response categories: respondents report number of hours 3. Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements concerning

the atmosphere and interpersonal interactions in your primary unit/department. a. Some faculty have condescending attitudes toward women. b. Some faculty have condescending attitudes toward members of racial/ethnic minorities. c. There is equal access to resources for research regardless of gender. d. There is equal access to resources for research regardless of race/ethnicity. e. Men receive preferential treatment in the areas of recruitment and promotions. f. Racial/ethnic minorities receive preferential treatment in the areas of recruitment and

promotions. g. Women are less likely than men to receive helpful career advice from colleagues. h. Racial/ethnic minorities are less likely than whites to receive helpful career advice from

colleagues. i. In meetings, people pay just as much attention when women speak as when men do. j. In meetings, people pay just as much attention when racial/ethnic minorities speak as

when whites do. k. Women are appropriately represented in senior positions. l. Racial/ethnic minorities are appropriately represented in senior positions. m. I have to work harder than I believe my colleagues do, in order to be perceived as a

legitimate scholar.

Response categories: {1, Strongly disagree; 2, Somewhat disagree; 3, Neither agree nor disagree; 4, Somewhat agree; 5, Strongly agree; 97, I don't know; 98, Decline to answer; 99, Not applicable}

at the Harvard Graduate School of Education

Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey

© 2013, President & Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved.

SECTION 1. DEMOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND Q2. Are you currently employed at [INSTITUTION]?

Yes .......................................................................................................... 1 No ........................................................................................................... 0

Q5. What is your current appointment status?

Full-time faculty .................................................................................... 2 Part-time faculty .................................................................................... 1 Emeritus faculty .................................................................................... 0 Visiting faculty ....................................................................................... 8 Other ....................................................................................................... 9 None of the above ............................................................................. 96

Q20. What is your tenure status?

Tenured ................................................................................................ 3 Not tenured but on the tenure track ................................................. 2 Not on tenure track ............................................................................. 1

Q10. What is your rank?

Professor (or “Full Professor”) ......................................................... 4 Associate Professor ............................................................................. 3 Assistant Professor ............................................................................. 2 Instructor/Lecturer ............................................................................. 1 Other ...................................................................................................... 5

Q15. In what year did you earn your current rank at this institution? Q25. Are you currently serving in an administrative position?

Yes .......................................................................................................... 1 No ........................................................................................................... 0 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q30. Which of the following administrative titles do you currently hold?

Department Chair/Head, Associate or Assistant Chair/Head ........................................................................................... 1 Center or Program Director ............................................................... 2 Dean, Associate Dean, Assistant Dean, Vice Dean, Division Chief, etc. .............................................................................. 3 Provost, Associate Provost, Assistant Provost, Vice Provost, etc. .......................................................................................... 4 Other (Please specify) .......................................................................... 9

The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education

COACHE Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey -2-

Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98 Q35. What is your race and/or ethnicity? (Please check all that apply)

American Indian or Native Alaskan: A person

having origins in any of the original peoples of North

and South America (including Central America). ..................................... 0 Asian, Asian-American, or Pacific Islander: A person

having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far

East, Pacific Islands, Southeast Asia, or the Indian

subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China,

Guam, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the

Philippine Islands, and Samoa. ................................................................. 1

White (non-Hispanic): A person having origins in any

of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or

North Africa ............................................................................................ 2 Black or African-American: A person having origins

in any of the black racial groups of Africa ................................................ 3 Hispanic or Latino: A person of Cuban, Mexican,

Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other

Spanish culture or origin ........................................................................... 4 Other ..................................................................................................... 5 Multiracial ........................................................................................... 6 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q40. What is your sex?

Male ........................................................................................................ 0 Female .................................................................................................... 1 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

[The following questions are asked at the end of the survey.] Q275. Not counting your current institution, at how many other colleges/universities have you held a

tenured or tenure-track faculty position?

0 .............................................................................................................. 0 1 .............................................................................................................. 1 2 .............................................................................................................. 2 3 .............................................................................................................. 3 4 .............................................................................................................. 4 5 or more ............................................................................................... 5 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q280. In what year were you born? Q285. What is your marital status?

Single ...................................................................................................... 1 Married or in a civil union .................................................................. 2 Unmarried, living with partner .......................................................... 3 Divorced, separated, or widowed ...................................................... 4



Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98 Q290. What is your spouse/partner's employment status?

Not employed and not seeking employment................................... 1 Not employed but seeking employment .......................................... 2 Employed at this institution ............................................................... 3 Employed elsewhere ............................................................................ 4 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q295. Do you have any of the following responsibilities? (Please check all that apply)

Infants, toddlers, or pre-school age children who live with you at least half the year ............................................................. 1 Elementary, middle, or high school age children who live with you at least half the year ..................................................... 2 Children 18 or over who live with you at least half the year ......................................................................................................... 3 Children away at college for whom you are financially responsible ............................................................................................ 6 Elders for whom you are providing ongoing care for more than 3 hours a week .................................................................. 4 A disabled or ill family member ......................................................... 5 None of the above ............................................................................... 0 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q300 What is your citizenship status?

U.S. Citizen ........................................................................................... 1 Resident Alien ....................................................................................... 3 Non-Resident Alien ............................................................................. 4 Other ...................................................................................................... 6 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q315. What is your annual salary?

Less than $30,000 ................................................................................. 1 $30,000 to $44,999 ............................................................................... 2 $45,000 to $59,999 ............................................................................... 3 $60,000 to $74,999 ............................................................................... 4 $75,000 to $89,999 ............................................................................... 5 $90,000 to $104,999 ............................................................................. 7 $105,000 to $119,999 ........................................................................... 8 $120,000 or above ................................................................................ 9 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q320. Do you identify as a member of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered (GLBT) community?




Q405, Q410, Q415, and Q420 for NTT Faculty Only Q405. What is the length of your current contract?

1 semester .............................................................................................. 1 2 semesters ............................................................................................ 2 1-2 years ................................................................................................. 3 3-4 years ................................................................................................. 4 5 or more years ..................................................................................... 5 Other ...................................................................................................... 6 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q410. Is your appointment…

Fixed-term renewable .......................................................................... 1 Fixed-term non-renewable ................................................................. 2 Rolling .................................................................................................... 3 Other ...................................................................................................... 4 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q415. What is your primary work responsibility (on what are you expected to focus)?

Mostly research ..................................................................................... 1 Mostly teaching .................................................................................... 2 Mostly outreach (e.g., extension, community engagement, technology transfer, economic development, K-12 education) .......................................................... 3 Mostly department/program administration ................................... 4 Mostly clinical ....................................................................................... 7 About an equal amount of two or more different activities ................................................................................................. 5 Other ...................................................................................................... 6 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q420. Not counting your current institution, at how many other colleges/universities have you held a non-

tenure track faculty position?

0 .............................................................................................................. 0 1 .............................................................................................................. 1 2 .............................................................................................................. 2 3 .............................................................................................................. 3 4 .............................................................................................................. 4 5 or more ............................................................................................... 5 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98



SECTION 2. NATURE OF WORK – OVERALL Now we have some questions related to day-to-day faculty activities. Q45. Please rate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the portion of your time spent on the

following:

A. Teaching B. Research C. Service (e.g., department/program administration, faculty governance, committee work,

advising/mentoring students, speaking to alumni or prospective students/parents) D. Outreach (e.g., extension, community engagement, technology transfer, economic development,

K-12 education) E. Administrative tasks (e.g., creating and submitting reports, routine paperwork)

Very satisfied ......................................................................................... 5 Satisfied .................................................................................................. 4 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied ........................................................ 3 Dissatisfied ............................................................................................ 2 Very dissatisfied .................................................................................... 1 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98 Not applicable .................................................................................... 99

Q50. You indicated dissatisfaction with the portion of your time spent on the following activity or

activities. Please indicate whether you feel you spend too much or too little time on:

A. Teaching B. Research C. Service (e.g., department/program administration, faculty governance, committee work,

advising/mentoring students, speaking to alumni or prospective students/parents) D. Outreach (e.g., extension, community engagement, technology transfer, economic development,

K-12 education) E. Administrative tasks (e.g., creating and submitting reports, routine paperwork)

Too much .............................................................................................. 1 Too little ................................................................................................ 0 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q55. Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

A. I am able to balance the teaching, research, and service activities expected of me. B. My institution does what it can to help faculty who take on additional leadership roles (e.g. major

committee assignments, department chairmanship), to sustain other aspects of their faculty work.

Strongly agree ....................................................................................... 5 Somewhat agree .................................................................................... 4 Neither agree nor disagree .................................................................. 3 Somewhat disagree ............................................................................... 2 Strongly disagree .................................................................................. 1 I don’t know ....................................................................................... 97 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98 Not applicable .................................................................................... 99



SECTION 3. NATURE OF WORK – SERVICE Q60. Please rate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the following:

A. The number of committees on which you serve B. The attractiveness (e.g., value, visibility, importance, personal preference) of the committees on

which you serve C. The discretion you have to choose the committees on which you serve D. How equitably committee assignments are distributed across faculty in your department E. The number of students you advise/mentor (including oversight of independent study, research

projects, internships, study abroad)


SECTION 4. NATURE OF WORK – TEACHING Q70. Please rate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the following:

A. The number of courses you teach B. The level of courses you teach C. The discretion you have over the content of the courses you teach D. The number of students in the classes you teach, on average E. The quality of students you teach, on average I. The quality of graduate students to support your teaching F. The support your institution has offered you for improving your teaching G. How equitably the teaching workload is distributed across faculty in your department


SECTION 5. NATURE OF WORK – RESEARCH Q80. Please rate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the following:

A. The amount of external funding you are expected to find B. The influence you have over the focus of your research/scholarly/creative work C. The quality of graduate students to support your research/scholarly/creative work



D. Institutional support (e.g., internal grants/seed money) for your research/scholarly/creative work

E. The support your institution provides you for engaging undergraduates in your research/scholarly/creative work


Q85. Please rate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the support your institution has offered

you for:

A. Obtaining externally funded grants (pre-award) B. Managing externally funded grants (post-award) C. Securing graduate student assistance D. Traveling to present papers or conduct research/creative work E. The availability of course release time to focus on your research


SECTION 6. RESOURCES & SUPPORT The next items address salary, benefits, facilities, and support. Q90. Please rate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the following aspects of your

employment:

A. Office B. Laboratory, research, or studio space C. Equipment D. Classrooms E. Library resources F. Computing and technical support G. Salary H. Clerical/administrative support

Very satisfied ......................................................................................... 5 Satisfied .................................................................................................. 4 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied ........................................................ 3 Dissatisfied ............................................................................................ 2 Very dissatisfied .................................................................................... 1



Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98 Not applicable .................................................................................... 99

Q95. Please rate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the following aspects of your

employment:

A. Health benefits for yourself B. Health benefits for your family (i.e. spouse, partner, and dependents) C. Retirement benefits D. Housing benefits (e.g. real estate services, subsidized housing, low-interest mortgage) E. Tuition waivers, remission, or exchange F. Spousal/partner hiring program G. Childcare H. Eldercare I. Phased retirement options J. Family medical/parental leave K. Flexible workload/modified duties for parental or other family reasons L. (Tenure-Track Only): Stop-the-clock for parental or other family reasons

Very satisfied ......................................................................................... 5 Satisfied .................................................................................................. 4 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied ........................................................ 3 Dissatisfied ............................................................................................ 2 Very dissatisfied .................................................................................... 1 Not offered at my institution ........................................................... 96 I don’t know ....................................................................................... 97 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98 Not applicable .................................................................................... 99

SECTION 7. INTERDISCIPLINARY WORK Now we have a few items about interdisciplinary work (e.g., teaching or scholarship that crosses the boundaries of traditional academic disciplines or schools of thought) at your institution. Q100. Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

A. Budget allocations encourage interdisciplinary work. B. Campus facilities (e.g. spaces, buildings, centers, labs) are conducive to interdisciplinary work. C. Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in the merit process. D. (NTT or Tenured Associate or Full Professor Only): Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in the

promotion process. E. (Tenure-Track Assistant Professor Only): Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in the tenure process F. (NTT Only): Interdisciplinary work is rewarded in the reappointment process G. My department understands how to evaluate interdisciplinary work.

Strongly agree ....................................................................................... 5 Somewhat agree .................................................................................... 4 Neither agree nor disagree .................................................................. 3 Somewhat disagree ............................................................................... 2 Strongly disagree .................................................................................. 1 I don’t know ....................................................................................... 97 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98



Not applicable .................................................................................... 99 SECTION 8. COLLABORATION The next items address opportunities for collaboration. Q105. Please rate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with your opportunities for collaboration with:

A. Other members of your department E. Within your institution, faculty outside your department D. Faculty outside your institution


SECTION 9. MENTORING Now we have some questions for you about mentorship of faculty. Please consider both formal mentoring programs, where mentors and mentees are assigned to each other, and informal mentoring relationships. Q110 AND Q115 for NTT and Tenured Associate and Full Faculty Only Q110. At this institution and in the past five years, I have served as either a formal or informal mentor to…

(Check all that apply)

Pre-tenure faculty in my department ................................................ 1 Tenured faculty in my department .................................................... 2 Non-tenure-track faculty in my department .................................... 5 Pre-tenure faculty outside my department ....................................... 3 Tenured faculty outside my department .......................................... 4 Non-tenure-track faculty outside my department .......................... 6 None of the above ............................................................................... 0 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q115. Would you agree or disagree that being a mentor is/has been fulfilling to you in your role as a faculty

member?

Strongly agree ....................................................................................... 5 Somewhat agree .................................................................................... 4 Neither agree nor disagree .................................................................. 3 Somewhat disagree ............................................................................... 2 Strongly disagree .................................................................................. 1 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98 Not applicable .................................................................................... 99



Q120. Whether or not you have received formal or informal mentoring at your current institution, please

indicate how important or unimportant each of the following is to your success as a faculty member:

A. Having a mentor or mentors in your department B. Having a mentor or mentors outside your department at your institution C. Having a mentor or mentors outside your institution

Very important ..................................................................................... 5 Important .............................................................................................. 4 Neither important nor unimportant ................................................. 3 Unimportant ......................................................................................... 2 Very unimportant ................................................................................. 1 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98 Not applicable .................................................................................... 99

Q125. Please rate the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the following for you:

A. Mentoring from someone in your department B. Mentoring from someone outside your department at your institution C. Mentoring from someone outside your institution

Very effective ........................................................................................ 5 Effective ................................................................................................ 4 Neither effective nor ineffective ........................................................ 3 Somewhat ineffective .......................................................................... 2 Very ineffective .................................................................................... 1 Have not received .............................................................................. 97 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98 Not applicable .................................................................................... 99


A. (Tenure-Track or Tenured Only): There is effective mentoring of pre-tenure faculty in my department.

B. (Tenured Associate or Full Professor Only): There is effective mentoring of tenured associate professors in my department.

D. (NTT): There is effective mentoring of non-tenure-track faculty in my department. C. (NTT or Tenured Associate or Full Professor Only): My institution provides adequate support for

faculty to be good mentors.




SECTION 10. PROMOTION AND TENURE Now we would like to collect your impressions regarding various aspects of promotion or tenure in your department. Q135A and Q135C for Tenured Associate of Full Faculty Only Q135. Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

A. My department has a culture where associate professors are encouraged to work towards promotion to full professorship.

C. Generally, the expectations for promotion from associate to full professor are reasonable to me.


Q136A-E, Q132, Q133, Q137A-F, Q138A-F, and Q139A-B for Pre-tenure Assistant Faculty Only Q136. Please rate the clarity of the following aspects of earning tenure in your department:

A. The tenure process in my department B. The tenure criteria (what things are evaluated) in my department C. The tenure standards (the performance thresholds) in my department D. The body of evidence (the dossier’s contents) that will be considered in making my tenure

decision E. My sense of whether or not I will achieve tenure

Very clear ............................................................................................... 5 Somewhat clear ..................................................................................... 4 Neither clear nor unclear .................................................................... 3 Somewhat unclear ................................................................................ 2 Very unclear .......................................................................................... 1 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q132. At this time, do you believe you will achieve tenure?




Q133. Why do you feel that you will not achieve tenure at this institution? Q137. Is what's expected in order to earn tenure clear to you regarding your performance as:

A. A scholar B. A teacher C. An advisor to students D. A colleague in your department E. A campus citizen F. A member of the broader community (e.g., outreach)

Very clear ............................................................................................... 5 Somewhat clear ..................................................................................... 4 Neither clear nor unclear .................................................................... 3 Somewhat unclear ................................................................................ 2 Very unclear .......................................................................................... 1 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98 Not applicable .................................................................................... 99

Q138. Is what's expected in order to earn tenure reasonable to you regarding your performance as:

A. A scholar B. A teacher C. An advisor to students D. A colleague in your department E. A campus citizen F. A member of the broader community (e.g., outreach)

Very reasonable .................................................................................... 5 Somewhat reasonable .......................................................................... 4 Neither reasonable nor unreasonable ............................................... 3 Somewhat unreasonable ..................................................................... 2 Very unreasonable................................................................................ 1 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98 Not applicable .................................................................................... 99


A. I have received consistent messages from tenured faculty about the requirements for tenure. B. In my opinion, tenure decisions here are made primarily on performance-based criteria (e.g.,

research/creative work, teaching, and/or service) rather than on non-performance-based criteria (e.g., politics, relationships, and/or demographics).




Q140A-F and Q145A and Q145C for Tenured Associate or Full Faculty Only Q140. Please rate the clarity of the following aspects of promotion in rank from associate professor to full

professor:

A. The promotion process in my department B. The promotion criteria (what things are evaluated) in my department C. The promotion standards (the performance thresholds) in my department D. The body of evidence (the dossier’s contents) considered in making promotion decisions E. The time frame within which associate professors should apply for promotion F. (Associate Professor Only) My sense of whether I will be promoted from associate to full professor


Q145. A. (Tenured Associate Professor Only): Have you received formal feedback on your progress toward

promotion to full professor? C. (Tenure-Track Assistant Professor Only): Have you received formal feedback on your progress

toward tenure?


Q150 and Q155 for Tenured Associate Faculty Only Q150. When do you plan to submit your dossier for promotion to full professor?

I've already submitted my dossier ..................................................... 4 In five years or less .............................................................................. 1 In more than five years but less than ten years ............................... 2 In ten years or more ............................................................................ 3 Never ..................................................................................................... 0 I don’t know ....................................................................................... 97 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q155. You responded: [INSERT Q150 RESPONSE]. What are your primary reasons? (Please select up to two

responses)

Lack of support from my department chair .................................... 1 Lack of support from my colleagues ................................................ 2 Lack of time/support for research .................................................... 3 Heavy teaching load ............................................................................. 4 Administrative responsibilities ........................................................... 5 Family/personal responsibilities ........................................................ 6 I have not been signaled to do so by someone in my department ............................................................................................ 7 Not interested in promotion .............................................................. 8



I am planning to leave the institution ............................................... 9 I plan to retire before promotion .................................................... 10 Other (Please specify) ........................................................................ 12 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q450A-E and Q460A-E for NTT Faculty Only Q450. Please rate the clarity of the following aspects of contract renewal in your department:

A. The contract renewal process in my department B. The contract renewal criteria (what things are evaluated) in my department C. The contract renewal standards (the performance thresholds) in my department D. The body of evidence (the dossier’s contents) considered in making contract renewal decisions E. My sense of whether or not my contract will be renewed


Q460. Please rate the clarity of the following aspects of promotion in your department:

A. The promotion process for non-tenure-track faculty in my department B. The criteria (what things are evaluated) for promotion of non-tenure-track faculty in my

department C. The standards (the performance thresholds) for promotion of non-tenure-track faculty in my

department D. The body of evidence (the dossier’s contents) considered in making promotion decisions for

non-tenure-track faculty in my department E. My sense of whether I will be promoted




SECTION 11. INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE & LEADERSHIP The next questions address your perceptions about leadership at your institution. Q170. Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

A. My institution's priorities are stated consistently across all levels of leadership (i.e. president, provost, deans/division heads, and department chairs/heads).

C. My institution's priorities are acted upon consistently across all levels of leadership (i.e. president, provost, deans/division heads, and department chairs/heads).

D. In the past five years, my institution's priorities have changed in ways that negatively affect my work in my department.


Q175. In adapting to the changing mission, I have received sufficient support from: (Please select 'Not

Applicable' if you serve in this capacity)

A. My dean or division head B. My department head or chair C. My chief academic officer (provost, VPAA, dean of faculty)


Q180. Please rate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the following: (Please select 'Not Applicable' if

you serve in this capacity)

My institution’s president’s/chancellor’s: A. Pace of decision making B. Stated priorities C. Communication of priorities to faculty My institution’s chief academic officer’s (provost, VPAA, dean of faculty): L. Pace of decision making M. Stated priorities N. Communication of priorities to faculty O. Ensuring opportunities for faculty to have input into the institution's priorities




Q185. Please rate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the following: (Please select 'Not Applicable' if

you serve in this capacity)

My dean’s or division head’s: D. Pace of decision making E. Stated priorities F. Communication of priorities to faculty G. Ensuring opportunities for faculty to have input into school/college priorities

My department head’s or chair’s: H. Pace of decision making I. Stated priorities J. Communication of priorities to faculty K. Ensuring opportunities for faculty to have input into departmental policy decisions L. Fairness in evaluating my work


SECTION 12. ENGAGEMENT The next items will collect some of your impressions regarding the faculty at your institution. Q190. How often do you engage with faculty in your department in conversations about:

A. Undergraduate student learning B. Graduate student learning C. Effective teaching practices D. Effective use of technology E. Use of current research methodologies

Frequently ............................................................................................. 5 Regularly ................................................................................................ 4 Occasionally .......................................................................................... 3 Seldom ................................................................................................... 2 Never ..................................................................................................... 1 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98



Q195. Please rate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the following:

A. The intellectual vitality of tenured faculty in your department B. The intellectual vitality of pre-tenure faculty in your department E. The intellectual vitality of non-tenure track faculty in your department C. The research/scholarly/creative productivity of tenured faculty in your department D. The research/scholarly/creative productivity of pre-tenure faculty in your department F. The research/scholarly/creative productivity of non-tenure track faculty in your department G. The teaching effectiveness of tenured faculty in your department H. The teaching effectiveness of pre-tenure faculty in your department I. The teaching effectiveness of non-tenure track faculty in your department

Very satisfied ......................................................................................... 5 Satisfied .................................................................................................. 4 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied ........................................................ 3 Dissatisfied ............................................................................................ 2 Very dissatisfied .................................................................................... 1 I don’t know ....................................................................................... 97 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98 Not applicable .................................................................................... 99

SECTION 13. WORK & PERSONAL LIFE BALANCE Q200. Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

A. I have been able to find the right balance, for me, between my professional life and my personal/family life.

B. My institution does what it can to make personal/family obligations (e.g. childcare or eldercare) and an academic career compatible.

C. My departmental colleagues do what they can to make personal/family obligations (e.g. childcare or eldercare) and an academic career compatible.

D. Department meetings occur at times that are compatible with my personal/family needs.


SECTION 14. CLIMATE Q205. Please rate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the following:

A. The amount of professional interaction you have with pre-tenure faculty in your department B. The amount of personal interaction you have with pre-tenure faculty in your department C. How well you fit in your department (e.g. your sense of belonging in your department) D. The amount of professional interaction you have with tenured faculty in your department



E. The amount of personal interaction you have with tenured faculty in your department F. The amount of professional interaction you have with non-tenure track faculty in your

department G. The amount of personal interaction you have with non-tenure track faculty in your department



A. My departmental colleagues “pitch in” when needed. B. On the whole, my department is collegial.



A. On the whole, my department colleagues are committed to supporting and promoting diversity and inclusion in the department.

B. There is visible leadership at my institution for the support and promotion of diversity on campus.


SECTION 15. APPRECIATION & RECOGNITION Q215. Please rate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the following:

How satisfied are you with the recognition you receive for your… A. Teaching efforts B. Student advising C. Scholarly/creative work D. Service contributions (e.g., department/program administration, faculty governance, committee

work, advising/mentoring students, speaking to alumni or prospective students/parents)



E. Outreach (e.g., extension, community engagement, technology transfer, economic development, K-12 education)

For all of your work, how satisfied are you with the recognition you receive from… J. Your chief academic officer (provost, VPAA, dean of faculty) K. Your dean or division head L. Your department head or chair I. Your colleagues/peers


Q220A-B for Tenured Associate or Full Faculty Only Q220. Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

A. I feel that my school/college is valued by this institution’s President/Chancellor and Provost. B. I feel that my department is valued by this institution’s President/Chancellor and Provost.


SECTION 16. RECRUITMENT & RETENTION Next, we have a few questions related to faculty retention. Q225 Which of the following have you done at this institution in the past five years? (Check all that apply)

Actively sought an outside job offer ................................................. 1 Received a formal job offer ................................................................ 2 Renegotiated the terms of your employment (with, for example, a department chair or dean) ............................................... 3 None of the above ............................................................................... 0 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q230. Which of the following items were adjusted as a result of those negotiations? (Check all that apply)

Base salary ............................................................................................. 1



Supplemental salary (e.g., summer, intersession, overload) ................................................................................................ 2 Tenure clock ......................................................................................... 3 Teaching load (e.g., course release) ................................................... 4 Administrative responsibilities ........................................................... 5 Equipment............................................................................................. 7 Lab/research support .......................................................................... 8 Employment for spouse/partner ...................................................... 9 Sabbatical or other leave time .......................................................... 10 Other (Please specify) ........................................................................ 11 No adjustments resulted from those negotiations .......................... 0 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q235. If you could negotiate adjustments to your employment, which one of the following items would you

most like to adjust?

Base salary ............................................................................................. 1 Supplemental salary (e.g., summer, intersession, overload) ................................................................................................ 2 Tenure clock ......................................................................................... 3 Teaching load (e.g., course release) ................................................... 4 Administrative responsibilities ........................................................... 5 Equipment............................................................................................. 7 Lab/research support .......................................................................... 8 Employment for spouse/partner ...................................................... 9 Sabbatical or other leave time .......................................................... 10 Other (Please specify) ............................................................................................................... 11 There is nothing about my employment that I wish to adjust ................................................................................................. 0 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q240. Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statement(s):

A. Outside offers are not necessary as leverage in compensation negotiations My department is successful at… B. Recruiting high-quality faculty members C. Retaining high-quality faculty members D. Addressing sub-standard tenured faculty performance




SECTION 17. GLOBAL SATISFACTION Q245. Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

A. The person who serves as the chief academic officer at my institution seems to care about the quality of life for faculty of my rank.

B. If I had it to do all over, I would again choose to work at this institution.


Q250. Please rate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the following:

A. All things considered, your department as a place to work B. All things considered, your institution as a place to work


Q255. A. (Tenured Associate or Full Professor Only): How long do you plan to remain at this institution?

C. (Tenure-Track Assistant Professor Only): Assuming you achieve tenure, how long do you plan to remain at this institution?

D. (NTT Only): How long do you plan to remain at this institution?

For no more than five years ............................................................... 1 More than five years but less than ten .............................................. 2 Ten years or more ................................................................................ 3 I don’t know ....................................................................................... 97 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q260. If you were to choose to leave your institution, what would be your primary reason?

To improve your salary/benefits ....................................................... 1 To find a more collegial work environment .................................... 3 To find an employer who provides more resources in support of your work .......................................................................... 4 To work at an institution whose priorities match your own ................................................................................................ 5 To pursue an administrative position in higher education (e.g. chair, dean, or provost) ............................................ 6 To pursue a nonacademic job ............................................................ 7



To improve the employment opportunities for your spouse/partner ..................................................................................... 8 For other family or personal needs ................................................... 9 To improve your quality of life ........................................................ 10 To retire ............................................................................................... 11 To move to a preferred geographic location ................................. 13 Other (Please specify) ........................................................................ 14 There is no reason why I would choose to leave this institution .............................................................................................. 0 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q265. If a candidate for a faculty position asked you about your department as a place to work, would

you…

Strongly recommend your department as a place to work ................................................................................................... 2 Recommend your department with reservations ............................ 1 Not recommend your department as a place to work ................... 0 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q267A. Please check the two (and only two) best aspects about working at your institution.

Quality of colleagues ........................................................................... 1 Support of colleagues .......................................................................... 2 Opportunities to collaborate with colleagues .................................. 3 Quality of graduate students .............................................................. 4 Quality of undergraduate students .................................................... 5 Quality of facilities ............................................................................... 6 Support for research/creative work (e.g., leave) ............................. 7 Support for teaching ............................................................................ 8 Support for professional development ............................................. 9 Assistance for grant proposals ......................................................... 10 Childcare policies/practices ............................................................. 11 Availability/quality of childcare facilities ....................................... 12 Spousal/partner hiring program ...................................................... 13 Compensation ..................................................................................... 14 Geographic location .......................................................................... 15 Diversity .............................................................................................. 16 Presence of others like me ................................................................ 17 My sense of “fit” here ....................................................................... 18 Protections from service/assignments ........................................... 19 Commute ............................................................................................. 20 Cost of living ...................................................................................... 21 Teaching load ...................................................................................... 23 Manageable pressure to perform ..................................................... 27 Academic freedom ............................................................................. 28 Tenure/promotion clarity or requirements ................................... 29 Quality of leadership ......................................................................... 30 Other (Please specify) ........................................................................ 94 Other (Please specify) ........................................................................ 95 There are no positive aspects. .......................................................... 99 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98



Q267B. Please check the two (and only two) worst aspects about working at your institution.

Quality of colleagues ........................................................................... 1 Support of colleagues .......................................................................... 2 Opportunities to collaborate with colleagues .................................. 3 Quality of graduate students .............................................................. 4 Quality of undergraduate students .................................................... 5 Quality of facilities ............................................................................... 6 Lack of support for research/creative work (e.g., leave) ............... 7 Lack of support for teaching .............................................................. 8 Lack of support for professional development ............................... 9 Lack of assistance for grant proposals ............................................ 10 Childcare policies/practices (or lack thereof) ................................ 11 Availability/quality of childcare facilities ....................................... 12 Spousal/partner hiring program (or lack thereof) ........................ 13 Compensation ..................................................................................... 14 Geographic location .......................................................................... 15 Lack of diversity ................................................................................. 16 Absence of others like me ................................................................ 17 My lack of “fit” here .......................................................................... 18 Too much service/too many assignments ..................................... 19 Commute ............................................................................................. 20 Cost of living ...................................................................................... 21 Teaching load ...................................................................................... 23 Unrelenting pressure to perform ..................................................... 27 Academic freedom ............................................................................. 28 Tenure/promotion clarity or requirements ................................... 29 Quality of leadership ......................................................................... 30 Other (Please specify) ........................................................................ 94 Other (Please specify) ........................................................................ 95 There are no negative aspects. ......................................................... 99 Decline to answer .............................................................................. 98

Q270. Please use the space below to tell us the number one thing that you, personally, feel your institution

could do to improve your workplace.

•  Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE)

–  Survey instrument is designed specifically for tenure-stream faculty

–  Aims to measure the faculty population’s •  levels of engagement in the teaching, research, and service •  how supported and satisfied they are with the terms and conditions of their employment

–  Population = Faculty who are: •  Full-time •  Pre-tenure or tenured •  Excludes: new hires, faculty in terminal year after being denied tenure, senior

administrators (Deans, Assistant Deans, and central administrators), clinical faculty

COACHE Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey

•  Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE)

–  The survey themes include: •  Nature of the Work (Overall, Research, Teaching, Service) •  Resources & Support •  Interdisciplinary Work •  Collaboration •  Mentoring •  Tenure and Promotion •  Institutional Governance & Leadership

•  Engagement •  Work & Personal Life Balance •  Climate, Culture & Collegiality •  Appreciation & Recognition •  Recruitment & Retention •  Global Satisfaction


•  Results –  Population = 1,358 –  Response rate = 46% = 629 faculty respondents

•  Higher among pre-tenure (59%) than tenured (45%) faculty •  Higher among associate (52%) than full (43%) professors

•  Higher among women (56%) than men (42%) •  Higher among white faculty (50%) than faculty of color (37%)

COACHE Survey at UC Davis

–  Sample Sizes •  Agriculture = 103 •  Biological Sciences = 48 •  Education = 8 •  Engineering = 65 •  Law = 12 •  Ls: Hacs = 89 •  Ls: Math/Phy Sci = 83 •  Ls: Soc Sci = 108 •  Management = 10 •  Medicine = 64 •  Veterinary Medicine = 39

•  URM = 47 •  Asian/Asian American = 71 •  White = 511

•  Female = 242 •  Male = 387

•  Assistant = 82 •  Associate = 151 •  Full = 396

•  Tool for investigating faculty perceptions/experiences with equity and diversity

–  Between-group differences in level of faculty satisfaction in any of the areas investigated

–  Direct report on survey items that relate directly to diversity and the experience of inequality


Faculty experience of inequality: Interpretation of results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

Hypothe<cal Q: Some faculty have unequal experiences by gender

Faculty experience of inequality: Interpretation of results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

Hypothe<cal Q: Some faculty have unequal experiences by gender

Male Female

Faculty experience of inequality: UC Davis results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

Some faculty have condescending attitudes toward women

Male Female

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

Some faculty have condescending attitudes toward members of racial/ethnic

minorities

URM Asian White


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

There is equal access to resources for research regardless of gender

Male Female

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

There is equal access to resources for research regardless of race/ethnicity

URM Asian White


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

Men receive preferential treatment in the areas of recruitment and promotions

Male Female

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

Racial/ethnic minorities receive preferential treatment in the areas of

recruitment and promotions

URM Asian White


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

Women are less likely than men to receive helpful career advice from colleagues

Male Female

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

Racial/ethnic minorities are less likely than whites to receive helpful career advice

from colleagues

URM Asian White


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

In meetings, people pay just as much attention when women speak as when

men do

Male Female

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

In meetings, people pay just as much attention when racial/ethnic minorities

speak as when whites do

URM Asian White


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

Women are appropriately represented in senior positions

Male Female

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

Racial/ethnic minorities are appropriately represented in senior positions

URM Asian White


I have to work harder than I believe my colleagues do, in order to be perceived as a legitimate scholar

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

Male Female

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

URM Asian White

Faculty perception of support for diversity

On the whole, my department colleagues are committed to supporting and promoting diversity and inclusion in the department

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree


On the whole, my department colleagues are committed to supporting and promoting diversity and inclusion in the department

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

Males Females

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

URM Asian White


There is visible leadership at my institution for the support and promotion of diversity on campus

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree


There is visible leadership at my institution for the support and promotion of diversity on campus

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

URM Asian White

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree


Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

Males Females

•  Widespread perception of commitment to diversity

•  Consistent evidence that women and racial/ethnic minorities experience and/or perceive inequities

–  Perceptions tend to vary more by gender than by race/ethnicity

–  Significant evidence of experience/perception of gender inequity in: •  Interpersonal interactions (e.g., “condescending attitudes…”, “attention when speak…”) •  Access to resources •  Mentorship •  Preferential treatment in hiring •  Representation among leadership •  Professional achievement

–  Significant evidence of experience/perception of racial/ethnic inequity in: •  Interpersonal interactions (e.g., “condescending attitudes…”, “attention when speak…”) •  Mentorship •  Preferential treatment in hiring •  Representation among leadership •  Professional achievement

Conclusion: Faculty Perceptions of Equity & Diversity

Implicit Bias and Its Impact on Diversity

•  Implicit bias –  Experience –  Definition –  Measurement

•  Evidence of impact on behavior

•  Evidence of impact in bias in career-related evaluation

•  Is there any good news? What can be done?

•  The way we perceive, judge, remember is often full of errors Feeling confident ≠ Being accurate

•  What we already know affects what we perceive; preconceived expectations influence current judgments

•  Errors in perception (mindbugs) are ordinary byproducts of normal mental processes – Memory – Perception – Learned associations

•  Ordinary: – all humans are prone to these errors

–  they are unintentional, occurring without our awareness or control

Implicit bias

Implicit bias literature reviews

•  Some concepts automatically go together in our mind because we’ve learned these associations simply by being immersed in society

Implicit bias driven by learned associations

Name the color of each set of letters

SLB

SPRND

SLB

SPRND

HLMG

CFLTK

HLMG

SPRND

HLMG

SPRND

CFLTK

CFLTK

SLB

CFLTK

CFLTK


RED

BLUE

RED

BROWN

YELLOW

GREEN

GREEN

YELLOW

BROWN

GREEN

YELLOW

BROWN

BLUE

BLUE

RED

•  Implicit Association Test (IAT)

Implicit bias measurement

•  Do mere associations show up in behavior?

–  Implicit bias predicts: •  the rate of callback for interviews (Rooth 2007)

•  awkward body language and feelings of discomfort (McConnell & Leibold 2001)

•  how we read the friendliness of facial expressions (Hugenberg & Bodenhausen 2003)

•  more negative evaluations of ambiguous actions by African Americans (Rudman & Lee 2003)

•  More negative evaluations of agentic (i.e., confident, aggressive, ambitious) women in hiring conditions (Rudman & Glick 2001)

Implicit bias impact on behavior

•  Bertrand & Mullainathan (2003) American Economic Review

To examine the effect of race on receiving job callbacks, the researchers responded with fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. The resumes were altered from actual ones found on job search Web sites. The researchers categorized the new resumes as high or low quality and assigned them an equal number of traditionally black names (e.g., Lakisha) or traditionally white names (e.g., Greg).

– Resumes with white names had a 50 percent greater chance of receiving a callback than did resumes with black names (10.08% vs. 6.70%, respectively).

– Higher-quality resumes elicited 30 percent more callbacks for whites, whereas they only elicited 9 percent more callbacks for blacks.

– Employers who listed "Equal Opportunity Employer" in their ad discriminated just as much as other employers.

Evidence of impact of bias in career-related evaluation

•  Trix & Psenka (2003) Discourse & Society

The researchers analyzed 312 real letters of recommendation that helped medical school faculty attain their clinical and research positions. The letters were received by a large U.S. medical school from 1992 to 1995.

– Compared with letters of recommendation for males, letters for females were

•  shorter

•  more likely to be "letters of minimal assurance" (e.g., lacking in specificity)

•  more likely to contain gender terms (e.g., "she is an intelligent young lady")

•  more likely to include "doubt raisers" (e.g., criticisms, hedges, faint praise)


•  Wennerås & Wold (1997) Nature

The researchers evaluated the peer- review system of postdoctoral fellowships at the Swedish Medical Research Council. They obtained the evaluator reviews through Freedom of the Press Act. Applicants included 62 men, 52 women; awardees included 16 men and 4 women.

– Women were graded below men in all 3 categories of scientific achievement

•  10% lower in scientific competence

•  7% lower for proposed methodology

•  5% lower for proposal relevance

Controlling for:

–  Number of publications (total, first-authored)

–  Summed journal impact factors (total, first-authored)

–  Number of citations (total, first-authored)

–  Other factors included in regression model: gender, nationality, discipline, post-doc abroad, affiliation with member of the evaluation committee


•  Wennerås & Wold (1997)

– “… a female applicant had to be 2.5 times more productive than the average male applicant to receive the same competence score as he…”

–  the positive impacts of being male and affiliated with a member of the review committee exceeded the influence of measures of scientific impact and productivity by 52 – 220%


!"##$%&'()

•  Ginther et al. (2011) Science

Analyzed the association between a U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 applicant’s self-identified race or ethnicity and the probability of receiving an award using data from the NIH IMPAC II grant database, the Thomson Reuters Web of Science, and other sources.

– After controlling for the applicant’s educational background, country of origin, training, previous research awards, publication record, and employer characteristics, African-American applicants are 10 percentage points less likely than whites to be awarded NIH research funding.


•  Moss-Racusin, et al. (2012) PNAS

A broad, nationwide sample of biology, chemistry, and physics professors (n = 127) evaluated the application materials of an undergraduate science student who had ostensibly applied for a science laboratory manager position. All participants received the same materials, which were randomly assigned either the name of a male (n = 63) or a female (n = 64) student; student gender was thus the only variable that differed between conditions.

– The applications identified with female names were rated significantly lower than those male names on competence and hireability, as well as the amount of salary and amount of mentoring they would offer the student


bias because they have been rigorously trained to be objective.On the other hand, research demonstrates that people who valuetheir objectivity and fairness are paradoxically particularly likelyto fall prey to biases, in part because they are not on guardagainst subtle bias (24, 25). Thus, by investigating whether sci-ence faculty exhibit a bias that could contribute to the genderdisparity within the fields of science, technology, engineering,and mathematics (in which objectivity is emphasized), the cur-rent study addressed critical theoretical and practical gaps in thatit provided an experimental test of faculty discrimination againstfemale students within academic science.A number of lines of research suggest that such discrimination

is likely. Science is robustly male gender-typed (26, 27), resour-ces are inequitably distributed among men and women in manyacademic science settings (28), some undergraduate womenperceive unequal treatment of the genders within science fields(29), and nonexperimental evidence suggests that gender bias ispresent in other fields (19). Some experimental evidence sug-gests that even though evaluators report liking women more thanmen (15), they judge women as less competent than men evenwhen they have identical backgrounds (20). However, thesestudies used undergraduate students as participants (rather thanexperienced faculty members), and focused on performancedomains outside of academic science, such as completing per-ceptual tasks (21), writing nonscience articles (22), and beingevaluated for a corporate managerial position (23).Thus, whether aspiring women scientists encounter discrimi-

nation from faculty members remains unknown. The formativepredoctoral years are a critical window, because students’ expe-riences at this juncture shape both their beliefs about their ownabilities and subsequent persistence in science (30, 31). There-fore, we selected this career stage as the focus of the presentstudy because it represents an opportunity to address issues thatmanifest immediately and also resurface much later, potentiallycontributing to the persistent faculty gender disparity (32, 33).

Current StudyIn addition to determining whether faculty expressed a biasagainst female students, we also sought to identify the processescontributing to this bias. To do so, we investigated whetherfaculty members’ perceptions of student competence would helpto explain why they would be less likely to hire a female (relativeto an identical male) student for a laboratory manager position.Additionally, we examined the role of faculty members’ preex-isting subtle bias against women. We reasoned that pervasivecultural messages regarding women’s lack of competence in sci-ence could lead faculty members to hold gender-biased attitudesthat might subtly affect their support for female (but not male)science students. These generalized, subtly biased attitudes to-ward women could impel faculty to judge equivalent studentsdifferently as a function of their gender.The present study sought to test for differences in faculty

perceptions and treatment of equally qualified men and womenpursuing careers in science and, if such a bias were discovered,reveal its mechanisms and consequences within academic sci-ence. We focused on hiring for a laboratory manager position asthe primary dependent variable of interest because it functions asa professional launching pad for subsequent opportunities. Assecondary measures, which are related to hiring, we assessed: (i)perceived student competence; (ii) salary offers, which reflectthe extent to which a student is valued for these competitivepositions; and (iii) the extent to which the student was viewed asdeserving of faculty mentoring.Our hypotheses were that: Science faculty’s perceptions and

treatment of students would reveal a gender bias favoring malestudents in perceptions of competence and hireability, salaryconferral, and willingness to mentor (hypothesis A); Faculty gen-der would not influence this gender bias (hypothesis B); Hiring

discrimination against the female student would be mediated (i.e.,explained) by faculty perceptions that a female student is lesscompetent than an identical male student (hypothesis C); andParticipants’ preexisting subtle bias against women would mod-erate (i.e., impact) results, such that subtle bias against womenwould be negatively related to evaluations of the female student,but unrelated to evaluations of the male student (hypothesis D).

ResultsA broad, nationwide sample of biology, chemistry, and physicsprofessors (n = 127) evaluated the application materials of anundergraduate science student who had ostensibly applied fora science laboratory manager position. All participants receivedthe same materials, which were randomly assigned either thename of a male (n = 63) or a female (n = 64) student; studentgender was thus the only variable that differed between con-ditions. Using previously validated scales, participants rated thestudent’s competence and hireability, as well as the amount ofsalary and amount of mentoring they would offer the student.Faculty participants believed that their feedback would beshared with the student they had rated (see Materials andMethods for details).

Student Gender Differences. The competence, hireability, salary con-ferral, and mentoring scales were each submitted to a two (studentgender; male, female) ! two (faculty gender; male, female) be-tween-subjects ANOVA. In each case, the effect of student genderwas significant (all P < 0.01), whereas the effect of faculty partici-pant gender and their interaction was not (all P > 0.19). Tests ofsimple effects (all d > 0.60) indicated that faculty participantsviewed the female student as less competent [t(125) = 3.89, P <0.001] and less hireable [t(125) = 4.22, P < 0.001] than the identicalmale student (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Faculty participants also offeredless careermentoring to the female student than to themale student[t(125) = 3.77, P < 0.001]. The mean starting salary offered thefemale student, $26,507.94, was significantly lower than that of$30,238.10 to the male student [t(124) = 3.42, P < 0.01] (Fig. 2).These results support hypothesis A.In support of hypothesis B, faculty gender did not affect bias

(Table 1). Tests of simple effects (all d < 0.33) indicated thatfemale faculty participants did not rate the female student asmore competent [t(62) = 0.06, P = 0.95] or hireable [t(62) = 0.41,P = 0.69] than did male faculty. Female faculty also did notoffer more mentoring [t(62) = 0.29, P = 0.77] or a higher salary[t(61) = 1.14, P = 0.26] to the female student than did their male

Fig. 1. Competence, hireability, and mentoring by student gender condition(collapsed across faculty gender). All student gender differences are significant(P < 0.001). Scales range from 1 to 7, with higher numbers reflecting a greaterextent of each variable. Error bars represent SEs. nmale student condition = 63,nfemale student condition = 64.

2 of 6 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1211286109 Moss-Racusin et al.

colleagues. In addition, faculty participants’ scientific field, age,and tenure status had no effect (all P > 0.53). Thus, the biasappears pervasive among faculty and is not limited to a certaindemographic subgroup.

Mediation and Moderation Analyses. Thus far, we have consideredthe results for competence, hireability, salary conferral, andmentoring separately to demonstrate the converging resultsacross these individual measures. However, composite indices ofmeasures that converge on an underlying construct are morestatistically reliable, stable, and resistant to error than are each ofthe individual items (e.g., refs. 34 and 35). Consistent with thislogic, the established approach to measuring the broad conceptof target competence typically used in this type of gender biasresearch is to standardize and average the competence scaleitems and the salary conferral variable to create one compositecompetence index, and to use this stable convergent measure forall analyses (e.g., refs. 36 and 37). Because this approachobscures mean salary differences between targets, we chose topresent salary as a distinct dependent variable up to this point, toenable a direct test of the potential discrepancy in salary offeredto the male and female student targets. However, to rigorouslyexamine the processes underscoring faculty gender bias, wereverted to standard practices at this point by averaging thestandardized salary variable with the competence scale items tocreate a robust composite competence variable (! = 0.86). Thiscomposite competence variable was used in all subsequent me-diation and moderation analyses.

Evidence emerged for hypothesis C, the predicted mediation(i.e., causal path; see SI Materials and Methods: AdditionalAnalyses for more information on mediation and the results ofadditional mediation analyses). The initially significant impact ofstudent gender on hireability (" = !0.35, P < 0.001) was reducedin magnitude and dropped to nonsignificance (" = !0.10, P =0.13) after accounting for the impact of student compositecompetence (which was a strong predictor, " = 0.69, P < 0.001),Sobel’s Z = 3.94, P < 0.001 (Fig. 3). This pattern of resultsprovides evidence for full mediation, indicating that the femalestudent was less likely to be hired than the identical male be-cause she was viewed as less competent overall.We also conducted moderation analysis (i.e., testing for fac-

tors that could amplify or attenuate the demonstrated effect) todetermine the impact of faculty participants’ preexisting subtlebias against women on faculty participants’ perceptions andtreatment of male and female science students (see SI Materialsand Methods: Additional Analyses for more information on andthe results of additional moderation analyses). For this purpose,we administered the Modern Sexism Scale (38), a well-validatedinstrument frequently used for this purpose (SI Materials andMethods). Consistent with our intentions, this scale measuresunintentional negativity toward women, as contrasted witha more blatant form of conscious hostility toward women.Results of multiple regression analyses indicated that partic-

ipants’ preexisting subtle bias against women significantly inter-acted with student gender to predict perceptions of studentcomposite competence (" = !0.39, P < 0.01), hireability (" =!0.31, P < 0.05), and mentoring (" = !0.55, P < 0.001). To in-terpret these significant interactions, we examined the simpleeffects separately by student gender. Results revealed that themore preexisting subtle bias participants exhibited againstwomen, the less composite competence (" = !0.36, P < 0.01)and hireability (" = !0.39, P < 0.01) they perceived in the fe-male student, and the less mentoring (" = !0.53, P < 0.001) theywere willing to offer her. In contrast, faculty participants’ levelsof preexisting subtle bias against women were unrelated to theperceptions of the male student’s composite competence (" =0.16, P = 0.22) and hireability (" = 0.07, P = 0.59), and theamount of mentoring (" = 0.22, P = 0.09) they were willing tooffer him. [Although this effect is marginally significant, its di-rection suggests that faculty participants’ preexisting subtle biasagainst women may actually have made them more inclined tomentor the male student relative to the female student (al-though this effect should be interpreted with caution because ofits marginal significance).] Thus, it appears that faculty partic-ipants’ preexisting subtle gender bias undermined support forthe female student but was unrelated to perceptions and treat-ment of the male student. These findings support hypothesis D.

Table 1. Means for student competence, hireability, mentoring and salary conferral by student gender conditionand faculty gender

Male target student Female target student

Male faculty Female faculty Male faculty Female faculty

Variable Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD d

Competence 4.01a (0.92) 4.1a (1.19) 3.33b (1.07) 3.32b (1.10) 0.71Hireability 3.74a (1.24) 3.92a (1.27) 2.96b (1.13) 2.84b (0.84) 0.75Mentoring 4.74a (1.11) 4.73a (1.31) 4.00b (1.21) 3.91b (0.91) 0.67Salary 30,520.83a (5,764.86) 29,333.33a (4,952.15) 27,111,11b (6,948.58) 25,000.00b (7,965.56) 0.60

Scales for competence, hireability, and mentoring range from 1 to 7, with higher numbers reflecting a greater extent of eachvariable. The scale for salary conferral ranges from $15,000 to $50,000. Means with different subscripts within each row differsignificantly (P < 0.05). Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) represent target student gender differences (no faculty gender differences weresignificant, all P > 0.14). Positive effect sizes favor male students. Conventional small, medium, and large effect sizes for d are 0.20,0.50, and 0.80, respectively (51). nmale student condition = 63, nfemale student condition = 64. ***P < 0.001.

Fig. 2. Salary conferral by student gender condition (collapsed across facultygender). The student gender difference is significant (P < 0.01). The scaleranges from $15,000 to $50,000. Error bars represent SEs. nmale student condition=63, nfemale student condition = 64.

Moss-Racusin et al. PNAS Early Edition | 3 of 6

PSYC

HOLO

GICALAND

COGNITIVESC

IENCE

S

•  Does knowledge of the illusion have any corrective effect on diminishing the illusion?

Is there any good news? What can be done?

•  An individual’s motivation to be fair does matter, but we must first believe that there is a potential problem before we try to fix it. –  Raise awareness of implicit bias

•  Create more objective, structured evaluation and interview processes –  Develop and prioritize evaluation criteria prior to evaluating candidates and apply them

consistently to all applicants. –  Administer training to all involved in the search and interview process on how to conduct

consistent, equitable review

•  Whenever possible engage in blind review by removing indicators of gender, race/ethnicity, etc. from application materials.

•  Spend sufficient time evaluating each candidate

•  Evaluate entire applications; don’t depend too heavily on only one element (such as letters of recommendation, or the prestige of the degree-granting institution)

•  Be able to defend every decision for eliminating or advancing a candidate.

Is there any good news? What can be done?

ADVANCE Program - University of California, Davis

Year 1 Evaluation Report

Prepared by:

Lisa Sullivan

June 2013

1

Introduction

The Center for Education and Evaluation Studies (CEES) at UC Davis is the internal evaluator for the ADVANCE Program. During the initial year of the ADVANCE program CEES has been working with the ADVANCE leadership teams to develop tools to track progress towards goals and monitoring ongoing ADVANCE activities.

To date the ADVANCE activities have included establishing five distinct initiative groups charged with specific goals related to the overall ADVANCE program. These initiative groups are (a) Mentorship and Networking, (b) Policies and Practices, (c) Inclusive Campus Climate, (d) Social Science Research and Evaluation, and (e) the Center for the advancement of Multicultural Perspectives on Science (CAMPOS). Each initiative held monthly meetings to discuss the group’s progress on goals and to develop ongoing action plans. In addition to the initiative meetings, a year one retreat was held on campus to for the ADVANCE leadership team to come together to discuss the year one progress and how other ADVANCE programs have operated and accomplished their goals. As part of the evaluation, a member of the evaluation team has attended at least one of each of the initiative meetings and attended the year one retreat.

Data Collection

Data collection for the internal evaluation was limited in the first year as the activities primarily revolved around establishing committees for each initiative, developing the ADVANCE UC Davis website, educating the campus community about the ADVANCE grant and establishing both short-term and long-term goals. Data collected by the ADVANCE program during this initial year will provide baseline information on the numbers of women in STEM faculty (institutional level data), attitudes of faculty regarding important factors related to the ADVANCE Program (COACHE Survey), and evaluation surveys from ADANCE events. In addition, minutes from each of the initiative meetings were collected and year two goals are currently being established by each of the initiative committees. The goals of the initiatives also serve as a gauge of what each group sees as the current needs and what they see as priorities for the second year and beyond of the program. The initiative groups also came together twice during the first year to report back to the larger group.

Initiative Meetings, Attendees and Goals

A member of the evaluation team has attended at least one meeting of each of the initiatives as well as the ADVANCE leadership meetings which include co-directors from each of the initiatives. The ADVANCE leadership team was able to recruit and find co-directors for each initiative before the grant was funded. The additional committee members were recruited shortly thereafter and membership of these initiative teams have been fairly consistent during the first year with a few minor changes. The initiative meetings have been well attended and focused. Each of the initiatives held six meetings during the first year and these groups appear to be making adequate progress on their established goals and collaborating effectively. There is some overlap in the work of the initiatives and we would anticipate that the initiative committees will work together where goals overlap and converge. Information regarding initiative committee members and ongoing activities and goals are outlined in the ADVANCE program report.

2

Event Evaluation Data

The evaluation team gathered information from attendees of two events of the Mentorship and Networking Initiative. The first event was titled: Join the Discussion: Women and Leadership. This event was a discussion of the book Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead by Sheryl Sandberg. The event was attended by 33 people and of these, 22 people (67% response rate) completed an event evaluation which was sent to them via e-mail (15 faculty, 6 staff, 12 students). The second event organized by the Mentorship and Networking initiative was on the topic of using social media in STEM fields. The event was called, Join the Discussion: Social Media and STEM Research. Seventeen people attended this event and were sent a follow-up evaluation survey shortly following the event. The evaluation team received thirteen responses to the second survey (76% response rate).

Both post-event surveys asked attendees how they heard about the event, why they were interested in attending, their satisfaction with various qualities of the event, what types of events/seminars they thought would be helpful for ADVANCE to hold in the future, how they think the events/seminars could be improved, and whether they would be interested in attending future events. In terms of reach, only two people attended both events so it appears that these ADVANCE sponsored seminars were reaching two unique groups of people.

The majority of the attendees (70%) from the first event said they heard about the event via an e-mail announcement, whereas the attendees at the second event said they had heard about it from a friend or colleague (60%) and from an e-mail announcement (60%). It is worth noting, however, that there were fewer responses overall to the second event feedback survey (n=13). A few respondents at the first event also said that their advisors told them about the discussion. This question allowed respondents to choose as many responses as applied however no one picked more than one item. The responses to this item on the survey are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. How did you learn about the Join the Discussion event? (N=35)

14

6

2

4

6

0

Email announcement Heard about it from afriend/colleague

Other - my advisor

Lean-In Discussion Social Media Discussion

3

Attendees were also asked why they were interested in attending each event. The majority of the attendees for both events said that the topic was relevant to their professional life. The other two largest groups of responses were from attendees who said that they were interested or involved in the ADVANCE program or thought that the presenters or content sounded interesting. Responses to this item are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Why were you interested in attending this event? (N = 35)

In terms of who attended the two Mentorship and Networking Initiative events, respondents were asked to identify their role on campus, their college and their gender. As can be seen in Figure 3 the majority of attendees at both events were either professors or graduate students. The larger Lean-In event attracted a slightly more diverse group of attendees, but the Social Media Discussion seemed to attract more members of campus staff, four of the ten survey respondents. Not surprisingly, the majority of attendees in both events were female (Lean-In Discussion: 95% / Social Media: 70%). However, it is also possible that survey non-respondents (33-35%) may have different characteristics than those who responded.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

The topic is relevant to myprofessional life

I am involved/interested in theADVANCE program

It just sounded interesting

A friend/colleague recommended it

I am interested in/heard goodthings about the presenters

Social Media Discussion

Lean-In Discussion

4

Figure 3. Role of Survey Respondents (N=34)

Survey respondents were also asked to identify the college in which they were employed or studied. The majority of attendees at both were from the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Social Sciences, and Biological Sciences. The Lean-In Discussion also attracted attendees from the College of Engineering, Math and Physical Sciences, and Medicine. Responses to this item can be found in Figure 4.

Figure 4. College in which you work or study

0 2 4 6 8 10

Professor

Assoc. Professor

Asst. Professor

Graduate Student

Undergraduate Student

Staff

Other


Lean-In Discussion

0 2 4 6

Other

Biological Science

Social Sciences

School of Education

Engineering

Math & Physical Sciences

Medicine

Agriculture/Env Sciences

Lean-InDiscussion


5

The post-event survey also asked attendees to rate various aspects of the workshop or presentation. Specifically, respondents were asked to rate the organization, the content, the time allotted, the location and facilities, the food provided, and the handouts or materials provided. Attendees from both events rated all of these qualities very highly, with the majority of respondents being satisfied or very satisfied with all aspects of the event. Responses for the second event did not include any items that attendees rated as dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. The responses to this item for both events are shown in Figure 5 and 6 below.

Figure 5. How satisfied were you with the following aspects of the Lean-In Discussion event?

Figure 6. How satisfied were you with the following aspects of the event?

0 5 10 15 20 25

Event Organization

Content of the Event

Time Allotted

Location

Food

Handouts

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Event Organization

Content of the Event

Time Allotted

Location

Food

Handouts

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

6

Attendees were also asked if they felt the presentation was useful in their professional lives. Of the twenty-two attendees who responded to the first event survey, twenty-one (95%) said that they felt the presentation would be useful. Similarly, of the eleven responses to the second survey, all of the attendees said that they felt the presentation was useful in their professional lives.

There was a follow-up open-ended question asking attendees to describe what aspects of the event would be most helpful in their professional life. For the Lean-In Discussion, a common response (6 respondents) was that it provided a good opportunity to network and make contacts with other women faculty. An exemplar in this area is: “Establishing contacts for future development of networking/leadership efforts.” Another common theme among attendees’ responses was that they valued hearing what others had to say about this issue and felt it was an important first step in changing the culture and climate for women in academia. For example, one attendee commented, “I think it put the topics out into a space where potential solutions might be created.” All of the open ended responses for the Social Media Discussion were related to using the information to incorporate social media into their professional lives by either blogging, or creating a website. An example of one of the responses to this item is: “Having a better understanding of how social media can complement science will assist my own outreach efforts.”

Following each of these events attendees were asked to rate how likely they were to attend future UC Davis ADVANCE events. Overall, most people said they were likely or very likely to attend future ADVANCE events on campus. The responses to this item are shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. How likely are you to attend future UC Davis ADVANCE events?

When asked to identify topics that they would like to see addressed in UC Davis ADVANCE events in the future, the responses varied across a wide range of topics. There were differences in responses from attendees at the two events as well. For example, more attendees at the Lean-

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Lean-In Discussion (N=22)

Social Media Discussion(N=10)

7

In Discussion were interested in presentations on negotiation and work-life balance which seems logical given the topic covered in the presentation. Responses to this item are shown in Figure 8 below.

Figure 8. Suggested topics for future Advance Join the Discussion Seminars

When attendees were asked how they would improve UC Davis ADVANCE Join the Discussion events they provided a wide range of responses to this open ended question. Six survey respondents from the Lean-In Discussion and two respondents from the Social Media Discussion provided feedback to this question. There were no emerging themes to the comments which are listed below:

• Have more hands on workshop to build and develop professional skills • Make sure junior women/faculty are invited • Target defined topics • Have 2 or 3 short speaker presentations • Make the intent of the events clear • Publicize/advertise events more • Start on time • Serve coffee

Based on feedback from the first survey, a question was added to the second event survey related to whether they had attended with or brought a colleague with them to the presentation. Nine of the eleven respondents said that they did not attend with a colleague or invite a colleague to

0 5 10 15 20 25

Developing Leadership Skills

Mentorship

Grant Funding

Negotiation (salary, resources)

Teaching Strategies/Resources

Work-life balance

Laboratory Management

Obtaining Patents

Getting Writing Done


Lean-In Discussion

8

attend with them. Two of the attendees said that they had either brought a colleague or been invited by a colleague.

Overall these first year Mentorship and Networking events were fairly well attended and satisfaction with the events was high. The majority of attendees said they were either very satisfied or satisfied with all aspects of the event which they were queried about in the evaluation survey. The events attracted people from a wide range of colleges and roles (faculty, staff, and students).

In terms of topics for future events, the Mentorship and Networking Initiative plans to use this information to develop seminars and workshops in year two. They are also considering including a request on the event invitation for senior faculty to bring a junior colleague with them.

Year Two Evaluation Goals

Internal evaluation activities and goals have not, at this time, been finalized. We anticipate continuing to administer and analyze event feedback evaluations, conducting focus groups and/or interviews with STEM women faculty, meeting with each of the initiative committees to identify outcome/impact measures for each initiative, and to develop an annual survey/feedback mechanism for ADVANCE leadership to reflect on the challenges and successes of their work each year. We may also conduct more detailed analyses of the COACHE survey data as part of the benchmarking to measure progress in reaching each initiative’s goals.

9

Logic Model for UC Davis ADVANCE Program

Measurable Outcomes ImpactsInputs Activities Outputs Data Source

NSF Funds

Other Funds

Institutional Commitment

Policy & Practices Initiative:

Review current policies that impact STEM recruitment, retention and career advancement

Develop or recommend new resources

# of meetings

# of revised policies

# of changes to institutional practices that impact STEM women faculty

# Resources developed or recommended

Leadership reports of requests for andcomments on new policies andmaterials

Policy adopted system wide (other UC campuses)

Changes in faculty and Deans' perceptions of relevant policies and practices and use of new resources

Institutional level data related to policies

COACHE data

Exit interviews

Survey of Deans and Faculty

More diverse hires

Retention of diverse STEM faculty

Campus wide policies & practices in place to support diverse STEM

women faculty

(updated 11/13/13, 5:15pm)

Meeting schedule for Angela McNerney, Nov. 14-15 (Angela is staying at the Hallmark Inn, Davis, CA) THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2013 (KIM HAS CLASS AT NOON)

Time Meeting, Attendees Location Who accompanies Angela

7:30 Breakfast, Kim Shauman Meet at hotel lobby Kim

9am-9:30am Kelly Ratliff, Associate Vice Chancellor, Budget & Institutional Analysis

376 Mrak, Room 305 Kim

9:30am-10am Ralph Hexter, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor

5th floor Mrak

10:00am-10:30am Travel to Candidate Care mtg Real Estate Services, 255 Cousteau Pl, Conference room

Kim

10:30-Noon Candidate Care Task Force* Meeting – presentation by Angela (* see attendee list below)

(same) Kim, Mau and Binnie

Noon-1:30pm Lunch TBD Binnie

1:30pm-2pm Phone Call with Ann Madden Rice, Chief Executive Officer, UC Davis Medical Center, call 916-734-0750

4th Floor Mrak, Compliance Conference Room

Binnie

2-2:45pm Gary Sandy, Local Government Relations Director, Office of Government and Community Relations


Binnie

2:45-3:30pm Susan Gilbert, Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Irene Horgan-Thompson, Director of Compensation, Benefits, Employment, Temporary Employment Services


Binnie

3:30-4:30 Marj Dickenson, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Governmental and Community Relations


Binnie

5pm Linda PB Katehi, Chancellor, UC Davis Chancellor’s office, 5th floor Mrak

Kim, Binnie

(updated 11/13/13, 5:15pm)

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2013

Time Meeting, Attendees Location Who accompanies Angela

7:00 Breakfast, Binnie Meet at hotel lobby Binnie

8:00 Edward Callahan, Associate Dean, Academic Affairs, School of Medicine

Mrak Hall, 5th floor Binnie

9:00 Stephen Chilcott, Executive Director, Human Resources, UCD Health System

Mrak Hall, 5th floor Binnie

9:45, 10 Travel to Sacramento Binnie

10:30am – Noon Meg Arnold, CEO, SARTA (Marj and Mabel Salon – Director of Community Relations, UCD, may attend) Roger Neillo (CEO of Sac Metro) Robert Burris, Sr. VP SACTO (Sacramento Area Commerce and Trade Organization.)

Sacramento Metro Chamber, One Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento

Binnie

12:30 Kim meets Angela Sacramento

1:30-2:00pm Susan Summers , Manager – Recruitment, Employment and Training & Development, UCDHS

UCDHS, 2730 Stockton Blvd, Third floor

Kim

2:30-3pm Vincent Johnson, Chief Operating Officer, UC Davis Medical Center, Hospital Administration

2315 Stockton Boulevard – UCDMC Main Hospital, Room 4205

Kim

3:30-4:30pm Robert Waste, Assistant Director, Government and Community Relations, UCDHS

UCDHS, 4800 2nd Avenue, Suite 2100, UCDMC, Sac

Kim

4:30-5:00 Tom Nesbitt, MD, Interim Vice Chancellor and Dean, UC Davis Health System

UCDHS, 3rd floor, Education Bldg (4610

X St, Suite 3101 – Sacramento)

Kim

http://metrochamber.org/

http://metrochamber.org/

SEARCH COMMITEE WORKSHOP

Academic Affairs &

Office of Campus Community Relations

2013

Workshop overview

1. Steps in the recruitment process, components of the search plan, department diversity goals, and field-of-service codes (see handout)

2. The UC imperative to diversify its faculty 3. Factors that can reduce diversity in recruitment, and best

practices to counteract them 1. CA Proposition 209

• Enhancing diversity in applicant pools 2. Search committee dynamics 3. Structural inequities/biases

• Minimizing impacts on evaluation 4. Unconscious biases

• Understanding patterns, reducing impact 5. Conducting a fair, legal and inclusive interview

Handout: Review the overall recruitment process

1. Steps in the recruitment process

2. Department diversity goals are set by

1. Field-of-service codes 2. Current department composition 3. Pool of available PhDs (depends on seniority of

intended hire)

The UC Imperative to diversify our faculty

Maureen Stanton, Vice Provost - Academic Affairs Professor, Evolution & Ecology

2.2%

0.4%

0.5%

3.9% 1.5%

8.2%

6.6%

62.5%

14.2% Black/African American-Domestic

Black/African/African-International

American Indian-Domestic

Chicano/Latino/Hispanic-Domestic

Chicano/Latino/Hispanic-International

Asian-Domestic

Asian-International

White/Other-Domestic

White/Other-International

UC system: race/ethnicity of ladder-rank faculty in Fall 2011

UC Davis is among the three UC campuses with the lowest percentage of URM faculty

UC faculty composition, 1989-2005, 2013: women and Asians increasing, URMs almost flat

7% 7% 7% 39% 58% 15%

Can we keep on recruiting the way we are now?

At this proportional rate of growth in our URM faculty population, it will take ~150 years to reach 40%

How a diverse faculty can help UC Davis

Attract students, researchers and staff from a larger, more diverse population base

Attract faculty from a larger population base Build a more vibrant campus culture Make the campus more relevant to, and engaged

with, under-served communities Increase competitiveness for extramural funding Increased “cognitive diversity” can enhance

innovation and problem-solving E.g. Hong and Page (2004) Proc. National Academy of

Sciences

Recent UC Davis hiring trends

Ladder Faculty Hires

2013 2012 2011 Women 48.8% 35.6% 34.0% People of Color 36.2% 35.6% 36.2% URM 17.2% 11.9% 12.8%

Challenges that can reduce diversity in faculty recruitment

CA Proposition 209– perception versus

reality

Search committee dynamics “It depends on the lens”

Structural inequities / biases Unconscious biases

CA Proposition 209– perceptions versus realities

Rahim Reed Associate Executive Vice Chancellor

Chief Diversity Officer OFFICE OF CAMPUS COMMUNITY RELATIONS

A broad search will attract a larger and more diverse pool Make sure that the announcement stresses UC Davis’s work-

life flexibility and family-friendly policies Use language that makes it clear that your department, and

our campus as a whole, recognizes that diversity enriches teaching, service and scholarship

If appropriate, emphasize opportunities for collaboration and community-engaged scholarship

Highlight that our campus is now an NSF ADVANCE-IT institution committed to equity and inclusion

Use UC Recruit to provide additional information, e.g. accommodation for interviewees with children < 2 yrs old

Best practices to diversify the applicant pool: Broad and inclusive recruitment criteria

Best practices to diversify the applicant pool: active recruitment, targeted outreach

• In addition to the “traditional” listserves and advertisement locations:

• Make a list of non-majority scholars and potential candidates; contact them directly

• Identify and connect with professional and media organizations that serve underrepresented scholars, e.g. • SACNAS-- Society for the Advancement of Chicanos and

Native Americans in Science (SACNAS) • Diversescholar.org (UC Davis is now a subscriber and has

access to the online directory of postdocs) • UC President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program • Visit conferences, annual meetings.



reality



“It Depends on the Lens” Video from the Cornell University ADVANCE Center

Video discussion

• What patterns stood out for you? • What could have been done at the onset of the

meeting or before the meeting to improve the process?

• If you had been the committee Chair, what would you have done differently?

Best practices for equitable and inclusive search committee interactions

• A diverse committee is likely to yield a more robust candidate pool.

• Including graduate students on committees has been shown to enhance diversity outcomes, but the role of graduate students must be defined carefully

• Remember that tokenism undermines the advantages of a diverse committee

• Avoid conflicts of interest on committee • Allow sufficient time for all voices to be heard



reality



Impacts of biases on faculty recruitment

Structural inequities lead to bias in applicant pools and attributes of applicants

Implicit / unconscious biases influence the assessment of a candidate’s achievements and promise

Many of the following slides are based on presentations by Prof. Kimberley Shauman (UC Davis Sociology, Associate Faculty Director of UC Davis ADVANCE)

Structural inequities

“Structure” refers to the recurrent patterned arrangements that influence the availability of choices and opportunities

Structural inequities reduce levels of diversity in faculty recruitment Diversity in the pipeline and in the pool of applicants Familial and geographic constraints Network position & connections

The academic pipeline differs in shape between under-represented minorities and women

Structural influences that reduce diversity in our applicant pools

Familial constraints Dual-career couple conflicts for women Time schedule of tenure track coincides with childbearing years Regional constraints

Reliance on traditional “pool-building” strategies (NAS 2010) Traditional advertisement text, traditional advertisement outlets Existing majority networks tend to reinforce homogeneity

“Image problem” of academic STEM disciplines Seen as incompatible with family commitments (e.g., Sears 2003) Department climate seen as chilly, competitive and non-collaborative

(Ong et al. 2011) Non-academic sector often seen as more collaborative and family-

friendly

Women are more likely to have academic (and older) partners They may limit their employment search to specific regions They are more likely to have a series of post-doctoral

positions (to coordinate two careers) or other non-traditional trajectories

Hiring women more often entails dual-career hires Under-represented minorities with PhDs are less likely to

pursue their academic career far from family, so may attend institutions “atypical” for UC candidates

Women and underrepresented minorities may be less likely to have competing offers, national networks

Structural geographic and family constraints

Minimize the use of “prestige screening” based on the reputation of the candidate’s past educational institutions Women and underrepresented minorities are more likely to

attend institutions atypical for UC candidates

Do not assume that lags in publication or academic employment predict reduced future productivity

Focus on the position description and required skill-set, not on apparent “fit” to the prevailing department culture

Best practices for reducing the impacts of geographic and family constraints

Social networks tend to be segregated by gender and race/ethnicity (“homophily” – McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook 2001)

Networks of women and racial minorities are smaller and have fewer connections to high-status individuals (McDonald 2011)

Networks of white men… are more homophilous than networks of women and minorities provide greater access to information and high-status individuals provide access to employment references that are well-connected

Structural inequity in professional networks

Recognize the realities: Women and minorities may have limited access to

relevant information (e.g., how to tailor an application, to present a good “fit” with the position and/or department)

References for women and minorities may be less well-known than references for white male applicants

Implications for recruitment process: Reliance on established networks is not sufficient– reach

out to female and URM scholars, societies Pay more attention to the substantive content of each

letter, and less to the letter-writer’s reputation

Best practices for limiting the impact of structural inequities in professional networks

Structural factors lead to bias in applicant pools and attributes of applicants

Implicit / unconscious biases influence the assessment of a candidate’s achievements, promise and “fit” to a department

Impacts of biases on faculty recruitment

Some things we know about implicit biases

• They impede objectivity– our evaluations are influenced by context and prior expectations.

• They are ubiquitous and pervasive. • They increase maximum processing speed. • Few people recognize their own patterns of bias. • Those who rate their own objectivity highly are more

prone to the effects of unconscious bias. • Common unconscious biases are associated with

• Gender and gender “schemas” • Race/ethnicity/cultural variation • Family status… etc.

• Knowledge of bias patterns can reduce its impacts.

Some things we know about implicit biases

• They impede objectivity– our evaluations are influenced by context and prior expectations.

• They are ubiquitous and pervasive. • They increase maximum processing speed. • Few people recognize their own patterns of bias. • Those who rate their own objectivity highly are more

prone to the effects of unconscious bias. • Common unconscious biases are associated with

• Gender and gender “schemas” • Race/ethnicity/cultural variation • Family status

• Knowledge of bias patterns can reduce its impacts.

The way we perceive, judge, remember is often full of errors Feeling confident ≠ Being accurate

What we already know affects what we perceive; preconceived expectations influence current judgments

Errors in perception (“mindbugs”) are ordinary byproducts of normal mental processes– memory, perception, learned associations.

“Mindbugs” lead to perceptual bias

Implicit bias– recent literature reviews

Some concepts automatically go together in our mind because we’ve learned these associations simply by being immersed in society

Implicit bias is often driven by learned associations


XXXXX

XXXX

XXX

XXXXX

XXX

XXXXX

XXXX

XXX

XXXXX

XXX

XXXXX

XXXX

XXX

XXXXX

XXX


SLB

SPRND

SLB

SPRND

HLMG

CFLTK

HLMG

SPRND

HLMG

SPRND

CFLTK

CFLTK

SLB

CFLTK

CFLTK

RED

BLUE

RED

BROWN

YELLOW

GREEN

GREEN

YELLOW

BROWN

GREEN

YELLOW

BROWN

BLUE

BLUE

RED


The Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures association biases by reaction time

Measured association biases predict: the rate of call-back for interviews (Rooth 2007)

awkward body language and feelings of discomfort (McConnell & Leibold 2001)

how we read the friendliness of facial expressions (Hugenberg & Bodenhausen 2003)

more negative evaluations of ambiguous actions by African Americans (Rudman & Lee 2003)

More negative evaluations of agentic (i.e., confident, aggressive, ambitious) women in hiring conditions (Rudman & Glick 2001)

Implicit biases have pervasive effects on behavior

A taste of the evidence

Authors reviewed the 1995 Swedish Medical Research Council postdoctoral fellowship selection

•Obtained reviews through Freedom of the Press Act •Applicants: 62 men, 52 women •Awardees: 16 men, 4 women •Women were graded below men in all 3 categories of scientific achievement

•10% lower in scientific competence •7% lower for proposed methodology •5% lower for proposal relevance

Does the lower evaluation for women reflect lesser competence and productivity than their male colleagues? Competence/impact metrics were assessed for all applicants:

•Number of publications (total, first-authored) •Summed journal impact factors (total, first-authored) •Number of citations (total, first-authored)

•Other factors included in regression model: gender, nationality, discipline, post-doc abroad, evaluation committee… affiliation with member of the evaluation committee)

“… a female applicant had to be 2.5 times more productive than the average male applicant to receive the same competence score as he…” Regression analysis: the positive impacts of being male and of being affiliated with a member of the review committee exceeded the influence of measures of scientific impact and productivity by 52% – 220%

2012 PNAS study: N = 127 professors in biology, physics, or chemistry Identical applications for a lab manager position from “male” versus “female” applicants Male and female faculty evaluators did not differ in degree of bias!

Plus, “male” applicants were offered ~$3500/year more in salary

1999 Sex Roles study:

N = 238 professors

in psychology Identical, real-life

cv with either male or female name, at:

1) job application 2) tenure

evaluation

Candidate should be:

•Content analysis of 312 real letters of recommendation that helped medical school faculty attain their positions at large U.S. medical schools from 1992 to 1995. •Compared with letters of recommendation for males, letters for females were :

•shorter •more likely to lack specificity •more likely to contain gender terms

• e.g., "she is an intelligent young lady"

•more likely to include "doubt raisers" • e.g., criticisms, hedges, faint praise

Gender bias in letters of recommendation Trix & Psenka (2003) Discourse & Society

Fictitious resumes, altered from actual ones found on job search websites, were submitted to Help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. Researchers categorized resumes as high or low quality and

assigned half of each category to either traditionally black names (e.g., Lakisha) or traditionally white names (e.g., Greg). Resumes with white names had a 50% greater chance of receiving a call-back than did resumes with black names (10.08% vs. 6.70%). High-quality resumes elicited 30% more call-backs for whites, but only 9% more call-backs for blacks. Employers who listed "Equal Opportunity Employer" in their ad discriminated just as much as other employers.

Racial bias in real-world career evaluation Bertrand & Mullainathan (2003) American Economic Review

Analyzed the association between a U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 applicant’s self-identified race or ethnicity and the probability of receiving an award.

After controlling for the applicant’s educational background, country of origin, training, previous research awards, publication record, and employer characteristics, African-American applicants are 10% less likely than whites to be awarded NIH research funding.

Apparent racial bias in grant proposal evaluation Ginther et al. (2011) Science

• Prior to 1970, only 5% of the musicians within premier US orchestras were women. • Most orchestras made their audition practices more open in the 1970’s and 80’s. • Over time, many orchestras gradually introduced screens separating auditioning musicians from evaluators • In this study, Goldin and Rouse analyzed data from over 1000 auditions– did the use of the screen improve success of women?

BLIND NOT BLIND

AUDITION METHOD

0

1

2

3

4P

ER

CE

NTA

GE

HIR

ED

MEN WOMEN

The motherhood penalty Correll, Bernard and Paik (2007) American Journal of Sociology

Participants rated fictitious job applicants by reading constructed resumes

Resumes were statistically matched, except for one listed activity: Parent-Teacher Association Coordinator (code for “parent”) Fundraiser for neighborhood association

Applicants were rated for competency, commitment and likely starting salary

Female applicants perceived as mothers were judged significantly less competent and committed, worthy of 7% less starting salary, and were held to more stringent hiring standards (e.g. higher test scores).

Women from underrepresented groups often experience a “double bind”

•Disproportionate scrutiny from students, peers and administrators •Assumptions that success was obtained through affirmative action •Being viewed as a representative of their race (“tokenism”) •Feelings of difference and isolation •Heavier burden of informal mentoring and community engagement •Weaker professional support systems

An individual’s motivation to be fair does matter, but we must first believe that there is a potential problem before we try to fix it. Raise awareness of implicit bias

Create more objective, structured evaluation and interview

processes Develop and prioritize evaluation criteria prior to evaluating

candidates and apply them consistently to all applicants. Administer training to all involved in the search and interview

process on how to conduct consistent, equitable evaluation

Best practices to reduce the impacts of implicit bias– part 1

Whenever possible, engage in blind review by removing indicators of gender, race/ethnicity, etc. from application materials.

Spend sufficient time evaluating each candidate

Evaluate entire applications-- avoid depending too heavily on

only one element (such as letters of recommendation, or the prestige of the degree-granting institution)

Be able to defend every decision for eliminating or advancing a candidate.

Best practices to reduce the impacts of implicit bias– part 2

The interview: making campus visits welcoming and inclusive

• It is good practice to invite at least three candidates to campus; keep visit formats the same for all.

• Well in advance of the interview visit, the Chair should give each candidate a clear description of seminar format, expectations, and the nature of the audience.

• Ask candidate if there are any members of the UC Davis community with whom they’d like to meet.

• Ask whether there are special needs such as physical access or dietary restrictions. Utilize campus resources for accommodation needs.

• For non-majority candidates, enable connections with other members of that community at UC Davis.

The interview: new family-friendly recruitment practice

• For candidates who are single parents to, or breast-feeding, children < 2 years of age: • Travel costs are provided for both the child and an

additional person who can provide childcare assistance while the candidate is interviewing at UC Davis

• Additional minimal increase in accommodations costs, e.g., extra bed or crib added to the existing hotel reservation, up to $200.

• Candidates should not be asked if they qualify for this, instead they should be told the practice exists and directed to your recruitment web site, where you can have this language and provided with the flyer as part of the recruitment materials. (see online packet of materials)

The interview: legal dos and don’ts

During the visit and in interviews/talks, it is unlawful to ask candidates questions that may relate to protected categories such as: family status, race, religion, national origin/citizenship, age, disability, etc. Emphasize the strengths of UC Davis and our broader region, but do so without asking about the candidate’s status for the categories above

Topic Legal Question Discriminatory Question

Family Status Do you have any responsibilities that conflict with job attendance or travel requirements? (must be asked of all candidates)

Are you married? What is your spouse’s name? What is your maiden name? Do you have children? Do you intend to?

Race None What is your race?

Religion None. You may inquire about availability for weekend work.

What is your religion? What church do you attend? What are your religious holidays?

Citizenship or Nationality

Can you show proof of your eligibility to work in the United States?

Are you a U.S. citizen? Where were you born? What is your native tongue?

The interview: legal dos and don’ts

Selling UC Davis

Davis is a welcoming and family-friendly community in a broader region with access to a wide range of lifestyles, from very urban to very rural

UC Davis has a culture that values collegiality and cross-disciplinary collaboration

UC Benefits are still among the best in the nation UC Merit and Promotion peer review system Work Life Program for Academics (see the W-L card) Partner Opportunities Program. -- If you have a dual career

situation for a leading candidate, connect with your Dean as soon as possible. (See POP card)

Roles of the search committee chair

• Establish processes and ground rules before the search begins

• Maintain a pattern of mutual respect in all search committee deliberations

• Maintain positive interactions with candidates

• Conduct post-search committee review

Questions/Discussion

!

!!

Visit from UC Davis ADVANCE Strength Through Equity and Diversity (STEAD) Committee

November 8, 2013

ADVANCE Program at the University of Michigan

1214 S. University Avenue 2nd Floor, Suite C - Galleria Building

Contacts: Cynthia Hudgins 734-647-9359 & Abby Stewart 734-615-6461 Friday, November 8, 2013

8:00 – 10:00 STRIDE Faculty Recruitment Workshop Michigan Union – Pendleton Room 10:00 – 11:00 Terrence McDonald, Director, Bentley Historical Library Michigan Union – Pendleton Room 11:00 – 11:30 Travel and break

11:30 – 1:00 Lunch with members of the Committee on Strategies and Tactics for Recruiting

to Improve Diversity and Excellence (STRIDE) Cynthia Hudgins, U-M ADVANCE Senior Program Administrator Jennifer Linderman, Chemical Engineering & Associate Director, U-M ADVANCE Karin Martin, Sociology and Women’s Studies Vijay Nair, Statistics, Industrial and Operations Engineering Noel Perkins, Mechanical Engineering Denise Sekaquaptewa, Psychology & Associate Director, U-M ADVANCE Abby Stewart, Director, U-M ADVANCE Director Galleria 259 1:00 – 2:00 Janet Malley, Director, U-M ADVANCE Research and Evaluation

Galleria 215

2:00 – 3:00 Carol Fierke, Chair, Chemistry Deborah Goldberg, Chair (2003-2013), Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Pamela Raymond, Chair, Molecular, Cellular & Developmental Biology Galleria 215

UC Davis ADVANCE: Institutional Transformation to Build ... · closely with Dr. Chang to develop...

Documents

Transcript of UC Davis ADVANCE: Institutional Transformation to Build ... · closely with Dr. Chang to develop...